Datasets:

---

seongil-dn

/

seongil-dn_mteb-eli5-with-reddit_perc

like 0

[ { "id": "corpus-0", "score": 0.7489511966705322, "text": "Keep the defense honest, get a feel for the pass rush, open up the passing game. An offense that's too one dimensional will fail. And those rushes up the middle can be busted wide open sometimes for big yardage." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-2686994", "score": 0.7111462950706482, "text": "First, if it's a score that's in *any* way questionable, there should be a two-minute time out for review. When teams are allowed to run out their field goal units and take a quick extra point, before the booth might even have a chance to see the right angle...\n\nSo let's say there was a suspicious call, but there are only 15 seconds between TD and PAT. The coach can't even throw a flag, just to ensure it gets reviewed, or they get penalized (as in Raiders/Bills earlier). \n\n[Side note: I was cheering for the Bills. But on their TD run where Jackson got flagged for throwing a challenge flag, well...on the one replay that they showed from a camera lined up along the goal line, I'm certain the ball did not cross the line in any way. It was only from one angle that showed this, and they only replayed that angle once. Are we certain the guys upstairs saw that angle in time?]\n\nSecond, I keep hearing the reason they implemented this is so coaches don't have to \"waste\" a challenge on a scoring play. Well...why even have challenges then? Are they going to challenge a possible 9-yard gain in the middle of the first quarter? Yeah there are still big receptions/turnovers that can change the course of the game. That's why they have more than one challenge, and get an extra if they get it correct. \n\nI think this is a stupid rule change and I'm certain there will be a big game this year where someone gets screwed by it. \n\nEdit: The post-Eagles-Falcon game talk about this subject basically confirmed what I thought. Plays aren't being properly reviewed.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-840292", "score": 0.7107425928115845, "text": "Just watching the highlights? \n\nI thought you weren't allowed to make a forward pass from beyond the line of scrimmage, but that's what happened. \n\nNobody else seems to have mentioned it, so I'm guessing I've misunderstood something, but would be grateful to understand it better.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-47204", "score": 0.710324227809906, "text": "Defensive players must move more (particularly the coverage team). Watch all the [defensive backs](_URL_0_), every play all of them need to flow to the ball, while the receivers who aren't running a deep route don't need to run nearly as far, offenses can strategically exploit the need for multple defensive players needing to commit to covering a single receiver running a deep route while the play (and 10 of the 11 offensive players run short routes). Additionally defenses need to react to the ball being put in play, which means they need to be ready for the ball to snap from the instant the QB gets under center til the ball is snapped (which can be 10 seconds or more), while the offense knows when the ball will be snapped.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-43733", "score": 0.7087158560752869, "text": "There would be much fewer touchdowns though. Go for the easy 3, instead of the hard 4. Teams would generally get to about the 40 yard line, and kick a **Field Goal** instead of risking interceptions, fumbles, penalties, or lost yards. 2 point conversions are often hard to get, because there is so much action is so small a space, which is why most teams choose the easy 1 point **Point After Touchdown** (PAT), because failing means zero points. So sure you might get your 4 points from the touchdown, but you might not get your 4 from the conversion. One more note, the PAT is almost always at a fixed distance, and is usually not missed. Father away filed goals are missed more frequently.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-149441", "score": 0.7086591124534607, "text": "It's a long exhausting and dangerous game. Who would want their star player to get injured in double OT of their second game of the year? Also considering how tiring football is anything past single OT would become a shitshow of exhausted players throwing themselves at eachother which would make it more likely for injuries to occur and less likely for good plays or scoring plays to happen.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2267401", "score": 0.7086063027381897, "text": "I just dont get it. When all five players on a team decide that the game cannot be won anymore, why waste time waiting and hoping that the enemies will push?\nTheres absolutly no point in not implementing it", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2153014", "score": 0.7078156471252441, "text": "I hate when I've called a zone play and the opposing team runs. My player ends up out of position and I'm left with my dick in my hand(metaphorically of coarse)", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-739141", "score": 0.7075762748718262, "text": "So as a pass rusher could you grab the offensive linemen’s jersey and yank him to a side and do whatever, or is that also considered defensive holding? I feel like I never see this called (if it’s a rule), but maybe it just isint normally super obvious.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-54760", "score": 0.7071850895881653, "text": "It's essentially where a team constantly pressurise the other team when they have the ball in the hope they will hurry too much and either get tackled or make a poor pass giving the ball away. You would think everyone would do this but no. Spain played a pressing game during their dominant spell. It was very effective for them because when they had the ball they were so effective at keeping it. Therefore when they lost it they could afford to press the opposition to get it back. My country (England) are useless at ball retention so we don't play pressing football because we'd be knackered very quickly. In principle we play counter attacking football which involves waiting for the other team to fuck up then attacking quickly (we're not very good at it)", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2154748", "score": 0.7071016430854797, "text": "I was wondering if sometimes we pass the ball around our defensive third for longer than necessary just to draw the opposition out. The ball sometimes moves between the two centrebacks and a midfielder (and goalkeeper) a bit too many times even as the opposition presses on them. This might be done to draw teams out of defensive shells, I'm not exactly sure. For example, Coutinho's goal v. Tottenham at Anfield, the ball was with our defence for sometime so Spurs pushed up higher, Flanagan did the Cruyff turn and suddenly we had the ball in Spurs half against a stretched Spurs defence", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1026902", "score": 0.706946611404419, "text": "Got this email from imleagues. No rushers? Seems kind of lame. \n \n\"Thank you for registering your 4v4 Flag Football team. The season will being on Wednesday, March 7th. Please check out your schedules and ensure your team shows up on time in the correct jersey color. Please remember NO POCKETS are allowed in your shorts. No jewelry is allowed and buzzcards are required for check in. There are 4 MAJOR Rule Changes below: the ball will now be placed on the 10 yard line to start the half as well as after any turnover on downs or score. (2) You may now go for 3 extra points from the 20 yard line (3) Defensive players cannot rush the quarterback at any time. The referee will give an audible 5-second count for hte quarterback to release the ball. If the quarterback does not release the ball in time, the whistle will be blown, and it will be a loss of down. The ball will be snapped from the previous spot. (4) Defensive players are NOT allowed to rush past the line of scrimmage until the quarterback has released the ball. \"", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2153909", "score": 0.7068952918052673, "text": "You are so concentrated when you are playing that the time can fly by and all of the sudden you hear \"15 seconds left\" and you have to rush to not lose the game. If you get a \"1 minute left\" that would be much easier to execute a good play.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1150361", "score": 0.7060887813568115, "text": "To actually show the highlight play and NOT the player just running back on D, inbounding the ball or the aftermath of the ACTUAL play. Come on EA", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2153452", "score": 0.7057543396949768, "text": "Learn an offensive scheme that doesn't just rely on four verticles lmfao. In the past 4 games I have played dudes who run different variants of four verticles and then message me calling me a cheater for stopping them. I don't understand why people spend so much coins on a team to only run one play and throw it to one guy....", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-2154434", "score": 0.7053568959236145, "text": "This guy ran this play 50% of the time, and a guy always came in unblocked between my center and my guard. And when he ran Cover 2 Man QB Contain, he always had serious edge pressure, and I could barely get the ball out half the time, got sacked the other half.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1636133", "score": 0.7048043012619019, "text": "I hear a lot about tiring defenses out, but wouldn't it tire offenses out too? I guess it affects the defense more than the offense though.\n \n \nWhat about clock management, especially towards the end of games with a small lead? Do teams like the Eagles struggle with late-game comebacks given up to other teams by not effectively burning the clock?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2153434", "score": 0.7046540379524231, "text": "All you have to do is cause a fumble. After it's recovered by either team, run another play and bam, challenge completed\n\nAlso RB/R1 is strip", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-2154525", "score": 0.7046508193016052, "text": "If it's used to pressure the other team and force turnovers in the fourth quarter, why not do it the entire game?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1213472", "score": 0.7043272256851196, "text": "I always see this when there is a lot of crowd noise. I realize what it is they are doing, but why is it not considered a false start? Also, doesn't this give the defense an advantage since they know exactly when the ball will be snapped?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-22370", "score": 0.7038140892982483, "text": "There's no logical explanation for that call. You could argue that they were hoping to surprise NE with a pass, but that was the worst play call I can remember. There is no running back in the sport I would rather have in that situation than Marshawn Lynch.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-3", "score": 0.6734035015106201, "text": "I'm pretty confident most of it isn't going back to the people. That's how politics works." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-2066141", "score": 0.6394643187522888, "text": "Do people get money back after losing about 30% or do they still get nothing?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-59827", "score": 0.6394391059875488, "text": "To the people, businesses, banks, funds, and nations who purchase government bonds issued by your country. In effect they are giving your country a loan with a promised rate of return over a certain number of years. They can then turn around and sell the bonds on an open market to other investors.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-29835", "score": 0.6385415196418762, "text": "It's not your money. You know banks don't give out free money as a gift, you know it's not yours, you have to give it back. You're not being held liable, in as much as no penalty is being handed out - you just have to give back what you know was never yours.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-79372", "score": 0.638512909412384, "text": "It goes to whomever the shares of the company were purchased from. Same way as when you buy a boat, the money you pay for it goes to the party from whom you're buying it.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-3747", "score": 0.6383703947067261, "text": "They basically said \"we will bail out domestic depositors, but not international investors\". Most of these international investors had already been bailed out through their own banks who expected Iceland to make good on its promises. When Iceland reneged on the deal, there was a lot of pressure on Iceland to make good on it, both in courts and through international diplomacy. It's still not fully resolved. The line that \"they bailed out the people, not the banks\" looks good on a Facebook meme. But the reality is they bailed out their own people by screwing over British and Dutch banks and investors, because Iceland's banking fund for such things was not properly capitalized.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-131744", "score": 0.6381576061248779, "text": "A state owned steel company telling a state owned bank it's not going to pay it back doesn't mean the bank isn't still out the money. If the banks basically forgave all the debt on their books, they'd be completely insolvent and collapse.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1005875", "score": 0.6381271481513977, "text": "I suppose it coukd happen but I'm just curious as to who has all this money to just give away. How does it all work?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-43607", "score": 0.6374267339706421, "text": "If you lose all of your money, it affects you. Maybe a few members of your family. It won't really affect the national economy. if a company like GM is about to go under, it will affect millions of people and do damage to the national economy. So, the government is doing what is best for the country.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2325127", "score": 0.6371254920959473, "text": "Honest question.\n\nWhere is all the money? I hear nothing but bad news about financial crisis all over the world, and it seems that there is a shortage of cash - like it is some sort of natural resource.\n\nPeople haven't stopped buying stuff. They still need food, clothing, medicine, shelter. Taxes are still collected. Fines are still levied. \n\nSo where is all the money? I mean, labor has been produced to make things and wages paid to the laborers. The things are purchased by other laborers, who were paid for producing goods or services, etc. It's a closed loop, right? \n\nCan someone explain it like I'm five or something?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-115975", "score": 0.6366977095603943, "text": "There is actually a large pool of money that comes from white-collar criminals and large organizations that is dispersed annually to nonprofit orgs that \"fight\" crime. The money goes to rape centers, counseling centers, places that do victims compensation, etc. I'm not sure of the exact size but I've been told it's about a trillion dollars. Congress dictates how much is handed out on an annual basis and it changes every year. The fund is called VOCA money and it was started by the Victims of Crime Act in 1984. Source: I used to be the Marketing and Fundraising director for an organization that received VOCA money.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-115728", "score": 0.6366739273071289, "text": "People using black markets or are trying to avoid taxes are paying in cash. This is normally kept in high value notes because it's easier to keep 10 x $100 bills than 50 x $20. The government is taking 2 of the highest value notes out of circulation. People are forced to either lose their money or bring it to banks to convert at which point they are questioned over high deposits/exchanges. This isn't just people buying a few cartons of milk it's people paying half of the payment for a house via cash to avoid the costs etc. It's a lot of money going untaxed.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-112869", "score": 0.6365930438041687, "text": "They charge interest rates of 1000s of percent. If you borrow over a few days, and repay on time, the interest will be enough to cover their costs and more. But if you *don't* repay on time, the interest builds up to thousand or tens of thousands of pounds/dollars. Then they sell this debt to debt collection agencies, who pay them a fraction of the huge amount that's now owed. And again, they've recovered their costs and more. As for the debt collection agencies, they will chase the people who now owe them massive sums, and arrange for payment to be made, bit by bit, over a longer period. Not everyone is going to be able to pay. But those that can will cover the cost of those who can't - remember the agencies paid only a fraction of the value of the debt to buy it from the loan company because of the poor chance of repayment.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-80859", "score": 0.6364458203315735, "text": "Assuming you mean in the US. So the money, after printing, will go to the Federal Reserve. Usually the money that is printed is replacing old currency that they will eventually destroy. That's how we maintain the value of the dollar. When a medium to large sized bank needs more cash, they get it from their regional F.R. location with which they have an account. That account is debited when they do this and when they have excess cash it's sent back to them which then credits their account.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-13518", "score": 0.6363407969474792, "text": "That's an insane amount, but it's also a *meaningless* amount. Calculating it makes about as much sense as dividing the total sales of Walmart by the number of Polynesian rice farmers. There is no mechanism by which we ever could or would put all the government's debt on every citizen, and we don't really want the number to be 0 on the first place. Government debt is not at *all* the same kind of thing as you taking out a loan from the bank. Because of this, it really isn't all that important that there's a lot of it.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-67389", "score": 0.6363301277160645, "text": "It's the same narrative as in the US. Powerful elites manipulated the country's laws for their own gain, causing a spectacular collapse that has hurt the working man. It doesn't change the fact that the money's got to be paid back, but it sure doesn't mean that they have to like it.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-64211", "score": 0.6361348032951355, "text": "If they were previously buying that pot from their friend Steve, then Steven would have the income and not the government. If it's legal, the government is the one making that money, not Steve. The money spent may be not have changed, but the flow of money is going to the government.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-63590", "score": 0.6360875964164734, "text": "National debt isn't like that $20 you loaned your friend Larry at the bar last week. You want that $20 back next time you see him because you just sort of gave it to him. When the US borrows money, they're getting $20 from millions of people & promising to pay them back $22 next week. Sometimes they'll need to borrow a bit more to pay everyone back but everyone knows they're getting paid back on time. As long as nobody doubts the US government's ability to make their payments, people will continue to lend them money & it's no big deal.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-146902", "score": 0.6360806226730347, "text": "The business is a front or part of it is a sham. Like the other poster said it \"washed\" dirty money -hiding it's origins. The business doesn't benefit but the criminals sure do.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-67705", "score": 0.6359990239143372, "text": "There are audit trails. Every time money is added to an account, there **must** be a corresponding removal from another account somewhere, and every step has to be recorded. If government auditors find that there was fraud committed, and money just materialized out of nowhere, someone is going to federal prison for a very long time.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-70477", "score": 0.6353501081466675, "text": "[in the case of the US...](_URL_0_) this is who we owe money to. As for the rest of the world, sorry, couldn't tell you.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-4", "score": 0.7213839888572693, "text": "Automatics weigh more, so that alone makes gas mileage worse. They are also more complicated, so that means reliability is going to be lower. It is easier to operate, which may free up your attention for focus on what is *outside* the car. Some people derive satisfaction from shifting, and flexibility in using the power curve." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1384849", "score": 0.6850457787513733, "text": "Curious as to what different teams do for shifting, electric? Pneumatic? Manual by driver? How does it work for you?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1385580", "score": 0.6847555637359619, "text": "Just got my first automatic after driving manual for a decade. It feels so futuristic, luxurious and smooth, I don't have to do anything, the car does it all for me. Especially living in the city, everything is so much less of a chore.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-145436", "score": 0.684617817401886, "text": "Nothing. _URL_0_ Mythbusters busted this myth. There are systems in place which prevent the reverse gear from engaging, as they would destroy the engine/transmission; your car will simply go to neutral instead.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2459915", "score": 0.6845254898071289, "text": "I would prefer the Mazda for its driving characteristics, but not if it would mean a significant hit in how high the mileage is for the price, or reliability.\n(just in general, I know it varies from one car to the next)\n\nAlso would certainly prefer manual, but auto is fine.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-405797", "score": 0.684421718120575, "text": "I havent gotten one yet but I was looking at getting a 6 cylinder CLK from the early 2000s. I have the unfortunate circumstance of living in Australia where a manual Mercedes is exceedingly rare. So with this in mind, what transmissions work well in this situation? Or is the Auto worth keeping?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-159194", "score": 0.6843103766441345, "text": "There's also the matter of fuel economy. After WW2 in particular, automatics used significantly more fuel, and that was much more important in a Europe that was recovering from war. Then there was the oil crisis in the 1970s, which kept manuals from going out of fashion.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-186261", "score": 0.6842085123062134, "text": "This article explains it pretty flawlessly if you have a few minutes _URL_0_ Essentially, if you have 4,3,2, and L, then your gearbox has 6 gears to choose from (not counting reverse). L (low range) will hold the gears much lower than they would be if in D(rive), allowing the engine to provide more torque, for towing or steep hills. Selecting 4, 3, or 2 will limit the maximum gear that the gearbox will go, but other than that it will behave as it would in D.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-405598", "score": 0.6842009425163269, "text": "Greetings!\n\nNever had a Corolla before, but looking at a 2004 with 5spd manual transmission. (76k miles)\n\nWhen driving, engine hard limits at about 4k rpm in every gear I tried except of course I couldn't get it to 4k in 5th gear on these roads LOL.\n\nI see plenty of comments of other people with this problem, but no answers.\n\nIs it normal to rev-limit at 4k rpm on the manual when driving and going through the gears? It's really disconcerting when suddenly acceleration halts just before you're about to shift... It's not a soft or gradual limit, it's a hard limit.\n\nAlso the gearshift clunks audibly when you swish it left to right like to check if it's in neutral. Is that normal?\n\nThank!", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-44339", "score": 0.6842002272605896, "text": "When you choose Drive, you are telling the transmission to choose whichever gear it feels is most suitable for the driving condition at any moment. When you choose 1, you are limiting the transmission to the use of first gear only. 2 allows the use of first and second; 3 allows the use of the first three gears.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-405523", "score": 0.6839014887809753, "text": "I am about to test drive a DCT automatic in Bulgaria today. As you may have guessed I have a choice of only a couple of Velosters here right now as its a very rare breed over here. One is Canadian import in Grey with a Manual from 2013 and the other is German import in nice green with better trim level (leather heated tires, nice green trim details throughout). In terms of visuals clearly the Green one looks way sexier to me. But it has the DCT on a 2012 plate so Im a bit hesitant as I read I might be buying myself problems. Both cars are listed at pretty much the same price and have the same mileage on them and both are the base 1.6 version non-turbo. Should I avoid such an early for Hyundai DCT transmission from reliability pov and go for the less sexy grey Manual? Honestly been driving manuals for years now and never actually driven an automatic but thought the idea if the dual clutch with paddle shifters quite inticing...but certainly not if it is very likely to hit me in the pocket very soon. Any thoughts as Im probably buying one of the two in next few days? Thanks", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-129269", "score": 0.6838672757148743, "text": "Automatics tended to work better with larger engined cars and so were a bit rubbish with typical small 4 cylinder cars that were sold in Europe. If you move up into the luxury cars (Jaguars, Rolls Royce etc) where they were fitted with larger engines then an automatic was normal. Automatics have improved so they work well with smaller engines but culturally we are used to driving manual cars. Manuals are also less complicated and cheaper so are more widely bought as standard. But still in the executive and luxury market a automatic is chosen.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2293706", "score": 0.6838540434837341, "text": "So I finally have my first stick with I've been wanting forever, and the dread of burning out the clutch doing some noob shit worries me. \n\nMost of my commute is nice and smooth, but getting back into town gets a little tricky and I'm still smoothing out my technique. \n\nAt the lights traffic can move about 4-7 mph, with uphills included. My car likes to be at about 10mph in 1st gear with the clutch fully engaged, so I tend to feather it with a little gas to keep moving forward and not rolling backwards into people. I'm just worried I might be damaging my drive train in some way. \n\nThis mostly stems from my ignorance about clutches and transmissions beyond the absolutely basic. Any help is appreciated", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2603651", "score": 0.6835997104644775, "text": "Sorry, not a native english speaker, so I don't know if this is the correct way to say this.\n\nBut does anyone know if switching like, from gear 3 to gear 1, without releasing the clutch button at all damages the car, or not?\n\nIn FH3 I mean, but I'd have the same question for FM7.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2293732", "score": 0.6835699081420898, "text": "First manual transmission, been driving in traffic for a week, it feels like I’m jolting into gears, especially 1-2, 2-3. I don’t know if I’m letting up on the clutch too quickly or not fast enough. Would love some friendly driver’s advice! \n\nBackground: I’m an EMT in a busy city so I’m not a total noob on the road, but I’ve certainly become humbled by this new driving experience.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-2295434", "score": 0.6832342147827148, "text": "I’m not exactly a car enthusiast, i just got my first charger and I’m absolutely loving it. But I’ve searched online and i haven’t really found a direct answer. \n\nWhat does the (+) and the (-) mean when you shift to Manual? When are the proper times to use these? \n\nI understand the car will shift to the proper gears automatically if you don’t shift to M but I heard that isn’t always the case. Just want to get to know her a bit better.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-2295628", "score": 0.6829919815063477, "text": "So i'm looking at a car with two engine options 1.2 turbo with manual 6 speed (90hp) or the same engine without a turbo with manual 5 gears (65hp). The price difference for buying is negliable but i'm wondering what has the biggest chance of going wrong in lets say 10 years and 180K km (100k miles)\n\nThe turbo is an extra thing to go wrong and puts extra strain on the engine. \n\nBut the other one having only 65hp and 5 gears means it will have to work harder with higher revs on the motorway.\n\nI am switching jobs in the near future with 2 options 1 is close by and will require only town driving, the other one is farther and will require daily motorway driving. Should i choose the engine depending on what job i get or is one just plain better than the other? \n\nI'm looking for cheapest maintenance, as in repairs. I will change the oil religiously as i like to take care off my car. \n\nYes i know 65hp is really slow, i have had a 65hp car before, don't really care because i'm a hypermiler anyway.\n\nBoth engines have a timing chain, so no belts to go wrong.\n\nThanks in advance!", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-52421", "score": 0.682949960231781, "text": "Drive 4 lets the transmission pick from whichever of 4 gear ratios in the transmission is most appropriate. A common set of gears has one to get moving, one to get up to speed, a 1:1 direct drive that will give you good performance since the engine is designed to match the final drive ratio, and an overdrive for fuel economy. Drive 3 locks out the tallest gear. Drive 2 locks out the two tallest gears. Drive 1 puts you only in low gear. These positions can help in certain driving scenarios such as hills, snow, towing, or off-roading.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1385530", "score": 0.6828606724739075, "text": "In theory, the only difference between a manual Focus and the automatic are that the computer controls shifts in an automatic. Everyone says their manual Focus is a Godsend, while those who bought the automatic practically curse the day they were born.\n\nWhat was it that really sunk the automatics? The computer sucking at its job? The improper ground? The inherent design flaw of the DCT in a low-end car? \n\nWhat could Ford have done to either prevent this or properly remedy this situation?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1631597", "score": 0.6827616691589355, "text": "Hi everyone. I'm looking at a 2015 5-spd SE later today and I wanted to hear what your experiences with it are. I've heard that the automatic is a real gamble but that the manual variant of this model is a pretty rocksteady choice. Is that really the case?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-14821", "score": 0.6827453374862671, "text": "Gears have their own losses. Adding them takes away energy from driving. Electric motors can be designed to run optimally at various speeds.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-5", "score": 0.7284151911735535, "text": "I hope this answer qualifies as technical, yet simple enough (as I very rarely post here), but the basic idea that I understand is that your muscles rip and tear on a microscopic level when you are working out, and the harder you push those muscles, the more they rip. Hence where the idea comes from that more reps and less weight equal more tone, but more weight and less reps equal more muscle growth. What happens is that following those tiny rips and tears, your muscle heals over itself and essentially stacks on top of itself, healing bigger and stronger than before. The more those muscles are used, kept active and challenged, the more they will continue to build and grow over time. Other factors go into the growth of muscle as well, such as your nutrition. Protein, fats, etc. also play a factor, as they cause your body to \"feed\" your body and muscles in different ways of varying effectiveness - but I think that's an ELI5 for another day." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-7897", "score": 0.6918660998344421, "text": "A lot of hormonal stuff happens that I don't know enough about to explain, but basically, you damage your body and your body goes \"well shit, I gotta be stronger if this is gonna keep happening.\" So then it gets stronger. Note that if you do the same exercises forever, you won't keep getting stronger, you'll just maintain that level of strength... Your body is already used to it. If you DON'T exercise, your body goes \"Oh I don't need all this muscle anymore, I can get weaker!\" And you get weaker.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1615138", "score": 0.6911822557449341, "text": "I'm just curious as to how everyone can start working out with little to no equipment, and still get results. I have access to a gym, a TV and a bed, but I still feel like I need a bit of help from the internet.\n\nI'm looking to build muscle not to just a big back, but overall. I know I have a bad posture, and I'm looking to work on that. I have some back problems I need to work on, but I don't know how to do that with very little equipment.\n\nMy main question is: how do you build muscle in a way that works for more than just a big back?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-118581", "score": 0.6911457180976868, "text": "Depends. If you are meaning what happens when you gain strength without gaining size it is something called neuromuscular facilitation. Essentially your brain and nerves learn how to fire the muscles more efficiently and you activate more of the muscle fibers. This accounts for the quick strength gains you see when you first start working out. As you get past the facilitation you get into actual mass gain. Then it's physics. Greater cross section of fibers equals more strength.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1613030", "score": 0.6909221410751343, "text": "*Sorry if this question has already been answered.*\nAnyways, ever since I was young I have always been rather small and frail looking. I've never really gained any weight, even though I do eat a lot of decently balanced meals. Anyways, as a 19 year old male, I sometimes find myself lacking confidence because I don't have much muscle mass.\n\nCould you possibly offer me suggestions of ways to begin to build muscle mass? What types of foods should I eat? What kind of exercises do you feel would be most beneficial? How many reps should I be starting with? Where are some good places to work out at? Any daily routines you use? \n\nSorry for all of the questions, but if you could help me I would greatly appreciate it. \n\nThank you so much!", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-124821", "score": 0.6898208260536194, "text": "Because muscles take a lotta energy for your body to make and use, and your body doesn’t like using energy. Whenever you work out, those muscles go like “Wheh, this sure is hard, we’re kinda breaking down a little here and could use some help.” You’re body responds by saying, “Alright, you can be bigger, but only as long as you need to be. If you stop needing to be bigger, I’m gonna take back my precious energies because it might stop coming one day.” That’s why you gotta work out consistently or you lose muscle, and also why you don’t gain muscles when doing nothing! Your body likes to horde energy like a dragon hordes gold and doesn’t like to spend it unless it really needs to.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-189812", "score": 0.6897369027137756, "text": "So when your muscle is sore, that means the fibers that make it up are torn. That’s how muscles are built, you work out, tear the fibers, and they are built back bigger than before. So when you extend the muscle, you’re tearing more fibers in the muscle.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-248789", "score": 0.6885788440704346, "text": "Its all about the genes, and more specifically the control of those genes. It varies by body part exactly how this works. One particularly cool example is how each of your fingers gets differentiated. So your hand just starts as a nub during development, and it has one special node on one side. This thing starts emitting a certain protein, but as you can probably imagine, less of this protein gets to the middle of the hand than the starting side, and even less gets to the farthest side than that. The fingers know how exactly to grow depending on the concentration of this protein. So the starting side becomes the pinkie, the next highest concentration the ring finger, then the middle finger, the index, and the lowest concentration side becomes the thumb.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-7023", "score": 0.6873744130134583, "text": "Building muscles is like building a house, you need to build it out of something. By exercising you are giving your cells orders to build a building. Proteins are like the bricks for the building, the cells can just stack em together and make a building. You can turn other things into bricks, but that takes time and effort, it might be easier to just stack it in a corner or burn it right now. Those would be other sources of calories. If you're are starting out as fat, this would be like having piles of clay you stacked in a corner, send the right orders and you can turn that into muscle proteins. Eventually you'll run out of fat and need to get more stuff to turn in muscle. Thus you'll need to eat more stuff than you burn, otherwise there's nothing left over to turn into muscle.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-87969", "score": 0.6865727305412292, "text": "Because your body is designed to repair itself, and not using those repair functions causes them to break down as well. Just like someone who is kept away from all germs ends up with no immune system to speak of, someone who doesn't stress their muscles can't grow muscles properly.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-95311", "score": 0.6864994764328003, "text": "A lot of misinformation in here. Fast twitch / slow twitch has nothing to do with this these particular examples. Every muscle can be worked out and every muscle will grow if worked out more. You say those muscles stay the same despite being used a lot. Your muscles are the size they need to be for their usage. The muscles which are moving your fingers are in your forearm. If you do grip exercises they will definitely grow in size and you will get bigger forearms. (The muscles that are actually in your hand are mostly for moving your fingers laterally and are very small in size but even they can be worked out) If you use or exercise your jaw beyond normal eating then those muscles will definitely grow larger as well.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-175226", "score": 0.6863377690315247, "text": "They bind to androgen receptors, this action causes genes to be expressed. These expressed genes are proteins and other things that contribute to muscle growth.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-686195", "score": 0.6855570673942566, "text": "Muscle is built by the repeated tearing and slow healing of muscle fibers so that they come back bigger and stronger. If Wolverine's body heals near-instantaneously, that wouldn't give his muscles time to grow and re-knit, they'd just immediately heal back to the same size every time he exerts himself. So either he's just unable to gain very muscle at all (which wouldn't really fit with his strength and size as depicted in the comics unless the strength is also a mutation) or his muscles also grow exceedingly fast in proportion with his healing ability - in which case he would be built like an absolute monster and basically have an unworkable amount of muscle, given how much he fights / does other muscle-building activities. So how does this work?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-95515", "score": 0.6855486035346985, "text": "The same way nerves cover increased surface area as we grow from babies to adults, the axons grow. The tension being pulled on the axons as they are stretched to accommodate larger areas actually promotes growth of the axons Edit: more eli5 explanation. Nerves are composed of multiple fibers called axons. An axon is basically like a usb cable communicating between the computer (neuron) and another device (communicating neuron). Neurons do not usually multiply in number after early development, however the axon coming off of the neuron has the ability to grow if stimulated to do so. When you get fatter and your skin begins to stretch this also pulls on the axons which will then be simulated to grow.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-183350", "score": 0.6852883696556091, "text": "It depends on the exercise and diet. If you are in a calorie-deficit diet, your body will begin eating fat, so any fat reserve areas will shrink as they are consumed. If you are doing high-intensity work, your muscles will grow in order to better handle the load they are put under, causing those muscles to grow. If you have a lot of belly-fat and are working out your legs a lot, your legs muscles will grow while the fat around your belly is consumed.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1002527", "score": 0.6852063536643982, "text": "So everyone says if you are gaining strength but not mass that you need to eat more. My question is, if you start eating more right away, but you push the same weight, will your muscles still get bigger in order to catch up with your strength levels? Because in theory, your muscles could not build themselves because you did not have a caloric surplus, but they gained strength. So if you provide it a caloric surplus, but you push at the same strength, will your muscle mass catch up to what it should be?\n\nThe main reason for this question is because I can push a decent amount of weight but since I was on a cut, I did not gain much muscle mass. Now going into my first bulk, will I actually look like I can lift the weight that I actually can lift? Thanks", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-130718", "score": 0.6840232610702515, "text": "Muscles when used a lot, as when exercising, actually tear themselves apart and then rebuild, when done continually this makes them stronger, and in some cases bigger", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-158168", "score": 0.6835699677467346, "text": "You build up fat around the muscle that feeds energy into the muscle. Certain fat cells change to better release the energy. You change hormones in your body that better manage the required energy storage and release. You strengthen your joints. The muscle cells build additional mitochondria that burn that energy allowing them to do more work longer. You build up more blood vessels to transport the waste products (like lactic acid) away from your muscle. You build up the muscles in your heart to pump more blood toward the muscles and transport waste away grin then. You build up more oxygen carrying red blood cells. You build up more sliw twitch muscle fibers so each fiber does less work for a longer period.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1612935", "score": 0.6830597519874573, "text": "I'm 14 and Iv'e been going to the gym for about 8 months now and my physique has improve, but I'm not gaining much size. Iv'e been told that the only way to do this is by lifting heavy and doing fewer reps, but I've also heard that is dangerous for my age. Any advice would be appreciated :)", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-57543", "score": 0.6828855276107788, "text": "When you use your muscles they break down in a way. This process creates a product that tends to sit around your muscles. When you stretch you move your muscles in a way that promotes the byproduct of your muscles breaking down to move away from your muscles.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-30893", "score": 0.682790219783783, "text": "That's not exactly how it works. But strength is affected by several factors; one of which is muscle mass. So a bigger muscle sill be a stronger muscle. However, you also get stronger through neurological adaptation, which basically means your nervous system learns how to utilize more muscle fibers, and exactly how to move in order to apply the most force. That dense, hard look isn't so much a result of training methods as much as body composition. When you get really lean, your muscles will look more solid, whereas if uou have more bodyfat, you'll look softer.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-6", "score": 0.7745457887649536, "text": "Yes, but the pipes going to one place could have a build up that's changing the taste or the composition of the pipes can be different, i.e. pvc pipes going to your kitchen, but copper pipes to your bathroom." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-51066", "score": 0.7356953620910645, "text": "In short, this to my knowledge is a matter of habit. It doesn't really matter either way, it's just what people do. You could argue that cold water feels more refreshing, which, cleaning teeth, is a sensation you would enjoy. There may be other factors! At least in the UK, the hot water supply is generally considered not as sanitary for \"internal\" use. I believe this is due in part to the way our older homes were constructed. For example, our family home had tanks in the loft which fed many parts of the house with water (including the boiler, if I recall, and after the boiler there is the hot water tank). All that sitting water isn't considered as clean as a cold feed straight from the water supply, which is what taps in the kitchen would have, for example. That said, the bathrooms were fed from the tanks as well so it seems a little frivolous either way.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-324826", "score": 0.7350545525550842, "text": "It's possible that the pot/kettle is imparting some taste to the water. It's also possible that the average temperature in the water is different using the two methods; when I make tea using the microwave, I find it's impossible to heat the water uniformly. Our sensitivity to flavors does change with temperature.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-323872", "score": 0.7342340350151062, "text": "Do you have city water or a well? City water can contain things like chlorine that evaporates quickly (taste change in prob less than a day) or other longer lasting chemicals that may bind with things in the air to produce \"off tastes\" and other weird things. Really clean water will still taste slightly different but it is usually other things in the water reacting and making different tastes.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-100872", "score": 0.7339507937431335, "text": "The taste of tap water is determined by your local geographical area. For example if you go to Las Vegas they have terrible tap water whereas where I live we have essentially tasteless tap water. The minerals in the rocks of the resivoir and rivers make that difference Bottled water is filtered water so it filters those minerals out. Also when you look at a bottle of filtered water and it says \"natural spring water\" that is a lie. I worked for Pepsi a few years ago and we just filtered tap water.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-122401", "score": 0.7333953380584717, "text": "In certain enviornments, particles in the air will settle on the water. People often think of water as *the* sterile fluid, but tap water in fact has many, many ingredients and foreign particles. Everything from metals eroded off the pipes to leftover chemicals from the cleaning process. Long story short, you shouldn't drink funny-tasting water.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-130812", "score": 0.7332639098167419, "text": "When it comes out of the faucet, its infused with oxygen (all the tiny bubbles you see), and over time, that oxygen escapes. The taste of \"stale\" water is just lower amounts of oxygen.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-158117", "score": 0.7327638268470764, "text": "Natural spring water, and tap water from aquifers, contain many dissolved minerals. This gives water from different regions or different springs different taste. Pure distilled water tastes weird compared to water with dissolved minerals because all the water you'eve ever drank has been mineralized to some degree.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-154252", "score": 0.7317521572113037, "text": "It doesn't (per se). Tasting actually uses more senses than just the taste buds. The smell of the room you're in, or even the psychological 'feel' of the room. The feel or texture of the vessel that you're drinking from, against your lips. The temperature of the liquid (hot coffee versus cold coffee for example). Even the sight of what you're drinking has a small effect on your enjoyment. In short, the chances are by the time you're drinking from a tap in the bathroom, you're using a different vessel than normal. You're probably not sitting comfortably, and most of all the bathroom is not considered the cleanest (or best smelling) of places, and therefore your senses are being manipulated in otherwise imperceptible ways.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-146264", "score": 0.7317042946815491, "text": "Water sitting in a bottle can leech chemicals and tastes from the bottle, depending on what type it is. Things grow in water, like bacteria. So while it's sitting there, things that make it taste funny are potentially multiplying in the water, although these things aren't generally harmful to you. Water can absorb molecules from the air around it, i.e.: things you would normally smell, and those things can change the taste of the water. Any and all of this could be true depending on the situation. I'm sure there's stuff I haven't thought of too. Take clean water and put it into a clean, sealed, bottle and it won't taste worse later on.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-50497", "score": 0.7313687801361084, "text": "Great question! I've often wondered about this too. I think some of it has to do with it being reverse osmosis water vs. spring water or naturally sourced. I also think if it's naturally sourced there might be influences from the minerals in the area. Reverse osmosis is water that I think is basically tap water \"filtered.\" Curious what others think.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-154883", "score": 0.7304953336715698, "text": "All tap water isn't \"chemically the same\". Tap water from different areas is going to have different quantities of dissolved solids and other impurities, all depending upon the source of the water and quality of purification performed.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-187577", "score": 0.7302208542823792, "text": "Does water have a unique taste to you? I mean except for the texture and temperature change I can't really \"taste\" water. It's the same taste as air in my mouth tbh.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1254930", "score": 0.7295476198196411, "text": "Just moved here, tap water tastes completely different than what I'm used to (soft water). I also looked up the problems with radium contamination and was wondering, do people regularly use filtration systems here? Or are y'all just used to it?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2402047", "score": 0.7293240427970886, "text": "Wondering why my new kitchen faucet seems to put out a steady clear stream of water that splashes everywhere versus what I usually see with a white stream loaded with bubbles to soften the impact. Is this the specific faucets design? It's a GROHE if that means anything.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-76121", "score": 0.7268588542938232, "text": "Is it possible your ice maker is dirty? Theoretically the ice should just be water, and melted ice therefore just 'more water' but it's certainly possible you have contamination/filtration in one source that is absent in the other, lending tastes other than water itself.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-187942", "score": 0.7264974117279053, "text": "Well for one, hot water generally comes from hot water tanks. Try running a hot tap for a bit, filling a glass, cooling it, and comparing the taste of the formerly hot water to the taste of water that came from the cold tap. It's going to look and taste a bit funky. Why? When you put a bunch of water in a tank for a long time, gradually minerals are going to build up in the tank. Throw a bunch of water in that tank again, and it's going to have a different mineral composition than what's coming straight through the cold taps to the faucet from the municipal water supply/well/etc. Purified water? Same deal. More consistent mineral makeup. Different cities/wells have very different water quality and makeup so if you want to suggest something to someone that will consistently make good coffee, you suggest something consistent - that being, water that's had all that extra stuff removed. Is this something you NEED to do? Probably not. Does it help? Sometimes.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2401976", "score": 0.7263928055763245, "text": "I live in an old Rotterdam house in an apartment, I know I can drink the water from the kitchen sink but is it the same for the bathroom tap? Basically I don’t want to walk downstairs hoping someone can help!", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-147337", "score": 0.7252343893051147, "text": "Some faucets have aerators in them for a better stream of water. So what you see is just the air from the faucet. Source: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-142372", "score": 0.7248997092247009, "text": "Water in bottled water is flavored with minerals to give it a specific taste. Other waters lack these minerals. So when you introduce the second fill of water you taste a difference because the two waters have different flavors. These minerals added can hide other tastes in the water, for example a plastic odor that is only revealed in the non-mineral water.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1059765", "score": 0.7248373031616211, "text": "I wanted to know if it was just me but I feel like the water tastes more chlorine-y. I used to love the water but haven't enjoyed it lately. We used to have some of the best tap water out there (supposedly)\n\nShould I get a water filter ( i don't know how much that will change the taste)?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-7", "score": 0.8681073188781738, "text": "Two things going on here. First, heat doesn't have anything to do with sunburn, it's all about UV rays. Encountering more UV rays = more sunburn. However, dark skin absorbs more UV rays than pale skin. And in fact that's exactly why it burns less. The pigmented layer absorbs more UV in the upper layers of the skin, shading the cells underneath from UV and preventing burns (because it's the lower, reproducing cells that matter, the upper ones are disposable protection). Just like sitting outside under an opaque black umbrella would shade you more than sitting outside under a translucent white one." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-8029", "score": 0.8233614563941956, "text": "Because sunburn isn't about heat: it's about UV light causing the same kind of damage that heat does to our skin. Melanin is a protein human bodies produce that protects against UV light; and is dark in color: basically, it absorbs UV (preventing it from damaging us) and some visible light (causing the darker appearance). So while dark-skinned people heat up faster in sunlight, they ~~don't~~ **take longer to** burn because UV light ~~isn't damaging~~ **causes less damage to** their skin. edit: Corrected the last sentence based on feedback from /u/darkhorse_defender and /u/mschwartz33. Thank you for the corrections. [This website](_URL_0_) says that dark skin is roughly equivalent to SPF 13 sunscreen; meaning they can be in the sun ~13 times longer without burning.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-128740", "score": 0.8196826577186584, "text": "When a person has dark skin, the person's skin has more melanin. Melanin makes their skin more pigmented, which helps protect it from the sun's rays. Have you ever noticed how, when you go to the beach, people with lighter skin tend to burn more easily? That's because their skin is less pigmented, has less melanin, and is more vulnerable to radiation. The same goes for eye color. People with dark, brown eyes are less sensitive to light, while people with lighter colored eyes (green, blue, gray) have less melanin here and are more sensitive.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-50957", "score": 0.8152294754981995, "text": "dark colors absorb more energy (heat) from radiation (sunlight) than lighter colors.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-7055", "score": 0.8073957562446594, "text": "Technically, yes. Melanin is the pigment that gives people a darker complexion, and therefore absorbs more heat. This might seem counterintuitive, but ultimately, the heat is not the damaging factor here, UV is. Melanin helps to dissipate UV radiation, thereby helping prevent skin cancers. Its production is stimulated by the UV radiation from the sun. So yeah, if you get darker you do get hotter, but you're protected better from the more dangerous UV radiation.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-190166", "score": 0.8049391508102417, "text": "Dark colors absorb light and therefore heat with the sun while light colors reflect them and don't get as hot.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-72022", "score": 0.8046325445175171, "text": "Dark skin protects the living layers underneath from the harsh effects of strong sunlight, which can cause sunburns as well as skin cancer. Light skin lacks this protection, but admits (hopefully weaker) sunlight so the body can produce more Vitamin D which, oddly enough, uses solar power. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-314844", "score": 0.7901211380958557, "text": "It's not the heat that matters, it's how much vitamin D you take in. The darker the tan, the more the UV rays are blocked. The lighter skin allows more to penetrate so is better able to take advantage of the less direct sunlight.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-314517", "score": 0.7896791100502014, "text": "I believe that dark skin is more opaque, and light skin more translucent. Thus the light absorbed by dark skin is stopped and actually absorbed by the material, where light skin allows light to pass through. Similar in effect to viewing through clear glass as opposed to welders goggles.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-192079", "score": 0.7895159125328064, "text": "The sun's Ultraviolet radiation (which we can't see) damages our skin. If you are exposed to too much of it, you get a sun burn, which is not a burn in the \"I touched something hot\" sense, but as in a radiation burn. & #x200B; Our skin will try to protect itself by creating melanin (which is dark in color). This helps absorb some of the radiation, but not all of it (people with very dark skin can still be sunburned).", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-142796", "score": 0.7882151007652283, "text": "It's not about heat. It's about ultraviolet. You need a particular amount of UV to be healthy: too much and you risk skin cancer, too little and you don't get enough Vitamin D. Darker skin blocks more of it, so high-UV areas tend to have darker skin and low-UV areas tend to lighter skin.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-103085", "score": 0.7838138341903687, "text": "Yes, that's what tanning is. It's a reaction by your body to stimulate melanin production, making your skin darker and more resistant to burning. Melanin is why people with pale skin will burn more than tan, while dark skin will burn very rarely.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-31555", "score": 0.7830665111541748, "text": "Simply put: Dark Skin protects you from UV light in areas that get direct sunlight like Africa Light Skin lets more UV light through. Human needs UV light to produce D-Vitamin so light skin is better for areas that don't get as much sunlight like Northern Europe. So your skin color is balancing between getting burnt in the sun and getting enough D-Vitamin", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-192917", "score": 0.7820562124252319, "text": "Thin skin can sunburn way faster. Because there is less area /depth to absorb the energy. Thin skin also has less hair to protect it.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-192784", "score": 0.780348002910614, "text": "It depends on the amount of melanin you have in your body. Darker skinned people tend to have more melanin and are therefore more resistant to sunburn. Usually you can determine the amount of melanin you have in your body by you skin, eye and hair colour. For example, a red headed person with blue eyes and freckles probably has very little melanin, while a person with brown eyes and an olive complexion would have more. Either way, wear suncream. The sun is dangerous regardless.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-312101", "score": 0.7759289145469666, "text": "> I thought darker materials ABSORB more light and lighter materials REFLECT more light...Why is it the reverse in skin pigmentation? It is still true that the dark pigment in skin absorbs more light. And that's the point: the melanin pigment (made by melanocyte cells) is absorbing the light energy instead of letting it pass through and be absorbed by DNA (which is present in all the skin cells); if the DNA absorbed the UV light, the energy would cause pyrimidine dimer formation, free radical formation, and subsequent mutations/cancer risk. Therefore, by absorbing more of the sunlight, the pigment molecules are helping to decrease cancer risk by preventing DNA from absorbing it.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-31790", "score": 0.7719694972038269, "text": "Skin color isn't really based on how hot you can get. Instead it is based on getting Vitamin D, and not getting bad sunburns. Vitamin D is a vitamin people can make if they are exposed to sunlight. It helps with a lot of things such as born formation. There is a molecule found in skin called melanin, and the more melanin you have the darker your skin will be. If you are white, your skin doesn't have much melanin, so it has an easier time absorbing Vitamin D, but at the same time is easier to be harmed by the suns rays. If you are black, then your skin has a lot of melanin, so you have a harder time absorbing Vitamin D, but you don't get hurt by the sun as easily. So white people generally live in places without that much sunlight (like Russia) when black people live in places with lots of sunlight (like Africa)", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-55767", "score": 0.7665881514549255, "text": "The dark skin tone comes from a compound called melanin which absorbs UV light safely. Preventing UV damage to tissues is a very useful trait.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-186887", "score": 0.7661087512969971, "text": "Assuming you meant to ask why certain color objects get hotter than others in sunlight: - Heat (or more precisely, temperature) is essentially a measurement of energy. - Colors aren't things that can absorb heat. Color is just your brain's perception of different energies (frequencies/wavelengths) of light, detected by your eyes. - Objects that appear to be a certain color either reflect or emit light at certain frequencies/wavelengths, and absorb most of the rest of the light that impacts them. - The more energy something absorbs, the hotter it gets. - Objects that appear different colors will absorb different frequencies of light and gain the appropriate energy/temperature (e.g. blue light is higher frequency/energy than red, so a red shirt will generally get hotter than a blue shirt - a red shirt will absorb the higher energy blue light, while a blue shirt will absorb the lower energy red light). True black will absorb all light, so it will get much hotter than either of those.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-127171", "score": 0.7661080956459045, "text": "Higher melanin concentrations in the skin make it darker. In areas where it's really sunny you're much more likely to find darker skinned peoples because the melanin can shield you from some of the negative aspects of the sun's rays. In area's with less sunlight, lighter skin is advantageous because we need sunlight to get vitamin D, and having lighter skin allows this to happen more effectively.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-10084", "score": 0.7660282850265503, "text": "Dark skin is caused by melanin. When the sun hits your skin it gets absorbed by melanin and not by your skin cells. This is a good thing because if your skin cells absorb the sun it can cause damage that can possibly lead to skin cancer.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-9", "score": 0.8173702359199524, "text": "It's mostly due to the difference in immune system between a child and an adult. A primary varicella zoster infection (chickenpox) in adulthood is indeed associated with increased risk of complications. Most of these complications are due to the intense response by the adult immune system that comes into contact with the virus for the first time. Children have less active immune systems, but usually active enough to clear the virus - making them immune to it thereafter, and are therefore less likely to develop complications with this particular infection. The same goes to hepatitis A: adults develop jaundice, while children are asymptomatic. Note: a secondary varicella zoster infection during adulthood is called \"shingles\" and is generally less dangerous than a primary varicella during adulthood, due to the immunity that is already present at the time of the second infection." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-187038", "score": 0.7748981714248657, "text": "People who get chickenpox as adults can get lethal complications. When my brother and I had it as children, my Mum had already had it as a child and did not get it again. My Dad had not had it as a child, and experienced a more severe case than us. Also it is bad for pregnant women to catch it because it can have a bad effect on the baby, which is why doctors often check then if you are immune and vaccinate if you are not. Also you have to avoid people with shingles and chicken pox when pregnant, in case you catch it. e.g. My friend had shingles, and while her yet to be vaccinated baby was in the potentially developing chickenpox timeframe, pregnant friends stayed away to be safer.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-317573", "score": 0.7666249871253967, "text": "A similar question was posted 3 years ago (_URL_0_), and to my knowledge, there hasn't been significant new breakthroughs since then. To summarize the answer given by /u/Tangychicken, who seems much more qualified than myself, chicken pox seems to be evolutionary adapted to be a mild illness in children. When infected adults, it is outside of its evolved environment and behaves differently, leading to increased viral load and thus a more dangerous disease.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-33788", "score": 0.7599872946739197, "text": "They're not exactly sure why, but adults are much more likely to get dangerous side effects from chicken pox than children. They are more likely to end up in the hospital with complications like pneumonia and meningitis which is what can kill them. [_URL_0_](_URL_1_) has one of the theories which is that \"Kids' immune systems are dominated by phagocytes, which are big cells that \"eat\" any foreign material, while adult immune systems employ more antibodies, which attack microbial invaders like X-Wings attack TIE Fighters. It might be that the hungry, hungry hippo style of immune system is just more effective against certain viruses.\"", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-322502", "score": 0.7473018169403076, "text": "After a bit of research, it looks like it’s due to where the virus is. As you may know, chicken pox and shingles are both caused by the varicella-zoster virus. In children, the virus is often inhaled and travels through the bloodstream to the skin, where it causes the typical rash. From here, it travels to the nerve tissues, where it lies dormant until adulthood, when it reappears and causes shingles. The difference between the two, that I can tell, is that chicken pox is an infection of the skin, whereas shingles is an infection of the nerves. This is why shingles is more painful. [Here is where I got my info](_URL_1_) A little bit more research shows that the main cause of nerve pain in adults is the immune system attacking the infected cells. In children, who are immunologically naive to the virus (they haven’t seen it before) this doesn’t happen. [Source](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-12356", "score": 0.7396122217178345, "text": "You seem to have your facts wrong. Chickenpox is not deadly to adults. Mumps poses a great risk to post-pubertal males, because it can render them sterile once the testes have fully developed. However, it won't kill them. Rubella poses a great risk in pregnancy, as it causes birth defects. Measles is dangerous to everyone, but moreso to children.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-284683", "score": 0.7393169403076172, "text": "Shingles is a reactivation of the chickenpox (varicella zoster) virus as an adult. You can't get shingles without getting chickenpox. What you probably heard was that it is better to get childhood chickenpox, which is unlikely to be severe. Adult chickenpox is a very serious illness that can knock even a healthy person into an ICU. Not to mention if you are pregnant (it can also affect the fetus) or otherwise immune suppressed. Chickenpox, even in kids, though, can be quite serious and now that there is a > 88% effective vaccine, it is nearly universally recommended to children. The childhood vaccine thus would also prevent against shingles later in life. The TV ads that you are seeing are probably for the fairly new anti-shingles vaccine, Zostavax. It is indicated for prevention of shingles in individuals over the age of 50.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-176712", "score": 0.7301490306854248, "text": "Honestly, we don't know yet. The current theory is that there's a difference between a child's immune system and an adult's. A child's immune system prefers to eat up bacteria and viruses, while an adult's prefers to shoot bullets at bacteria and viruses (antibodies). Some think that the \"eating\" method is just more effective against the chicken pox virus.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-177166", "score": 0.7290926575660706, "text": "It's not particularly recommended to get it as a kid anymore, because an effective vaccine was released in 1995 that can prevent the possible dangerous effects of contracting the disease. Chickenpox can even be fatal. The effects of the disease can tend to be more severe in adults than children, which (especially before a vaccine existed) led some people to have their children infected to reduce the likeliness that they'd first be exposed to it in adulthood, as it is highly contagious. I would suggest any continued preference for chickenpox parties is largely a holdover from pre-vaccine times, rather than a good idea.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-34858", "score": 0.7285952568054199, "text": "As I understand it, when you recovered from the chickenpox, some of the virus remained inside you. Your immune system beat it into submission and, so to speak, contained the incident, but the virus is still there in much reduced numbers and right now not causing any problems. Later in life, under stress of some kind, your immune system may turn its attention briefly away from those locked-away suckers and they reproduce and start up the inflammation, rash, and other symptoms that go with shingles. The virus basically escapes from your immune system's quarantine and causes new symptoms.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-297674", "score": 0.7221274375915527, "text": "Chickenpox is the physical manifestation of the varicella zoster virus. Once it \"goes away\" it continues to live and replicate VERY slowly in your spinal nerve cells. The slight infection that continues is well contained by your immune system. Sometimes, as an adult, if your body is immunocompromised due to anything from drugs to stress, the virus freely migrates down a line of nerve cells and breaches the skin. Thus, shingles is usually expressed on a patch of skin on one side of the body along a single nerve. It is, however, the same virus that infected you as a kid! Just a more condensed version. The vaccines are made of the same stuff, but the shingles version is about 14x as concentrated and loaded with chemicals called adjuvants that make your body think a real infection is happening. Your body amps up its defenses, specialized B and T cells with a memory to the proteins associated with the virus roam through your blood for the next several decades just waiting for shingles to try and emerge again.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-14284", "score": 0.7156360745429993, "text": "It's a virus, and typically with viruses, you only get it once. Then your body has made antibodies for it so it can fight off the virus if you're exposed again. However, your body doesn't completely cure you of the virus. The virus stays dormant in your nerve tissues. Then, years later, it can resurface, but instead of taking the form of chicken pox again, it is shingles, which are itchy, painful sores that inflame your nerve pathways. It's very unpleasant. It was kind of accepted as just happening because it's not usually that dangerous as long as you get it as a child. When adults get it, it can be a lot more dangerous and there are deaths every year from it. Shingles can also be quite a plague on people. So they have developed a vaccine for chickenpox and a vaccine for shingles. Neither vaccine lasts that long so you have to get it several times.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-132408", "score": 0.7149601578712463, "text": "Chicken pox is a virus in the herpes family. And like all herpes viruses, once you get it, it stays in you forever. Your immune system is pretty good at keeping it suppressed. Similarly, if you get exposed to it again, your immune system will be prepared and kill it off quite quickly. The virus doesn't change very much over time. The chickenpox virus in you can re-activate when your immune system is compromised and result in Shingles. But that is the virus coming back from inside you, not you getting exposed by another sick person. Many (though not all) other viruses change their composition slightly much faster than chickenpox, and so we can catch them again. Also, for flu (caused by influenza viruses) and colds (caused by rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, coronaviruses and some others), there are many, MANY different strains you can come into contact with, each of which looks different to your immune system, even though you perceive them as all the same based on the symptoms they cause you.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-275876", "score": 0.7135220170021057, "text": "Antibodies obtained from breast milk only last a few months after stopping. Chances are you just got lucky with not getting chicken pox later on in life. This means you probably should get the chicken pox vaccine as getting it as an adult is much worse then when you’re a child.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-268614", "score": 0.7112011909484863, "text": "Normally you only get chickenpox once because the varicella zoster virus (which is part of the herpes family) that is responsible for it causes a powerful immune reaction that is highly protective against symptomatic reinfection, preventing another bout of chickenpox. Repeat bouts of chickenpox can, however, occur in people with a severely impaired immune system.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-89620", "score": 0.7050984501838684, "text": "Your body creates antibodies to the virus which prevent it from being a threat to your health. However, like hepatitis viruses the varicella (chickenpox) virus remains dormant in your nerve cells. For some unknown reason it can reactivate, causing the symptoms of shingles, which are very painful due to the location in a nerve.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-64714", "score": 0.7035044431686401, "text": "Generally kids have weaker immune systems than adults do. Symptoms of disease are sometimes products of the immune system fighting the infection. Since adults have stronger defenses against infectious diseases, adults will have worse and more apparent symptoms.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-296839", "score": 0.6892217993736267, "text": "Shingles and Chickenpox are 2 conditions with different presentations caused by the same virus, Varicella zoster. The two conditions are a primary infection, called chickenpox, which is a mild acute infection characterised by a broad systemic rash. It can also cause secondary re-occurrences of symptoms called \"shingles\" or technically herpes zoster, this is typified by a rash which is localised to bands or half bands around the body. herpes is a term, derived from Greek and Latin, which means \"a creeping or spreading rash\". Zoster is an ancient greek word meaning belt. The shingles rash typically forms in bands around the torso, hence the characterisation as a belt. Ultimately shingles and chickenpox have 2 different names because > 400 years ago people didn't realise these two different rashes which usually occur at very different times in life are the presentation of the same infectious agent. tl;dr: There is only 1 name for the virus and 2 names for the 2 different conditions that it can cause.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-305310", "score": 0.687218427658081, "text": "Chickenpox is caused by the varicella zoster virus and smallpox by the variola viruses. Vaccina and variola are poxviruses, varicella zoster virus is not - so it is not surprising that vaccina immunization will not confer any immunity to chickenpox. \"Pox\" is an old term dating from the time before we had knowledge of infectious agents and was used to describe a number of diseases that seemed to spread easily and cause skin lesions. For example syphilis was once also known as the \"great pox\".", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-69724", "score": 0.6872106790542603, "text": "The difference is that chickenpox is the virus acting on the skin, traveling thoth the blood, while shingles is the virusting on the nerves. As far as I know, shingles doesn't occur on a first infection of the virus. It only pops up on subsequent reactivations.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-184415", "score": 0.6810203194618225, "text": "Chickenpox has always been around and I was never vaccinated for it in the UK (not by choice it just wasn't done at the time). I've had chickenpox 3 times and this could well be 3 different stains so it may be that there are still enough cases around and you just don't hear about them, chickenpox while uncomfortable is rarely more serious than that. Along with the seriousness of the illness you have to think about the infection rate and how they are spread. Measles is highly infectious so will spread easily amongst non vaccinated people.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-10", "score": 0.6825271844863892, "text": "The theater will be fined a massive amount of money for allowing a leak, the person leaking it will be fined a massive amount of money for uploading it, and they automatically lose their job. This is a combination of copyright law violation and contracts that you sign when taking the job. So the risk are so extremely high that most will not risk it. They also have security features such as login codes to open, proprietary file types that need special programs to play, and the rooms operating the projector system requiring special key access at times." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-150511", "score": 0.6479979753494263, "text": "The files are carefully controlled to prevent that happening, and it is identifiable where and who such a leaked file would have come from. Someone working on the film isn't likely to have access to the entire thing, just the part they work on. Generally speaking people don't want to ruin their lives by breaking their contracts, destroying their careers, and being sued into oblivion just to give people a free movie.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-2292628", "score": 0.6479906439781189, "text": "I told my friend I hate DVD because the low resolution smeared across a 4K screen looks terrible. He then told me that he has a 4K TV and player that upscales the resolution and makes it look amazing. Apparently according to him the information is there on the DVD, we just haven’t had players capable of playing the DVD in 4K until recently. Is this true or does he not know what he’s talking about?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-144542", "score": 0.6475861668586731, "text": "Piracy. The longer people have to wait for a movie the more chance illegal downloads will happen...", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-189870", "score": 0.6473283767700195, "text": "With digital recordings, the raw footage is usually higher quality than 4K (IIRC, 8K is fairly common). For final release, you just render the video in the release quality and write it to the DVD or blu-ray (or digital download/streaming service). With film, we're lucky because film is actually very high quality. People tend to think film has low quality because back in film days, the film *duplication and distribution* technologies were not-so-great, making the version in theaters of lower quality. To go from a film recording to a 4K digital video, you essentially put each frame of the film into a digital scanner (like the one in a multifunction printer) and make sure they line up with software. You can optionally use software to remove defects in the film from the digital file. You then send the scanned images off to be written to the DVD, bluray, etc.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2048498", "score": 0.6473276615142822, "text": "If I purchase a UHD movie on amazon and try to watch it on a non-4K tv, will it be downscaled? Or just not work?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-181644", "score": 0.6472362279891968, "text": "Regular film is really high resolution. Even if it was broadcast at a lower resolution back in the day. Movies, stored on film, can be scanned to 8k with little to no issues - mostly depending on the quality of the film and storage conditions over the years.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-53007", "score": 0.6471860408782959, "text": "Until *very* recently — like minutes ago, in the grand scheme of things — movies were shot on film. This produces a set of camera negatives. The negatives are printed, then the prints are edited, then once the edit is locked, the same edits are applied to the original camera negative. The cut negative is then printed repeatedly to make the release prints. It's no problem to go back to the original cut camera negative (or a first-generation interpositive) and scan it to videotape in high definition, a process called \"telecine.\" (From \"television\" and \"cinema,\" obviously.) In fact, it's become … well, not *commonplace,* but not unheard of, to scan the negative not to videotape, but rather to computer files at resolution significantly higher than videotape. From there you can do exactly the same kind of digital-intermediate post workflow you'd do if the film had been shot yesterday.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-115429", "score": 0.6470790505409241, "text": "That encryption method hasn't been broken yet. The equipment needed to read the drives is expensive & not widely available. You can't really tamper with anything without facing serious legal issues. Somebody would have to physically steal some movies *and* the cameras *and* then reverse engineer everything. It's safe to assume that once the theaters found out a given set of encryption keys had been compromised, they'd just stop using them & blacklist the device involved (and probably sue the fuck out of the theater that had it). Since we're dealing with limited numbers of items given to specialized outlets, they can be a lot more heavy-handed with their DRM than you can do with a DVD or BluRay player. It's perfectly possible to make sure each copy they send out is only able to be read by a single camera or set of keys. It's perfectly acceptable to force a theater to upgrade their encryption every few months.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-519549", "score": 0.6469730734825134, "text": "Im new to pirating movies, is there a reason that some films never really get pirated?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2050041", "score": 0.6465519666671753, "text": "Take Skyfall for example: \nIt says the 4k bluray is native 4k (meaning no upscale was used) \nbut if you go to the IMDb page it says the cameras used had a 2.8K resolution: \nSo how does that make any sense?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-361596", "score": 0.6462699174880981, "text": "I've seen ANONYMOUS and AMIABLE crop up, all with the same filesizes and fake stats, downloaded on a VM reveals them all to be fake codec scams. TPB is getting flooded with them and it seems like a hack with fake stats. None of the new movies are out on bluray, so stay careful friends.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2048134", "score": 0.6460940837860107, "text": "Sometimes when i watch a movie which i know has a 1080p stream it will stream it in like 720p, how can i force it to always do 1080P? i get like 75mbps but in the room i have my htpc i get around 10-30 with wifi", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-943092", "score": 0.645885169506073, "text": "supposedly with 2 movie files they will auto choose the lower or higher quality movie file based on the connection at hand.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-130273", "score": 0.6454736590385437, "text": "I've gotta believe there's a pretty strict system in place for who gets to see what, and when. 'Access management' is probably the professional term, and it's probably a bit different between the two media. That said, workprints can still go 'missing' - as do the people who attempt to leak them. I'd imagine it takes longer to copy a 5-6GB movie file to a flash drive, which means you're exposed for longer. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn those 'access management' tools are the sort that log EVERYTHING and phone home frequently.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-184662", "score": 0.6454467177391052, "text": "If they were made to be shown on television, and not on a computer, they were likely made before HD was a thing, so at best they were mastered at 480i resolution. If the videos were made on film, they could be remastered to 4k (most film is incredibly high quality which is why you can take a 1940's film and make it 4K if it's in good shape). If they were shot on digital video or video tape, you're stuck with the original resolution.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-68149", "score": 0.6451906561851501, "text": "Old movies were captured on analog film which has no particular resolution associated with it. If you can acquire the original film that the movie was captured on, you can take each frame of the film and scan it into a computer and digitize it at an extremely high resolution (e.g. 1080p HD or 4K / Ultra HD). The quality of the new scans will be roughly equivalent (although not quite the same) as modern digital video captured at high resolutions. As part of re-mastering, editors may perform color grading and color correction and sometimes also replace or enhance the titles and visual effects in the film.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-88912", "score": 0.6445968747138977, "text": "Because that movie was formatted for a resolution different from your TV. For example, if it was more widescreen than your TV then it would either have the sides cut off (which means you miss seeing anything happening at the sides of the screen) or they fit the width to your TV width and thus leave bars along the top and bottom.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-691410", "score": 0.6441689133644104, "text": "Does it take a bit longer to render the further qualities? If so, how do other YouTubers have their videos have HD from the start since thousands and thousands of people have notifications on for them and likely watch right away?\n\nThanks in advance.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-57233", "score": 0.6441687345504761, "text": "Because they weren't SD. They were made on film, which doesn't really have \"resolution.\" The sharpness of the image depends on the quality of the film of course, but high quality film is way above HD. That means that the version released on VHS or DVD is a major downgrade compared to the real quality of the source. All they need to do is go back to that source and convert it to a digital format again with newer technology in order to make an HD version. That's one of the downsides of the shift to digital technology: as more and more movies are filmed with digital cameras, we're getting more and more movies that can never have their quality improved. A movie filmed with a 1080p camera will always be 1080p, and the best you can do with it is use some tricks to \"guess\" what the extra pixels might be if you want to increase the resolution.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-410603", "score": 0.6440784335136414, "text": "I have hd movie box but I'm tired of it buffering and having to search for the right link so does anyone have any suggestions? Please leave links if possible.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-11", "score": 0.8381332159042358, "text": "Yes, they could 'throw' a case. However, that's a serious ethics violation which would almost certainly cause disbarment if found out, and not only that, the conviction could then be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel (embodied in the 6th amendment). If it makes it easier to wrap your head around, think of defense lawyers defending the integrity of the judicial system, not just their client. The idea being, the system must obey all of its own rules in proving that someone is guilty, or else it's a dishonest system and could easily \"prove\" that an innocent person is guilty next time. Defense lawyers are there to help ensure the system stays honest." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-105894", "score": 0.7834694385528564, "text": "Quite the contrary, the defense attorney has a duty to defend his client to the best of ability, which means getting a verdict of not guilty if possible or the lowest possible sentence otherwise. Whether he knows the defendant is guilty or not does not change this (though it's awfully useful for your attorney to know!). However, the attorney must not instruct the defendant to make any false statements. Typically the defendant does not testify at all (the \"right to remain silent\" you hear about so much), which helps avoid this problem.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-486006", "score": 0.7701472043991089, "text": "Like, the lawyer knows thattheir client commited murder for exemple, but due to circumstancial evidences they can slip through the cracks and get a non-guilty, can they legally/ would they morally do it?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-2743", "score": 0.7548074722290039, "text": "My understanding... it isn't relevant if your client is innocent or guilty. A defense attorney's job is to make sure the prosecutor's job is being done correctly. A prosecutor wants a conviction. They need to prove \"beyond a reasonable doubt\" that the defendant is guilty. A defense attorney needs to make sure that we don't starting doing \"close enough\" in a courtroom. That is a slippery slope, and one that would destroy our legal system.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-24129", "score": 0.7312906980514526, "text": "A lawyer can't purposely introduce testimony or evidence they know to be false. So for example, if I'm defending someone and their alibi is that they were at work and the evidence is a time card that's actually been falsified, if I know it that'd be a disbarrable offense. Though there's nothing illegal about simply instructing a client to be vague. Most defense lawyers try to have their client do as little confessing to them as possible while still learning enough to know what could blindside their defense or be a liability going in.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-15426", "score": 0.7293567061424255, "text": "There's nothing more for the lawyer to do. He has successfully defended his client, which is his job. When you are a criminal defense attorney, your entire job is to represent your client to get them the best outcome possible. An acquittal is the best case scenario. Anyone who has a problem with helping guilty people go free would never become a criminal defense attorney.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1508754", "score": 0.7286366820335388, "text": "So I'm not sure how the law works in the US (except it's a shitty system) but in Australia if your client tells you their guilty, as their lawyer, you can still defend them but you can't put forward a positive defence. The following are/are not allowed \n(i) must not falsely suggest that some other person committed the offence charged; \n(ii) must not set up an affirmative case inconsistent with the confession;\n (iii) may argue that the evidence as a whole does not prove that the client is guilty of the offence charged;\n (iv) may argue that for some reason of law the client is not guilty of the offence charged; and \n(v) may argue that for any other reason not prohibited by (i) and (ii) the client should not be convicted of the offence charged\n\nSo if Adnan told Cristina he was guilty, she wouldn't be able to say... put forward an alibi witness!!!", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-174142", "score": 0.726847231388092, "text": "usually the attorney's job is to ensure the defendant's legal rights are not infringed on and then make a deal that lessens the sentence if at all possible. If they're arguing that they didn't actually do it they're usually ACTUALLY arguing that you can't PROVE they did it.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-156803", "score": 0.7246662378311157, "text": "The accuser doesn't need a lawyer in a criminal case. The defendant's lawyer generally operates on the assumption that his client isn't guilty, even when there is strong evidence to the contrary. Everyone has a right to a rigorous defense, even the guilty.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-45204", "score": 0.7216073274612427, "text": "It is a defense attorney's job to represent their client to the best of their abilities with neither passion nor prejudice without violating rules of conduct and ethics (they can't lie or induce perjury). Their job is *not* to prove that their client was innocent. Their job is to introduce reasonable doubt and hold the prosecution to its various burdens.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-152249", "score": 0.7215272188186646, "text": "A defense attorney's job in't always necessarily to get their client off. We don't let everyone mount a defense to see if they can get away with it. It's to make sure the prosecution actually proves their case. It's about keeping the system honest.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-148682", "score": 0.7198123335838318, "text": "There have been AMAs by defense attorneys in the past and the one that stuck out he said he still defends the people he knows are guilty to the fullest extent he can because it's part of the process. He wants his client to go to jail. He doesn't want him to get off on a technicality of bad defense. He's part of the system, which says the state *has* to prove he did it. It's his job to keep the prosecution honest.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-99732", "score": 0.719022810459137, "text": "The lawyer is required by law to give his client the best defense possible. Even if they know their client is guilty, they can still defend their client based on procedural issues in the prosecution's case. For example, they could say that the smoking gun you used to murder your uncle was obtained by the police illegally. If this is true, then the prosecution may no longer be able to *legally* prove your guilt, and thus you are *legally* not guilty. The only thing the lawyer can't do is knowingly introduce falsehoods (so they can't flat out ask you to perjure yourself if you testify). They absolutely cannot share the information you give them as their client. This is called attorney-client privilege, and if a lawyer violates it they can lose their legal license.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-63153", "score": 0.7155693769454956, "text": "NO! Just because a defendant is found guilt in the court of law doesn't mean that the defense is conceded to guilt. In fact, more times than not, the defendant is going to appeal the verdict, and go to the appellate courts to argue their innocence again. That, and every person has the right not to incriminate themselves.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-172994", "score": 0.7152803540229797, "text": "This falls in the realm of attorney-client privilege. _URL_0_ While the attorney is communicating with their client in a professional capacity, the client must be guaranteed the expectation of a private conversation. Even if the conversation reveals evidence of guilt, the attorney is not allowed to reveal or testify about information from confidential correspondence with their client. This is because the defendant must have the ability to openly communicate with their lawyer to construct a proper strategy for their defense. To be clear, this applies to past crimes. Attorney client privilege doesn’t apply when a lawyer conspires with their client to commit a future crime. But they’re not considered accessories to a crime because they’re aware of their own client’s previous criminal acts.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-191616", "score": 0.7146561741828918, "text": "The point of a lawyer is to make sure his defendant receives a fair trial. Not to make him walks free, for example if the accuse is of intentional murder etc.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-82763", "score": 0.7117353081703186, "text": "The goal isn't to win and get the client off the hook in a lot of cases. At some point it ends up as making sure that the clients rights aren't infringed upon. This can include things like making sure evidence was handled correctly, the jury is impartial, and the charges fit the crime.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-97423", "score": 0.7116894721984863, "text": "No, attorney-client privilege means that you're attorney cannot legally disclose anything told to them in confidence. *However*, if they know you did the crime then they cannot offer alternative scenarios for how the crime took place. For example, if \"someone\" murdered your spouse they couldn't float the idea that maybe it was their lover in a fit of jealous rage. They'd simply have to try to prove you not guilty in legal terms.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-8041", "score": 0.7112735509872437, "text": "When there's concrete evidence that they did it, the lawyer will work for a lower punishment. They'll find whatever excuse they can to get a shorter jail time, avoid death penalty, whatever the case may be.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-185108", "score": 0.7110454440116882, "text": "It's what we call an adversarial system. The idea is that the best, most truthful outcome happens when both sides have to argue it out. Even if the defendant did it beyond a doubt he or she is still entitled to a defense, and their lawyer is actually required to make their best effort to support the client's interests. Even in the case that the defendant is guilty, the government might have done something wrong while investigating the defendant, and the lawyer will argue against that, not just because the lawyer wants to get his client off the hook but also because it's a way to make sure the government doesn't abuse it's power. Also the client might get a better outcome by pleading guilty, so the lawyer will be there to advise him or her about that option.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1730126", "score": 0.71048504114151, "text": "Hypothetically if I am on triAl for a crime and I plead guilty, but do not have a plea deal in place with the prosecutor or the court would I be required to Allocute to the crime? Would the prosecution still have to prove their case?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-12", "score": 0.8215634822845459, "text": "the fluid in your inner ear keeps you orientated and standing upwards, although when your drunk certain functions in your brain don't work as well or as they are meant to. So if you've had a bit too much to drink, your brain might not be able to tell which way is up and which way is down if your inner ears are miscommunicating with your brain. So that's why when you close your eyes it feels like you're falling off the face of the world." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-124860", "score": 0.7797834277153015, "text": "In relative terms, drunk \"spins\" is actually dizziness, or vertigo. A quote from [Wikipedia](_URL_0_). > Alcohol can affect balance, by changing the viscosity of the endolymph within the otolithic membrane, the fluid inside the semicircular canals inside the ear. The endolymph surrounds the cupula which contains hair cells within the semicircular canals. When the head is tilted, the endolymph flows and moves the cupula. The hair cells then bend and send signals to the brain indicating the direction in which the head is tilted. By changing the viscosity of the endolymph to become less dense when alcohol enters the system, the hair cells can move more easily within the ear, which sends the signal to the brain and results in exaggerated and overcompensated movements of body. This can also result in vertigo, or \"the spins.\"[8][9] Edit: This is a more definitive answer to /u/teachgold 's answer, which was correct. Upvote him.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-185076", "score": 0.7746958136558533, "text": "Alcohol gets your inner ears drunk too! When you don't have your vision to tell your brain that you're standing still, your drunk inner ears (responsible for balance and knowing which way is up) don't know what's going on. That causes the feeling of spinning or being on a boat.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-305340", "score": 0.7731943726539612, "text": "Your balance was off due to you being drunk. Your brain thought you were rotating due to false information from your ears and attempts to adjust accordingly. Your ears have 3 semicircular canals with tiny hairs in them that react to gravity and your movement and they send signals to your brain. This is how you can tell you are moving if your eyes are shut. When you are drunk your blood has a different density, which distorts the shape of the inner ear, meaning your brain receives a load of false information and attempts to align your non-moving vision with your \"moving\" sense of balance.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-75058", "score": 0.7693170309066772, "text": "The dizziness that you get when you are drunk is due to the fluid in your ear becoming less dense from alcohol dissolved in it. This means when you tip your head, the fluid in your ear moves at a different speed to normal and therefore what your eyes are seeing doesn't match up with what the fluid in your ear tells your brain. You'll notice if you're lying in bed after drinking the dizziness will start to subside as the fluid in your ear moves back to how it normally is, but if you turn over you disrupt it again and will feel dizzy. Edit: source: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-144174", "score": 0.7659783363342285, "text": "There's an organ in your inner ear that helps you stay balanced. When you drink, it affects that organ and causes it to be oversensitive. So, even the force of gravity will make it feel like your head is rotating.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-18116", "score": 0.7643975615501404, "text": "Nystagmus. It's an involuntary left-and-right movement of the eye associated with alcohol intoxication. You don't normally notice that it's happening, but it drives your vestibular system crazy. It's particularly pronounced when your head is parallel to the floor, such as when you're laying in bed. That's the origin of what the kids call \"room spin.\"", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-40690", "score": 0.7612279653549194, "text": "The spins happen because of an odd effect alcohol has on your ears -- specifically, on three tiny, fluid-filled structures called the semicircular canals. Inside each of these canals is a fluid called endolymph. As you move around, the movement of the endolymph lags behind the more solid cupula, distorting and bending it -- and those little hairs. When the hairs bend, the electrical signal they send to your brain is altered, helping you to make sense of the rotations your head experiences on each of the three planes the canals sets. LPT: Looking at a fixed object and keeping your feet planted on the ground can help lessen the effect.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-14691", "score": 0.7605564594268799, "text": "I am no expert but it is because you are not using your legs/balance and when you sit and when you stand up it causes you to use these functions and since you were not using them before you did not notice them but when you stand up you realize you are intoxicated because it affects them.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-274945", "score": 0.7523073554039001, "text": "Med student here. When you spin, the liquor in the semicircular canals begin moving after a certain delay because of their specific density. Even when you have already stopped spinning, the liquor is still moving/spinning. This causes the dizziness because the information which come from your eyes and muscles (that you are actually NOT moving/spinning anymore) do not match with the information which come from your N. vestibulocochlearis (the VIII cranial nerve a.k.a. auditory vestibular nerve; responsible for transmitting sound and equilibrium/balance). This leads to a misinformation according to your brain. Your brain is like: \"lol wtf is going on\". Nausea can result from that. I though don't know whether there's a way to stop the dizziness instantly. I don't think that it exists.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-158660", "score": 0.750253438949585, "text": "the reason you are dizzy while drunk is that not all of your senses are working like they should. If you sit your tactile sense, inner ear and eyes are getting clear information. Once you stand up your tactile sense goes missing, your inner ears are are not getting clear information (because the alc effects the blood and the blood effects the inner ear fluids). Now your inner ear information are not equal to your eyes and your tactile sense are missing. If you spin around and stop, your ear fluids are moving while your eyes are steady - > dizzy. Once we lay down in bed your tactile sense goes missing again, our inner ear are getting wrong information since we reached over 0,5 ‰ while our eyes are steady - > dizzy. There is a really simple solution, get your tactile senses back; lay down on bed while one foot stays on the ground (hangs out) if you get contact to the ground the information of your tactile sense and eyes are the same again. Or skip the booze !", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-125683", "score": 0.7497323751449585, "text": "You have alcohol in your blood. It changes the density of it, and causes your inner ear, which gives you information on 'up' and 'down' to float wrong. Your brain interprets this as movement, but can't make sense of what your eyes are telling it.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1901256", "score": 0.7471461296081543, "text": "It use to happen a lot when I was a child but more recently it only happens when I am intoxicated. The only way that I can describe this is that it like I can zoom in on something that is about a foot and a half from my eyes. I really cannot see anything else that is around when this happens but only the object that I'm looking at. If I look away briefly my focus goes back to normal. When I was a child it would happen sometimes when I was reading a book in bed. Now that I'm an adult in my mid 20's, it only happens when I'm very drunk and lying in bed. Can anyone relate to this or have an explanation for what is happening?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-139621", "score": 0.7463868260383606, "text": "I know why alcohol messes up your balance (and why you feel like the world is spinning): After a certain blood alcohol level, the alcohol in your blood-stream starts replacing water in your inner ear. It's here that your body keeps balance by monitoring how little hairs move around in a sea of sloshing water (imagine when you lean over, the water in the inner ear sloshes around and your body detects this as you leaning). Back to alcohol. Because alcohol less viscous than water, it sloshes around much easier in your inner ear (think of water as maple syrup compared to alcohol in this context). So your body freaks out, since it has no idea how to keep balance with this \"easy sloshing\" liquid .", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-95318", "score": 0.7460899949073792, "text": "Alcohol interferes with your sense of balance (yes you have more than 5 senses). But using vision you are able to keep your balance -- you know which way is up, and you know that you're not spinning for example. Close your eyes and this visual aid disappears, and without your sense of balance working your brain gets very confused about what's happening.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-67124", "score": 0.7440727353096008, "text": "Well, after the alcohol has gone through your liver and into your bloodstream, it gets into the brain fairly quickly because alcohol molecules can pass the \"blood-brain barrier\", which is exactly why it sounds like. Most molecules can't cross the barrier, but alcohol's chemical properties allow it to diffuse across readily. Once in the brain alcohol heavily affects the cerebral cortex, a section of the back of the brain that is responsible for motor control and other movement related tasks. It is my understanding that it's the alcohol's effects on the cerebral cortex that give you the spins. It's kinda cool, studies have shown that ballerinas don't get dizzy because they condition their cerebral cortex into not sending \"dizzy signals\" by spinning all the time.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-181335", "score": 0.7417692542076111, "text": "You're right in that its the fluid in your ears is the cause. Things appear to be spinning because your brain attempts to interpret contradicting information. This subsides as the fluid finds a level again. Nothing is actually spinning though. If you lay down and close your eyes immediately, all the sensations including the visual ones will continue.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-192923", "score": 0.7392849922180176, "text": "When you swirl a glass of water, then stop suddenly, the water inside keeps swirling. There's a similar sort of thing inside each of your ears. As you spin, you're swirling the water inside those structures. When you stop, the water keeps swirling, so your brain thinks that you're still spinning. In response to that spinning, the brain 'modifies' its movements. Eg, it tries to maintain balance and posture and eye direction to counteract the spin. Which is what 'dizziness' is, more or less. You can replicate this yourself with a spinning chair and a friend. Sit them down, spin the chair, then stop and look at their eyes. You'll see their eyes 'twitching', or shifting back and forth, left and right, very quickly. This is called nystagmus. The brain thinks it's spinning, so moves the eyes the opposite way to keep vision 'locked', but eventually the eyes go too far and 'snap' back. [Example here](_URL_0_).", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-161344", "score": 0.7371071577072144, "text": "When you're drunk and seeing double/fuzzy, what's basically happening is your brain is having trouble coordinating your two eyes to focus on the same spot. Normally the two inputs is helpful, by allowing depth perception, but without that coordination it actually causes confusion. By closing one eye, you are removing one of the inputs so that your brain no longer has to try to coordinate them. It's like if two people are talking about different things at the same time; your brain has trouble picking the two apart and understanding both. By telling one to shut the hell up, you can now clearly process the input from the other.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-90107", "score": 0.7323181629180908, "text": "The condition is called nystagmus. It has to do with alcohol diffusing into the membrane of your inner ear. This changes the specific gravity of the membrane that is perceived as motion by your brain, which tries to accommodate. It’s coupled with an eye twitch to one side as you sense things moving, try to track with your eyes, and they quickly reset. The same process happens in reverse as you’re sobering up, with all of this changin direction. Have fun tracking this through your inebriation! Maybe with a couple selfie vids in the mirror?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-88673", "score": 0.7299529314041138, "text": "There's fluid within tiny tubes in your ears, and these tubes have hairs on them. Your brain pays attention to these hairs and how the fluid moves them in order to figure out where you are in space and how you're moving, but it also uses what your eyes see. Normally, your eyes and ears tell your brain the same thing and there's no problem, but when you're drinking, the density of the fluid in those tubes changes. This confuses your brain because now the fluid is moving those hairs in a way that doesn't match what your eyes are telling you, so you feel disoriented.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-14", "score": 0.8713470697402954, "text": "If you have a bone to pick with someone, it means they've annoyed or insulted you and you need to talk to them about it. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (via a thread in /r/etymology) \"a bone to pick\" originally meant something that occupies or distracts you (as a dog is occupied by picking at a bone) and somehow morphed into its modern meaning." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-16974", "score": 0.690778374671936, "text": "I'm not expert but I would assume it has to do with the phrase \"having skeletons in your closet\"", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-39198", "score": 0.6862333416938782, "text": "When u both wanna bone each other A lot of the time it includes wanting to bone each other but not being able to for some reason, like friends not wanting to ruin a friendship or co-workers who don't want to ruin a professional relationship", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1394612", "score": 0.6823469400405884, "text": "My grandfather has asked me to help him figure out what his mother used to say when she had enough of something; i.e. tired of a conversation topic. He said it would have translated into English as \"a licked off old soup bone.\" I cannot figure out if this was an idiomatic phrase back in the 1930's and 40's or if it was just something she said. I haven't been able to find anything similar online. I tried to literally translate it back into German as \"ein alter abgeleckter Suppenknochen\", but I'm not sure that sounds right...\n\nThanks for any help!\nDanke :D", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1173431", "score": 0.6806291937828064, "text": "A phrase or idiom and it's something like \"the tall stalk gets cut\". I feel like an idiot saying that, but I am having trouble remembering the exact one.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1393683", "score": 0.6743099689483643, "text": "Philadelphian here. We have tons of expressions (and dialects used to say them). But my favorite is \"jawn\". Which is essentially a bastardized way of saying \"joint\". Pretty much means a person, place, or thing.\n\n\"Yo Bobby, can ya pass me that jawn that's on the table?\"\n\"Did you see that jawn that just walked by? Nice set of legs on that one.\"\n\"Me and my sis went to that new arcade jawn down the street.\"\n\nEtc.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-11947", "score": 0.6676982045173645, "text": "It means that people often don't appreciate you for doing something good, or are even outright hostile. For instance, you hold the door open for a women and she calls you a chauvinist pig who thinks she can't open the door herself. Or you pick up a wallet that someone dropped, and they accuse you of stealing it. Stuff like that is where the phrase came from.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1034565", "score": 0.6602677702903748, "text": "What does \"Bonetrousled\" actually mean? Haven't been able to find any definitions for 'trousle' or anything.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-1981135", "score": 0.659813642501831, "text": "It says knucklebones. Usually this word means an animal’s talus (anklebone), especially a sheep’s. They used to be used as game pieces or dice\n\nBut on a human a knuckle is a joint between two phalanges (finger bones), and a human talus is weirdly shaped for a bead. But Tasmyn Muir is usually much more precise in naming exactly which bone she means (e.g. proximal or distal phalanges). \n\nAnyone else though about this or am I just being weird here?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-1922061", "score": 0.6578395366668701, "text": "If you send someone a text and say, \"Hey, come over and I'll smoke you out\" what does that mean to you? I think my term is more generous than most. You come over I offer my entire stash to you!\n\nI ask because I am honestly not sure what protocol is. Although I'm still happy to just give full reign of my stash. I like sharing!", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2806923", "score": 0.6561094522476196, "text": "I'm really not quite sure where the reference/association comes from. Dogs and bones, maaayybe i can understand, but cats and fish? Do cats even know how to... fish? Seriously, Reddit, help me out here.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-866040", "score": 0.6527504324913025, "text": "\" You have hedged me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me.\"\n\nWhat is the meaning of this? I am terribly confused.\n\nThank you for your answers, and may the peace and joy of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-719611", "score": 0.6527017951011658, "text": "English is not my first language so I'm kind of confused on what does that phrase mean.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-59403", "score": 0.6526349186897278, "text": "In this context, the word 'Pawn' means a pledge, or a promise. Let's say that you see the newest Dora the Explorer toy in a shop window. You have an MP3 player, but you really want that Dora toy. So, you go to your local pawn shop to borrow some money, but the pawn shop owner doesn't know you, and doesn't know that you'll pay the money back. So, he asks you to leave a material pledge - in this case, your MP3 player - as a guarantee that you'll pay the money back. So, you give the pawn shop owner your MP3 player, he gives you money, and you go and buy that Dora the Explorer toy. If you come back and repay the money you borrowed from the pawn shop owner, you get your MP3 player back. If you don't pay the money back, the pawn shop owner will sell your MP3 player to someone to recoup their losses. The amount of time that passes before the sale varies from shop to shop.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1858140", "score": 0.6504079699516296, "text": "This question pertains to a situation between two friends who have had romantic interests for each other in the past. Timing didnt fit then. \n\nI havent talked to her in a few years, outside of cordial or occasional flirty exchange. Shes a kind person and if I were to reach out for a meeting, I can see her agreeing even if shes taken or not available - we were friends. \n\nWith this person, if shes taken, I'm moving on and cant look back. I plan to make it apparent that I'm meeting for romantic interest, and my idea is to simply add a phrase like \"if you're taken, my bad, its okay\". \n\nThis could be a simple way to broach the subject, and due to work and life, it'll be maybe another few weeks until I initiate anything. So in the mean time, figured I drop a note here to see some responses.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-775978", "score": 0.6494534611701965, "text": "And I must say, at first I was pretty confused. I had to google it to realize it meant \"break a leg\". Anybody knows where did this phrase come from?", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1171925", "score": 0.6489928364753723, "text": "I've heard it thrown around a few times, but I am not really sure what it means. Thanks.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2099202", "score": 0.6480737328529358, "text": "Ran across this phrase earlier and was curious what it means to this sub.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1172717", "score": 0.6465869545936584, "text": "hey,guys! I was watching a SNL episode, where there was a slang or odiom- \"can't shake hands with a ghost!\".\n\nI don't konw what's that meaning . Need your help.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-418369", "score": 0.6465354561805725, "text": "“Wanna go rock collecting with me? Not like a date or anything, haha. Unless?”", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1916057", "score": 0.6464584469795227, "text": "Lets take a moment to decode Hun Batz spontaneous vernacular And figure out what each one means because I played him for the first time today and I just cannot for the life of me understand what he is saying.\n\nTaunts:\n\n- \"It is not wise to put a basket on your head or you will be eaten by a dog.\": To put it simply, it's not wise to show off your power or you'll be beaten down by the people you feel are lesser to you. (Basket on the head. Oh look at me, I can balance stuff better than you!)\n\n- \"One finger cannot remove lice from the head.\": You and you alone can definitely not defeat me.\n\n- \"Do not throw away your hair, fingernails or teeth because if you don't find them upon your death, you will regret it.\": Do not overlook the little things in your life because once you're on your deathbed, you will not have time to enjoy those last moments in peace.\n\n\nJokes:\n\n- \"It is not good to point at a rainbow, or your finger will rot!\": It's not wise to stare at, or chase after beauty for too long, or your life will be meaningless and you'll whither away over things that are merely momentary in terms of pleasure.\n\n- \"It is not good to hit a dog, for he will no longer help you in case you need to pass the flames of a fire.\": Don't anger your friends or they won't help you in your time of need.\n\n- \"It is not good to remove the first layer of the tortillas, or pimples will appear on your face.\": It's not good to try to analyze people who have multiple-layered personalities, or they'll get angry and punch you in the face....? (I don't know, this one was just really weird).", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-15", "score": 0.7383313179016113, "text": "You absolutely could. But the fact is that evolution shaped our tastes. That's why fatty foods and sweet foods are so appealing to out taste buds. It is our bodies way of saying \"That has lots of calories and will help us avoid starving.\" The 'satisfaction' you feel on swallowing it is simply the body saying \"Good job. Remember that tastes good so we will eat it again if we find it again.\" Rewarding you for fueling it. You can see why this system that evolved when we were hunter gatherers to keep us from starving and helping us learn whats best to eat leads to obesity now that we have food options everywhere anytime we want. Fun fact: Most people mistake the bodies thirst craving for being hungry. More often than not if you drink a glass of water when you feel the urge to snack it will go away. Thus helping you lose weight by reducing total calorie intake." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-171937", "score": 0.7005655765533447, "text": "If medicine tasted good, people would be way more likely to use more than they needed. That could cause problems if people took medicine they didn't need, or overdosed on medicine because it tasted good. Making medicine taste bad enough to discourage overuse while still good enough for people to tolerate is difficult.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-29129", "score": 0.700067400932312, "text": "Gum contains flavorings and sugar, in addition to the 'gum base', which is the somewhat rubbery stuff that makes the gum. The chewing action, along with your saliva, helps release and dissolve the stuff that flavors the gum, but eventually, that stuff is all gone - you've 'sucked out' all the flavor. At that point, you are left chewing a piece of very soft plastic, which doesn't have a very good flavor. At that point, you spit it out, and insert a new piece of gum! It's worth mentioning that swallowing a piece of gum isn't very hazardous. It isn't very digestible, and just goes through your digestive system, usually within a few days. But it's gummy texture makes it difficult for me to swallow, so I always spit it out.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-100702", "score": 0.6997766494750977, "text": "Probably several reasons, but here's what occurs to me first: Chewing a tablet releases the medicine much more quickly, and can allow it to be absorbed much quicker, too. For some medicines that's a good thing. But other medicines simply *aren't supposed* to be absorbed quickly, and need a delayed release for maximum effect. Making it taste like delicious raspberries would just *encourage* people to chew it quickly, defeating the point of the pill in the first place. If it tastes like rotten lemons, you're going to get it down with as little interference as possible.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1314190", "score": 0.699484646320343, "text": "I bought like 6 bags of sour spaghetti, and after eating the first one, I felt bad about eating so much candy, so I said to myself, \"Hey just chew on it, and spit it out!\" But it just wasn't the same.....Why?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-27531", "score": 0.6981073021888733, "text": "The urge to swallow comes when the food is mashed into a sort of runny paste that can very easily be swallowed. Try chewing up a piece of bread, but then use your tongue to mash it back into a single big mass, you'll probably notice an urge to chew it up again before swallowing. Also, try eating some really dry food. You might crush it into very small pieces, but without enough liquid to get a similar paste, you still won't feel like swallowing it. Gum stays all in one piece. Sure, it stretches and changes shape, but you can't get it into a paste, no matter how much liquid you add or how long you chew it, so you never feel the urge to swallow.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-72072", "score": 0.6979489922523499, "text": "I think what the other person said might be right, but I think the more immediate reason is because fruit has two tastes in it, sour and sweet. Candy just tastes sweet, and it tastes a lot sweeter than fruit does. You've 'primed' your taste buds with super-sweet tastes, and now when you pick up fruit, the sugar in it doesn't really stand out in comparison to the sugar blast you just gave your tongue earlier. What *does* stand out is the sourness.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-58438", "score": 0.6978521943092346, "text": "If it tasted good, people (especially kids) would take it all the time. It actually should taste unpleasant so that you only take it when the alternative is worse.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-56212", "score": 0.6977285742759705, "text": "The easiest way to explain it is this: The body is primed to produce chemicals like insulin when sweet foods come in contact with the tongue and stomach. When your mouth tastes sweet food then your body releases chemicals to break down that food, but the sugar never comes. Over time this confuses the body and when you DO eat those sweet foods your body doesn't know what to do and at some point decides it doesn't need to release chemicals this time. A very simple example of this is how your mouth waters when you imagine yourself eating a lemon. At first your mouth waters but if you keep thinking about it your mouth won't do that anymore. That effect often causes people to GAIN weight - though they aren't eating the sugars from, say, soda, the body retains energy from other sources That and of course there is evidence that some sweeteners like aspartame is linked to cancer in mice or rats who consume it.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-99199", "score": 0.6977013945579529, "text": "Most of the time, bitterants are added to the chemistry to make sure that children don't drink a gallon of the stuff. if you're five, and you get a brightly colored gelcap that looks like candy, and you bite it and it DEFINITELY doesn't taste like candy, you're probably going to put it down and go do something else, rather then eat a bunch and get a fatal dose. on the other hand, if you know what's in it and know it's going to help you, and know how much to take, then you can work through the bitterness and swallow your medicines.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-59063", "score": 0.6976825594902039, "text": "Eating is pleasurable because it excites many senses at once. There's touch (texture), taste (sweet, salty, sour, bitter, savory, and possibly fatty), smell, and temperature. Spicy or sour foods stimulate the touch and temperature senses. It's like saying, \"If everything is going to end up as mush inside our stomachs, why don't we just blend a burger and drink it instead of eat it?\" Taking out one part of the sensation of eating can make a dish much less appealing for a person. Likewise, increasing a particular sensation would make it more appealing for certain people.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-17039", "score": 0.6975358128547668, "text": "Your body has evolved to love sugars and fats because they're quick, easy energy. If you were starving to death and had the option between a bar of chocolate and a bunch of kale, the chocolate is the thing that would keep you moving, because you'd need those sweet, sweet calories. So we've evolved a taste for sweet foods because if we have to choose, those should be the things we're looking to eat. Obviously, in a society where starvation isn't much of a problem, that can lead to problems like obesity, but evolution builds up traits that kept us alive for millennia.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-162565", "score": 0.697473406791687, "text": "Your nose and throat are connected, so a lot of that 'taste' is actually smell. The sense of taste itself is just the initial feeling of sweet/sour etc that prepares our body for different types of foods. This is why it can be much more bearable to eat or drink things we don't particularly like if you have no sense of smell or hold your nose when you swallow it.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-104094", "score": 0.6967427730560303, "text": "The main reason is that the majority of chemical ingredients taste pretty foul. Drug manufacturers add some flavoring to make the mixture more palatable, but they limit that because they don't want it tasting *too* good, which could cause a child to consume too much.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-106726", "score": 0.6964524388313293, "text": "Vitamins that taste like candy have sugar/sweeteners added that many people don't want in their health supplement. There is also the issue of not making adult vitamins taste like candy so kids don't mistake them for candy and overdose because they taste good.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-181708", "score": 0.6959699392318726, "text": "It does not know it can not process them. The body knows that when something tastes sweet that means the blood sugar level will soon increase and that it needs to produce insulin. So the body starts producing insulin as a response to the sweetness. You even have similar responses to external stimulus as well. You may know the famous Pavlov experiment where he gave dogs treats after ringing a bell and then measured that they started producing saliva when you rang the bell. And tasting sweetness triggering an insulin response is a similar response.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-182780", "score": 0.6959335803985596, "text": "I don't remember the exact name of it, but we have specialized nerves/brain functions that control things like appetite, swallowing reflex, and breath-holding reflex. For example, the \"myth\" that rabies makes you afraid of water is actually true. Since rabies affects the brain, one of the things it does is make even the sight of water trigger the anti-drowning reflex. Anyways, lots of factors go into how easily you can swallow things - how much stuff is in your stomach, the flavor and texture of what you're trying to swallow, as well as stuff completely unrelated to appetite, such as stress level, body temperature... Basically your body has a crapton of mechanisms from billions of years of evolution. You've simply noticed one of them. & #x200B; Note: if you want to experiment with this, try different beverages. Mineralized water or sports drinks almost always go down easier than pure water because very primitive responses identify that beverage as something safe and desirable to drink.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-63816", "score": 0.6956022381782532, "text": "Most non-nutritive sweeteners (\"artificial sweetener\" doesn't include things like stevia which are natural) are *vastly* sweeter than sugar so you don't need near as much to get the same amount of sweetening power. Aspartame, for example, is 200x stronger than table sugar by weight. Regular soda is water + sugar + flavor. If you replace the sugar with something else, it's still just sweet water. It might have a slightly different mouthfeel but nobody's really going to notice much. Most candy, however, uses sugar to make up the physical structure of it. If you take all the sugar out of a Jolly Rancher, there's nothing left. Finding stuff that you can make candy out of that *also* has no calories and doesn't have negative affects on your digestive system is a bit trickier. Baked good, like cookies and cakes, are even harder to strip calories from.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-253501", "score": 0.6955469250679016, "text": "Taste is a property of the molecules in whatever you eat. Certain parts can activate receptors on your tongue that transmit a signal to the brain. Depending on which receptor sends the signal the brain \"tastes\" sweet/sour/etc. That's how sweeteners taste sweet without being sugar, afaik sweetness needs multiple carboxyl-groups on one molecule", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-61614", "score": 0.6940009593963623, "text": "Yeah, I think you may just be strange. No one chews pudding. Now, people might move it around their mouth a bit so they can actually taste it before swallowing, but chew? Nope.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-24093", "score": 0.6937251091003418, "text": "Sodium is not inherently unhealthy. In fact, it's *necessary* for us to survive. The problem is *too much* sodium. So the reason that we like it is the same reason that fat and sugar taste appealing: We evolved in an environment of scarcity, where, if we came across one of these things, we *really* needed to consume them.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-17", "score": 0.7740589380264282, "text": "If I had to take a guess, no expert, just had anatomy and physiology through college, I'd imagine it'd have something to do with the rods and cones in your eyes and the optic nerve. When you push on your eyes, you probably disrupt the innervation action of the rods and cones and it's just trying to adjust back. Just my guess!" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-323503", "score": 0.7352464199066162, "text": "I'm on my mobile right now, so I'll come back and edit in some sources later, but by and large this is a fatigue or stress response. Additionally, excessive caffeine can cause this to happen as well. It really is fascinating how sensitive our eyes are to general stress.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-182180", "score": 0.735092282295227, "text": "Because the light sensitive cells in your eye are just slightly out of center. You have more color focused cells there instead.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-29631", "score": 0.7350911498069763, "text": "Because the light coming through your eyelids is more to the red end of the spectrum (flesh/blood filtering). Your red light receptors are a little \"depleted\" for lack of a better term, and when you open your eyes it take a little moment for the colour balance to be restored in your eye's receptors.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-56597", "score": 0.7346702814102173, "text": "One eye had been receiving more light than the other. Your color-receptors get tired if they are stimulated a lot. So if you are seeing a lot of blue with one eye, when you look at something else, it'll appear less blue (more red) than it really is, since your blue-receptors are kind of tired and don't react as well. Try it! _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-163559", "score": 0.7343640327453613, "text": "It's likely caused by pressure on your retna. The same reason you see light when you close your eyes and press on them. The pressure activates the photoreceptors in your retna.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-93400", "score": 0.7342425584793091, "text": "It is an artifact of how your eyes process color. A normal human eye has cone cells sensitive to red, green, and blue. However, the red cone is a little quirky and is also sensitive to a region in the blue spectrum. As the frequency of light increases, the red cone fires, then the green, then both blue and the red, which is why violet looks a little reddish. In fact, RGB screens can't produce monochromatic violet light, so they simulate it by combining red and blue in a manner the stimulates our eyes in about the same way violet would.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-246027", "score": 0.7333471775054932, "text": "It's due to chromatic aberration of the lens in the eye. No lens can avoid chromatic aberration entirely: different wavelengths are bent slightly differently by lenses. In human perception, the effect is known as [Chromostereopsis](_URL_0_).", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-56146", "score": 0.7330509424209595, "text": "The phenomenon is called phosphenes, and it happens because of the pressure in our eyes stimulate the cells we use to see. There is no real light, but the stimulation in the cells make our brains think there is. _URL_0_ Edit: words.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-175120", "score": 0.7324255108833313, "text": "The pressure activates the cells in your eyes, which send nerve impulses to your brain. It attempts to interpret this pressure as if it were light, but with no image to see it just kinda comes out looking strange, like visual noise. The reason it appears to be at least somewhat symmetrical is that the pressure is over a very large area, rather than a very small area expected. Since your eyes are curved this area becomes distorted around the edges.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-57184", "score": 0.7322889566421509, "text": "The skin pulls on your eyelid and the lid puts pressure on the eyeball. This slightly deforms it and messes up your focus.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-93120", "score": 0.7320305705070496, "text": "They are called Phosphenes which basically mean you see light without a light source. This is caused due to mechanical stimulation of the retina when you either ub your closed eyes or forcefully shut them.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-31433", "score": 0.7319430112838745, "text": "Basically, your retina has nerve cells and these are activated by pressure as well. Think the phenomena are called phosphenes...", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-259108", "score": 0.7319047451019287, "text": "You mean you saw different colors as rings around the white light source? It's the chromatic aberration caused by your cornea/lens. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-72568", "score": 0.7316158413887024, "text": "This phenomenon is called [phosphene](_URL_0_). When light hits the cells in the eye, these cells send a signal to the brain to give an image of what is seen. These cells are called photoreceptor cells, and their main means of activation is when a photon of light hits them. Another way to activate them is via mechanical stimulation (aka applying pressure to they eyes). When you apply mechanical stimulation, the subsequent activation of the cells will be random (not patterned), and when this signal is transmitted to the brain areas that are responsible for generating an image, you will see weird patterns instead of the normal images that would be generated by photon-induced stimulation.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-51478", "score": 0.7313472032546997, "text": "This happens to me when I close my eyes, roll my eyeballs upwards and then open them. I see an endoptic ring of light, the same greeny-purple color as other endoptic hallucinatory lights (like from rubbing your eyes hard. I like to think that this greeny-purple color is what Terry Pratchett refers to as the \"color of magic\"). I thought it might be a residual image of the pupil ring, but I don't know.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-4992", "score": 0.7301181554794312, "text": "Your finger pushes against your eye and distorts the lens that focuses light on the back of your eye. A small indentation can create a black spot where light doesn't focus, or focuses very poorly. It's similar to how you can have dark spots on the bottom of a pool by distorting the surface.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-45673", "score": 0.7299944758415222, "text": "This is called photopsia. When one rubs their eyes or if you move your eyes quickly, the gel (vitreous) inside the eye pulls on the retina causing the photoreceptors in the retina to be electrically stimulated causing you to see a flash of light.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-132480", "score": 0.7299152612686157, "text": "You're using a liquid crystal display. This means that there's a sheet of liquid crystals in between a bunch of other screens and filters, and behind all of that is a light. When you apply an electrical charge to liquid crystals you can change their shape, and when that happens the direction and color of the light as it passes through can be changed. But you can also change the shape by pressing on them through the filters. Because this is much less precise than you can get with an electric current, it sort of warps into a blob of colors instead of a coherent image. When you remove pressure, the electrical current takes back control and forces the liquid crystals into the correct shape again. Its hard to predict the colors since you have to take into account the previous configuration of the liquid crystals, the amount of pressure you're putting on them, the location of the pressure, and the type of light and filters used in the display. So it usually just creates a strange gray sort of color.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-60253", "score": 0.7297642827033997, "text": "Do you mean rainbow specks that dance across your field of vision? Because I get this too sometimes. Your eye turns light into electrical signals and sends them to the brain, and your brain makes a map of the world. That's how vision works. Sometimes, when you sneeze, you can create pressure behind the eye, which can stimulate the nerves into firing, creating false visuals in the form of floating bright lights.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-64012", "score": 0.7295299172401428, "text": "Looking at something exercises the rod and cone cells in the back of your eyeballs which then send the signal down your optic nerves to allow your brain to process the information. If the subject is very bright, then your rod and cone cells get overworked and start to become less sensitive to whatever type of light they detect - *red*, *blue* or *green* for cones and varying brightness for rods. That means that, when you close your eyes or look away, a shape is retained over the area where your rod cells have become desensitised. The same principle explains negative colour illusions like [this](_URL_0_) except these rely on cone cells rather than rod cells.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-18", "score": 0.7130869030952454, "text": "It has to include equipment, pay for employees (all cast, crew, and extras), fees, *food* on larger productions, constryucting sets, making costume,s all of the makeup artists, set design, sound guy, camera guy, lighting guy, dozens of other specific jobs, and yes, the actors." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-100356", "score": 0.6773223876953125, "text": "Quite a lot. First the cinema will take a cut to pay expenses, which depends on all different things. The money left after in-house expenses will then be divided between the cinema and the studio. The split will depend on what has been negotiated, but from memory the studio usually takes 80-90%.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1130710", "score": 0.6771658658981323, "text": "I know this sounds like a dumb question but like in the store I work in we have an amount each day and as long as we hit it, all the staff salary, the electricity, the rent is all paid for. Obviously out goal is to to as high as we can but breaking even isnt seen as a horrible thing like losing money. Once a studio factors in the cost of the film and marketing and all other factors and reaches that, doesnt that comfortably cover the process of what everyone's paid? Obviously all these movies can make more through rental, merchandising, etc but even if it just broke even...why would that be so bad if everyone got paid?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1294160", "score": 0.6760948896408081, "text": "I’ve been offered 2% of the budget as pay if the movie gets made. Not 2% of the full budget. 2% of the “below the line” budget. Excluding cast fees. They guess 1mil on shooting the movie. 1mil on cast (at least).\n\nI’ve countered with 3% of total budget (which I see as pretty standard), with a ceiling of 150k (which in my experience with other options is standard, to cap writer’s payment if the cast got huge names or the budget went over).\n\nThey argue a 20k payout for me is amazing for a first timer. Even if the total budget reaches 2-3mil.\n\nIs standing my ground at 3% of total budget fair/smart?\n\nI can’t go into toooo much detail, just incase anyone involved clocks this post. May have already said too much.\n\nThank you all.\n\nEdit: I have yet to sign anything.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-129781", "score": 0.6758317947387695, "text": "You have to pay the actors. You have to pay the writers, and the producers, director(s), film crew, sound crew, stage crew, video editing team, special effects team. Just... a lot of people. Then you have to pay for the equipment. Stages to shoot, props, costumes, special effects (I'll get back to that in a moment.), cameras, microphones, lighting, and there's a lot of that to pay for. A lot of visual effects are on a computer, but it's not as easy as \"push button - done\". There are calculations, programming, testing, editing, and other processes that actually take a fair bit of time. While I can't put exact estimates on what portions cost more, you do end up paying for all of the people involved, all of the stuff used for, in, and on the movie, and the time is takes to complete it. The more time it takes, the more it will cost.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-107552", "score": 0.6757125854492188, "text": "Filming a movie takes thousands of people from assistant directors and personal assistants to caterers and drivers. Their salaries alone are massively expensive. If you're filming on location, imagine the cost of getting people and equipment to the locations as well as the cost of staying there. A movie is made up of a million little parts, all of which cost a little something and add up to those ridiculous numbers we see.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-515479", "score": 0.675631046295166, "text": "Hello all,\n\nMyself & three other friends entered a film competition. We won $5000. \n\nWhen it came to splitting the money up, there was a bit of discussion. One friend was only there for the day as an actor, while the rest of the team had been prepping for 2 full days beforehand. \n\nThe idea was that we would give ourselves a $500 day rate. So, $1500 for 3 of us, $500 for the friend who acted on the day.\n\nIs this super unfair? Should it be a even split? I'm so cut up about this I am all over the place. \n\nMoney is the root of all evil. \n\nAppreciate your time reader. \n\nEdit: Had written myself & four friends when we are four in total.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-143027", "score": 0.6741366386413574, "text": "Well you see, people like to watch movies So, when a movie comes out, millions of people might pay money to see it That means that big movies make 100’s of millions of dollars A small part of that 100’s of millions goes to the actors as payment for their work. But, even a small part of 100’s of millions of dollars is still a LOT of money, so big actors who make big movies can make a lot of money.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-86801", "score": 0.6722095012664795, "text": "Just because a show has a huge fan base doesn't mean there is guaranteed money in the venture. You have to consider the cost of production.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-957144", "score": 0.669417142868042, "text": "say you are a group of 4 friends making a movie together. no one is getting paid upfront but everyone will split the 'profit' if the movie makes any money. say you have 1 director, 1 writer and 2 actors... who is most valuable? who is least valuable? how do you quantify this value? split it 4 ways and everybody gets 25%? should the director or person who was responsible for making the movie happen get a bigger cut?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-114223", "score": 0.6685066819190979, "text": "If \"quality\" was just a filter, why would Hollywood spend $10k on cameras (they actually spend much, much more than that). The aspects that we associate with Hollywood quality film is a combination of professional lighting, professional cinematography, and professional equipment. The latter is by and large a *physical* thing. Our phones will never be able to take images like a real camera *because it fits in your pocket*. This means the lens and sensor has to be tiny. Movie cameras use massive lenses that capture WAY more light, and are capable of very shallow depth of field, and huge dynamic range.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-164393", "score": 0.6683278679847717, "text": "The are multiple factors: 1. Marketing Budget is not included in production costs. 2. In North America typically the studios take 80-100% of the take for the frist week of box office sales and then it drops off quickly after that. (which is why theathers charge so much for snacks). 3. Forgin box office takes are much lower, usually around 20% 4. Sometimes producers will take a certain percentage of the gross from the film as payment for their investment.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-41798", "score": 0.6678488850593567, "text": "You're not paying the folks that made the movie to watch it: you're paying the theater. That costs the same. Their equipment costs the same to run no matter how expensive the film is.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-168685", "score": 0.6670482754707336, "text": "You make a movie with me. Your contract says you get 10% of the profit the movie makes. The movie makes $100,000,000 in revenue. I hire my other company for $100,000,000 to provide catering. $100,00,000 goes into my bank account. Then I turn to you and say \"Sorry, there was no profit on the movie. My catering business sure is doing well though.\"", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-118074", "score": 0.6669541597366333, "text": "Theatres get paid by movie companies to screen that movie. That's why low budget films struggle to get a box office return, whereas Pirates of the Carribean can pull a billion across their movies. Having a big budget aides not only the production but the release.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-58401", "score": 0.6664928197860718, "text": "when you say a movie \"grosses\" 1 billion dollars, youre takking about total ticket sales. this doesnt include the what the theater gets, sales taxes, or other expenses. for a $10 ticket, the studio sees about $4 of that.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-87997", "score": 0.6662254333496094, "text": "The general explanation for this is that an individual movie (particularly a big budget action-type film) has only one shot to be successful. A TV show costs less per episode, and has more time to spend establishing characters and bringing in viewers. A movie has basically one or two weekends to make it's budget back and then some, otherwise it is likely to be a failure. This makes many of the people who back movies pretty risk-averse. If they think that looking like generic white guy number three makes it more likely that they will make the money they need, then they will push for that hard. Of course, that doesn't mean that this is the correct view. The most profitable film this year was Get Out, which is basically the opposite of standard big budget film material. But it's why people tend to make movies that don't depart much from the \"average.\"", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-191669", "score": 0.6647049784660339, "text": "Logistics is a big part. Building sets, moving costumes. Cars, props, people, supporting staff, etc. Is expensive. Modern movies like to skip practical effects and pay large digital firms to complete CGI elements, which is absurdly expensive. And is the reason some scenes are stripped down for cost.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1292802", "score": 0.6644731760025024, "text": "Or then you have a case like Marvel who stump up the budget and distribute the film and keep all box office gates.\n\nThen you have a film that will be distributed by one studio who take the box office but then another company will take the dvd / blue ray / VOD money. Is this correct? \n\nThen you have The Cloverfield Paradox. Paramount put up the 40mil budget, but made it back when Netflix paid 50 mil for “distribution” rights (apart from China and home video).\n\nWhat about the start of a movie when you see five or so companies at the start before the credits.\n\n\nAnd on a smaller scale, what about films who go to festivals like Cannes in the hope of being bought? Are they specifically looking for distributors? Would they be self funded productions and look for a bigger company to get them in cinemas?\n\nI thought I knew all this but apparently I don’t fully understand how things work.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-106159", "score": 0.6644471883773804, "text": "That cash will likely be used to offset production costs, resulting in higher profits -- slightly higher, at least, but not much considering the scale of the money they are spending on the movie in the first place. The point of the tax credit is that it will make it easier for them to hire more people than their original budget allowed; ideally, the government would want them to spend that entire $35m in Detroit in order to boost the economy.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1522", "score": 0.6624221205711365, "text": "They generally don't unless you win an award. They're usually funded by art grants or private investors as a proof of concept for the director and/or crew's talents.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-19", "score": 0.8036856651306152, "text": "While not universally true (especially in the case of Europe who gets to be called its own continent for purely cultural/political reasons) A continent is considered to be the primary landmass on its tectonic plate. If you look at a map of tectonic plates: _URL_0_ You can clearly see that with a few notable exceptions such as Europe and India. In general continents occupy their own tectonic plate. So then if you are a landmass that is part of a continent's tectonic plate but is not connected by land to that continent, than you would be an island. Although even this is a fairly tenuous definition." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-292642", "score": 0.7529268860816956, "text": "Well there are small islands just off the coast off the mainland around the world too. The middle of the ocean is very deep. Continents exist because the continental crust is higher than the ocean crust. Islands just off the mainland exist for the same reason, they are just separated by (relatively shallow) water from the mainland coast. Small island chains like Hawaii are created by volcanoes and stop growing when the volcano stops erupting. Islands like the British isles can be big because they used to be part of the mainland of Europe before the English channel formed.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-153403", "score": 0.7500366568565369, "text": "The difference between an island and a continent is fuzzy. There are a few things that suggest that Australia is not \"just\" an island though. For one thing, Australia is the dominant land mass on its own tectonic plate, so it's geologically separate from the other continents. If it was an island, where is its mainland? For another, it has relatively distinct wildlife, where an island would tend to share its wildlife with its mainland. It's also just really big, islands don't typically require multiple days to drive across.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-186031", "score": 0.746704638004303, "text": "Australia has its own continental plate, so it is a continent. Greenland on the other hand sits firmly on another continents continental plate (north America’s), so it counts as an island.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-124605", "score": 0.7403992414474487, "text": "It's basically random. Continents and islands aren't really things though. Like look at the Moon or Mars, they have low valleys and canyons and high plateaus and mountains and stuff, but if Mars or the Moon had a shit ton of water on the surface, you would see continents and a scattering of islands, surrounded by ocean. The Earth is the same. Water has submerged most of the surface, but some areas are at a high enough elevation that they are above the ocean's surface, and these areas are continents and islands. Think of it this way, an island is just an isolated mountain that is mostly submerged under water. The islands of Hawaii are a mountain range, but most of it is underwater, with just the \"peaks\" above the surface.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-644421", "score": 0.7222585082054138, "text": "Like the deepest parts of the oceans are way deeper than the tallest mountains, and more of the earth is covered with water than land, so wouldn't that mean that all land is just islands and if it was all flattened out, the water would easily cover it all? Never realized it could be a thing until the other day.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-294845", "score": 0.7220859527587891, "text": "Antarctica is a proper continent. It's just referred to as an archipelago in what you read because a sizable chunk of the actual land mass is below sea level (maybe because it's got a few miles of ice on top weighing it down). But underneath the ice is a continental plate like any other, that moves around like any other.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-97352", "score": 0.7189427018165588, "text": "Continents sit on continental lithosphere which is part of tectonic plates floating high on Earth's molten mantle. And Islands are either extensions of the oceanic crust, like Hawaii or other volcanic islands, or geologically they are part of some continent sitting on continental lithosphere.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-131984", "score": 0.7161334156990051, "text": "When used in the context of being a continent it includes Australia. Otherwise it just refers to a region of islands and not a continent.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-75105", "score": 0.709412693977356, "text": "Also, Greenland [is an archipelago](_URL_1_). But if the ice was gone for thousands of years, it would sponge back up and become an island again.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-271159", "score": 0.7049345970153809, "text": "OK, geographically it is considered the same continent. Geologically [New Zealand is on two separate tectonic plates](_URL_0_) - there is a singificant tectonic boundary which passes between North and South Island, and down the Southern Alps. So North island and the Western edge of South Island are on the Australian tectonic plate, while the rest is part of the Pacific tectonic plate. The problem I think you're having is that the word continent has several different meanings (and a craton is something different again).", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-110493", "score": 0.7031587958335876, "text": "It's simply too big. 7,692,024 square km according to Google. Of course the line between continent and island is some what arbitrary to a certain degree. But Australia is just so dam huge. Edit: It's also generally agreed that continents have a lower overall density and so \"Float\" on the mantle. Where as Islands are protrusions in the mantle that happen to be above sea level.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-661001", "score": 0.7005885243415833, "text": "There’s no way a little 100ft wide island can just be sitting out there, way in the middle of the ocean right? It seems like islands way out would have to be huge (an underwater mountain essentially). And then the tiny, tropical, single palm tree, desert islands we think of, seem like they could only exist right off the coast of some larger land mass.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-49406", "score": 0.6999941468238831, "text": "Land is not floating on the sea. Land is attached to the crust. The crust is what you find below the sea and surrounds the entire planet. Now, the crust is sort of floating on the magma layer below. The thicker parts of the crust (5-70 km thick) are high enough to be above water, the thinner (oceanic crust, under 5-10 km thick) are covered by the water. A typical bottom of the sea would be at 3.5 km below sea surface, a typical continental platform would be like 200 m. This means, surrounding the continents, there is a 200 m deep and like 100 km wide shelf than then steeply falls to the 3.5 km see bottom. On that shelf, any mountain, if you will, is an island. And big plateaus are \"continents\". You can also have underwater volcanoes, that spit the magma underneath the crust and can, with time, become higher and higher until they become visible islands. Like Hawaii. And then, there is The Netherlands.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-305684", "score": 0.6997217535972595, "text": "An interesting question! I suppose it comes down to the way tectonic processes work. The processes that form continental crust mostly occur at convergent plate boundaries, which means they don't occur in random little spots throughout the oceans to create islands (hot spots do that! But we're talking about continents here). That means that we tend to add continental crust onto existing continental crust, which favors large continent chunks rather than lots of small pieces. Furthermore, lots of stuff moves towards subduction zones, which are often (although not always) found on the edges of continents. As islands move towards these zones, they're sometimes sort of scraped off the descending plate and added to the continent, again favoring adding pieces to already-big pieces of land.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-38711", "score": 0.6991418600082397, "text": "Most of the Caribbean is volcanic in origin, and many of the smaller (as well as larger) islands have a central volcanic peak or a mountainous interior. These occur at the joint of two of the plates that make up the surface of the earth - the Atlantic and Caribbean plates. As well, some of the larger islands are part of mountain ranges. So, the islands are mostly the tops of mountains or the tops of volcanoes and there are lots of them. Stolen from [here](_URL_0_).", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-319516", "score": 0.6980916857719421, "text": "Basically it's arbitrary. Continents are decided based mainly on convention rather than specific criteria. Also Greenland is quite a bit smaller than say Australia. 2,166,086 square kilometers as opposed to 7,617,930 square kilometers.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-211774", "score": 0.6972044110298157, "text": "You'll have to be a bit more specific. Also \"discovered\" often denotes being found by a Westerner, despite being inhabited by natives. Australia was likely the last continent discovered. Many may argue Madagascar and New Zealand were some of the latest to be discovered/inhabited larger islands.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-27800", "score": 0.6939440369606018, "text": "No one decides. What a continent is just loosely defined and there is no official list of what is and isn't a continent. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1835", "score": 0.6934874057769775, "text": "It's not an island in the typical sense of a chunk of land you can walk on. It's a region of the ocean with a larger than expected concentration of microscopic plastic particles. The existence of this \"island\" is a problem because of it's size and it's risk to ocean life, but you could only realize you were even floating in it if you sampled the water around you and examined it closely. Edit: It appears it isn't **always** microscopic pieces, according to some of the videos shown below.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-203611", "score": 0.6924875974655151, "text": "I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking. Some countries were defined by pure geology. Islands such as Japan, Ireland/Britain, Australia, Madagascar I think are pretty obvious in some regards. Other nations were formed politically and over time. (obviously all nations changed over time and for political reasons.) There wasn't a convention where everyone sat down and decided how big each country would be. For example America was originally much smaller but after land purchases from Mexico, France, and Russia; prizes from war; and the original colonies, America became what we know of it today. Likewise, countries like Italy, Germany, and Spain were smaller kingdoms that formed together over time.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-20", "score": 0.766430675983429, "text": "Wikipedia's biggest issue is that their amazing service requires constant overhead. So donations keep it running. Have you ever been inside a server location. That shit is cold, and cold is expensive." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-68498", "score": 0.7245928645133972, "text": "_URL_0_ The main reason is that ads will compromise Wikipedia's neutrality and integrity. With ads, companies could use their leverage on Wikipedia to force it to change its content.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-46870", "score": 0.7194273471832275, "text": "Fundamentally, it's the same as Reddit or Facebook or any other website. When you submit content - be it an article, a post or a like - a record gets made in a database. The next time somebody views that page, the server reads that information from the database and builds a new page out of it. What makes Wikipedia unique is that (almost) anybody can edit (almost) anything and the system is set up to keep a history of it.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-85681", "score": 0.7173712849617004, "text": "They are always growing, but do not use ads to make money. This basically means that their only source of income is donations, which they use to pay for programmers, server hosting, etc. If they don't get enough money they will either have to shut down, reduce their size (less articles or access to less people), or take on ads (which could make usage more annoying and give companies some control over the site). They want to avoid this and so they are asking for donations. If you feel like they offer a useful/important service and you want to keep the site ad-free, then you should consider donating.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-17709", "score": 0.715265691280365, "text": "It can, but we wouldn't lose anything. When you're asking \"can Wikipedia go bankrupt\" you're really asking \"can the Wikimedia Foundation go bankrupt?\" - the answer is yes, should expenditures exceed revenue. We wouldn't lose anything though. The WMF doesn't own the content on Wikipedia. All of the original content (i.e. non fair use content) is legally copyrighted to whoever contributed the content. Wikipedia has as much of a right to host the content as I - or anyone else - does. We're all legally allowed to use the content because the copyright holder (i.e. the original contributing editor) released the content under the CC BY SA license. So should the WMF go bankrupt, we'd lose nothing except an inefficient organization which spends more money on \"outreach\" efforts than actually goes to maintaining and hosting the encyclopedia. Anyone can download a copy of Wikipedia's content at _URL_0_ and host it themselves.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-132378", "score": 0.7143216729164124, "text": "It's not laziness, Wikipedia doesn't want to worry about YouTube changing things or pulling down content. They also don't want to deal with potential copyright infringement claims. Legal or not those claims are a pain in the butt and can ruin a site's reputation. Disney is notorious for enforcing copyright and nobody really wants to fight them on it.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-191390", "score": 0.7112032771110535, "text": "Some people trust a central authority that vets the information that gets published, like Encyclopedia Brittanica. Others prefer a crowd sourced model where anyone can modify or add information, like Wikipedia. Of course, this means that anyone can add almost anything to Wikipedia, even if it’s known to be untrue. However, Wikipedia keeps a full edit log, and if an article gets noticed, misinformation will eventually get cleaned up. But an encyclopedia of any type is meant to be a jumping off point or quick reference; if you’re actually wanting to learn about a subject, you start with the works cited.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-150963", "score": 0.7098780274391174, "text": "You have to remember that the people who take time out of their day to write for Wikipedia are often people who care. That said, every information site has a specific \"style\" that people write in, and people who care would generally want to make their work become part of a bigger thing. Those articles that don't conform are usually fixed, if it has any informational value, by another good person.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-164268", "score": 0.7086216807365417, "text": "I like to think sometimes it's because people don't think to use google and want an easier answer than what Wikipedia provides. That and Karma Farming.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-457354", "score": 0.7082160115242004, "text": "hey everybody,\nIs there any sort of source on Reddit where I can ask for help and tips on publishing/editing Wikipedia articles? I feel as if this environment on the internet would be ideal for collaboration/help. Let me know if there is anything close to what i'm searching for. Thanks!", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-134052", "score": 0.7074115872383118, "text": "The strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and there's enough dedicated users that pranks and incorrect information gets fixed pretty quickly. Locking all of the entries would be counterproductive.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-565147", "score": 0.7058966159820557, "text": "I love that they are trying to live without adverts, but really, if that means that at some point we may not have a wikipedia, I am very willing to accept an ad bar to secure it's future forever.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-207448", "score": 0.7045151591300964, "text": "Wikipedia is the first and last place I go when doing research. I use it to get a feel of the subject matter, and then to mine the references at the bottom of the page. Upon completion of my research, I return to Wikipedia and use my newly gleaned knowledge to make the page better. If I cannot update Wikipedia, then I probably did not glean a sort of fluency with the subject matter and that I need to go do more research.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-157636", "score": 0.7041724324226379, "text": "Reddit has ads. Craigslist charges for certain kinds of job postings. Wikipedia operates on donations.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-220657", "score": 0.7033575177192688, "text": "[META]: Not wanting to backseat mod here, but could you please rehost that image of the pantheon dome to _URL_2_, rather than the (donation-driven) Wikimedia servers? Reddit (and this subreddit) are pretty high traffic, and I'd hate to see AskScience costing Wikimedia a bunch of money.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-72338", "score": 0.7024498581886292, "text": "Community policing mostly, and they do have staff that check articles that keep getting vandalized and such. The wiki community is astonishingly quick at times, and will fight to retain control over articles they contribute to.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-144473", "score": 0.700040876865387, "text": "The entire idea of Wikipedia is that it's a world wide, public collaboration. You might as well ask why Reddit doesn't stop letting people post links and just hire a team of professionals to post stuff instead.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1381848", "score": 0.6993992328643799, "text": "I found this Chrome extension, but it only kicks out a percentage. I want to be able to know not only how many articles I've read in a given time period, but which articles. \n\nI actually went through my browser history once and dumped it into Word and sorted it alphabetically to pull out just the Wikipedia links, then I removed anything that were links to pictures/named anchors (if there was already a link to the original page) and then I numbered them in order to give me a count. I did this for a three-month timespan, and I think my average was somewhere around 200 Wikipedia articles per month.\n\nBut there has to be an easier way than this! I can't be the first person to think of something like this--anyone have any idea? Anyone want to write an extension or Greasemonkey script like this/know someone who can? :-)", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-109981", "score": 0.6979119181632996, "text": "Iirc, the more someone clicks on something, the higher it ends up in search results. And a lot of people search \" < thing > Wikipedia.\"", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-68775", "score": 0.6973332166671753, "text": "There's no iron-clad guarantee that all of the information on Wikipedia is accurate. The prevailing pattern however is that there are more benevolent people adding correct information than vandals intentionally adding incorrect information. Some people take a personal attachment to certain articles and set up notifications that will email them whenever there is a change. Because of this, most popular articles are fixed within minutes of vandalization. But, that still doesn't mean that incorrect information can't slip through if done more subtly.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-657577", "score": 0.6964622735977173, "text": "This may not be the right place to ask this question, but I can't think of anywhere else to get an answer. I've been very curious if it's just coincidence, or what. Any input would be helpful. \n\nAlso the days I get donations are usually just slightly busier than the days I don't get donations. Maybe 25 visitors instead of 20 a day. If even that.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-21", "score": 0.739503026008606, "text": "The passive type of jug won't filter out bacteria and other things that can make you sick. There is a thing called [LifeStraw](_URL_0_) that can do this, but it forces water through a filter as you use it. Something like a reverse osmosis system can make water safe, but that also involves forcing water through a membrane. These things can't be done with just gravity." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-239", "score": 0.6706701517105103, "text": "Lots of people out there live outside of cities, they have water softeners, etc. But still the water is skanky and nasty. So, the britta filter comes to the rescue! It removes sulfer, iron, calcium, nitrates, and other nasty tasting stuff. In 3rd world countries they have similar things with silver membranes to kill nasties. Such as the Tata Swach. _URL_0_ The also have micron filters, UV lamps, and various other gizmos.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-65421", "score": 0.6624842882156372, "text": "Well I've done it for a long while. It's actually a bit of a process. I collect the water that runs off the house. bird crap and just general stuff like leaves runs into the gutter so I built a bit of a strainer and a small filter in the actual drain, right before the containment unit (in this case a large bin. (New from Home depot. Like a big durable black trash can). On a really rainy day, it will backup just a bit but nothing serious. I change the filter once in a while. Typically after a heavy rain. It's drinkable (check the pH and take samples) however, I typically just use it to water my plants. Any other questions feel free to ask.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1565722", "score": 0.6607118844985962, "text": "Single health conscious male. Bought a condo recently, water tastes horrible out of tap water. Plumbers even told me not to drink the city water. I have a costco membership and and have been buying water bottles, until I found a deal on a PUR Filter Jug. \n\nWhat's the most economical way to have access to drinking water? Should I keep buying the PUR filters every few months or invest in a water cooler from costco and buy the big gallon jugs from home depot / lowes?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-10859", "score": 0.6605176329612732, "text": "It does. The SODIS method is a way to use clear 2-liter bottles and sunlight to make water safe(r) to drink, very useful in third world countries.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-3942", "score": 0.6590595841407776, "text": "Living as I do in the rural western U.S., I was initially astonished at your question. For people going \"off-grid\" in my region, collecting rainwater in cisterns, for household use and not just gardening, can be a viable choice, and I know plenty of people who do it. So, I'll have to answer your question with two others. \"Says who?\" and \"Where are you?\" Those questions being asked, I'd be inclined to say that rainwater *is* safe to drink, as long as 1) you aren't living downwind from horrible sources of atmospheric pollution, and 2) you take reasonable steps to ensure the water isn't being made dirty by whatever you are collecting it with.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-275972", "score": 0.6562449336051941, "text": "[Yes and no](_URL_0_). Rainwater is basically distilled. It is not lab-grade pure - it naturally has a slightly acid pH from absorbed carbon dioxide and can gather pollen and dust as it falls - but pure enough for most purposes as it falls from the sky through clean air. That doesn't mean you'd want to drink from a rain barrel in Shanghai which has never been washed. Air is not necessarily very clean and your roof is [very likely not super-clean either](_URL_1_) (bird poop etc), and neither are many cisterns. Mosquitoes and pathogens can breed in the water and some states actually have laws against collecting rainwater.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2295759", "score": 0.6547291278839111, "text": "I've been reading about filtering devices and such for BOBs and started asking myself, why not test the water first and see if its within acceptable limits of drinking it instead of filtering straight away. Maybe the water in question is actually relatively pure and can save the life of the filter. Let us know if you have some kind of testing setup and if so what it is.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-847672", "score": 0.6537179946899414, "text": "I live in Texas where the summers are pretty brutal. Im wanting to store some of those 7 gal water jugs in my garage on a shelf. How safe is that to do? My biggest concern is the water not tasting right or the jugs busting\n\nEdit-Im talking about the 7 gal Aqua tainer jug", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-712485", "score": 0.6534120440483093, "text": "I live in a small town that's a little bit hilly. Directly behind my neighbor's house is a pond which is fed by water from storm drains. As far as I can tell, it's only water from the two nearby streets that end up in it. It does have a large vertical cement pipe in one corner so that when the water level goes up the water will drain somewhere else.\n\nIt's pretty dirty water: green, lots of plant life on the bottom and algae on top, some fish in it, black plastic around the edges to indicate that it's an artificial pond... Is there a way to filter this water to make it safe to drink? I know that it can be filtered through gravel and sand to help remove large particulate, and then something like a life straw or simple boiling to remove harmful bacteria. But what I'm worried about most is chemical or oil residue. The neighborhood went up in the late 1950's and early 1960's, and even if there are regulations today about how and where storm drain water can be routed, there likely weren't strong regulations back then.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-145706", "score": 0.6528667211532593, "text": "The first thing is that there is way more oxygen in a full jug. Second is that you contaminated the empty one with your mouth, the full container has cleaner water.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-551476", "score": 0.6488162875175476, "text": "Water is precious in my part of the world, so i have a big (~300L) plastic container to use as a reservoir for my recirculation needs (I'm a homebrewer / distiller, without recirculation the water charges would kill me).\n\nCovering it well enough to stop the bugs isn't practical, does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? I can put chemicals in the water as long as it won't eat away at the submersible pump in the reservoir.\n\nDeath to all bloodsucking insects.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-192481", "score": 0.6477864384651184, "text": "well, you can, you just have to get used to it. BTW, if you've drunk clean water your whole life, drinking water in India or Mexico will usually make you very sick at first, but once you have developed the right gut bacteria from drinking that water, you'll be fine. Truth be told, some people never get to \"fine\"...", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-430511", "score": 0.6470643281936646, "text": "I drink bottle water almost daily as well as tap water after I boil it. I'm new to filters and purifiers, so was wondering what's the best way of going about that? I was thinking of boiling and then using a filter?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-126104", "score": 0.6454206109046936, "text": "If you live in a city with municipal water and sewage systems, then it goes to a water treatment plant where it gets filtered, cleaned, purified, and then goes right back into the water supply. If you live in a suburban or rural area without municipal water, you probably have a septic tank. The septic tank will filter the solids out of the sewage and pipe the water to a leaching field. The leaching field acts like a big filter for the liquid sewage and allows the water to enter the ground, becoming ground water again. If you have a pump for your own water supply, you'll be pumping that water back up at some point and using it.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1255271", "score": 0.6445690989494324, "text": "I've been here a really long time and I've only consume bottled water, which is starting to bother me. Due to working from home I'm seeing exactly how much of a plastic waste this is creating and honestly, I am appalled by it.\n\nSo I'm wondering if anyone has a solution for it. I've looked through the online shops for water filters, and the most common solution seems to be those 3-4 filtration systems that connect to the water line. It's nice and all, but my current accommodation isn't quite suitable for adding something like that.\n\nThus, I was wondering if anyone knows if it'd be safe enough to just boil the water and then pass it through something like a Brita jug for additional filtration? I **REALLY** need to cut out the 18plastic bottles/week ending in the garbage.\n\nThanks.\n\nEdit : Think I should add this : I'm a bit outside Bangkok, in Pathumthani. The water supply is under PWA. Tastes similar to Bangkok, though haven't ingested either.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-934611", "score": 0.6441172957420349, "text": "I do some ultra distance hiking and running now and then and some of the most useful and weight saving gear I use is a bottle with a built-in water filter. \n\nI personally use a Lifestraw Go (600 ml bottle). The filtration is excellent. You can pour muddy water into your bottle and drink perfectly clean out of the nozzle.\n\nI do not recommend the straw. The flow rate is very low and usually water is at the lowest point around you so you have to lie head first into a stream for 5 minutes just to get a few mouthfuls.\n\nBut the bottle is great.\n\nFor families I would suggest more bottles or even larger solutions, I've seen plenty online. Just make sure the filter is of a very high quality.\n\nThis is the one I use: \n\nIt's basically filtering water though something like an N100 mask or better\n\nMembrane microfilter: 0.2 micron pore size. Removes 99.999999% of bacteria, 99.999% of parasites, and 99.999% of microplastics\n\n(sorry if linking is not allowed, I have no affiliation with Life Straw or any other similar company)", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2577390", "score": 0.644079327583313, "text": "I’ve seen mention them a few times but haven’t had any luck finding them myself when searching! Just looking for something that will filter harmful stuff out of normal tap water ideally", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-144013", "score": 0.6435998678207397, "text": "I don't think there would be a problem drinking it. For modern designs, the water doesn't actually touch radioactive material so it should just be normal water.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-39845", "score": 0.6424281597137451, "text": "That's a good idea, and it definitely works, but a lot of people don't have the space to keep a ton of empty containers around waiting to be filled with tap water and find it more convenient just to buy bottled water when needed. You can always fill up the bathtub - not great for drinking out of, but if you need to flush the toilet you can just grab a bucket from the bath tub and pour it down.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-708541", "score": 0.6422445774078369, "text": "I'm heading off on a trip next week where I will need to treat flood waters that are extremely muddy and I was wondering if anyone has any advice on how to best treat this.\n\nI'm planning to allow the water to settle overnight in a bucket and then use a MSR Miniworks to filter it in the morning, and potentially adding some bleach overnight as a secondary disinfectant. However, I am concerned that the water will still clog the MSR filter quickly.\n\nI was originally planning to simply boil the water, and this was what I did for the first leg that took 7 days. However this was fairly putrid still and I was feeling slightly nauseous after drinking the water for 3 days so I will be looking for better ideas for a 3 month trip.\n\nIt's a trip down the Murray-Darling river system in Australia, a long flat river system similar to the Mississippi River in the US. However, unlike the Mississippi, this is the first time it has flowed in 2 years so it has a lot of crap in the water.\n\nAny advice will be gratefully received!\n\nAlso posted to CampingandHiking\n\n\\[edit\\]\n\nSo potentially overkill, but the following method will be deployed\n\n1. ~~Homemade Milbank Bag to prefilter into a 10 L bucket.~~ My homemade bag was not effective, so I didn't use, but in the end, I didn't need this :)\n2. Alum treatment to clarify water overnight. Only a few pinches were required, and very salty if you overdue the dosage.\n3. ~~MSR Miniworks to filter in the morning~~ Apparently Alum clogs filters, boiled the water instead\n4. ~~Storage with 1/2 dose Katadyn Micropur tablets for 24 hrs before use~~. Tasted like crap, didn't use.\n\nI'm hoping the milbank bag will minimise the amount of alum required. Both will reduce the turbidity of the water extending the filter life and making the chemical treatment more effective.\n\nKatadyn tablets are a backup in case of a filter failure as this trip is in fairly remote locations where Cryptosporidium is common. Apparently sodium dichloroisocyanurate is required for treating Cryptosporidium. This is a source of free chlorine that is oxidative and should help reduce any blue-green algae toxins that could be present, albeit in low concentrations after the flood.\n\nIF the water gets really bad, I'll consider making a sock filter using charcoal that I can make using a stainless steel pot with lid on a campfire. Normal charcoal is not as effective as activated charcoal, but still has fairly good absorption properties!\n\nWith luck, I'll be taking enough water not to need any of this with maybe the exception of a couple of longer legs.\n\nThanks for all the feedback!\n\n\\[edit two\\]\n\nPost trip update here\n\n \n\nI only used Alum and a campfire to boil the water. Apparently Alum is bad for filters and the chemical treatment tasted like crap!", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-23", "score": 0.770796000957489, "text": "NASA requirements lean toward the 'overengineered' side (for good reason - if something goes wrong you can't replace it). The battery in your phone is more from the \"make it cheaper, they can always buy another battery\" school of engineering. (Just to clarify, I am not being cynical about phone/laptop batteries. Most people - me included - would rather not pay something like 100 times as much for a battery that is able to withstand operating on Mars and lasts several times longer.)" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1386499", "score": 0.7310747504234314, "text": "Its battery seems great but this video says that it would likely last around 10 hours.\n\n\n\nAlso, why are they not using an aluminum body instead of magnesium, it looks like aluminum's thermal conductivity is about 30% higher (205 vs 156). Is this for strength and weight?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-176682", "score": 0.7304584980010986, "text": "Phones use lithium batteries. Lithium batteries are terrible. AA batteries last 30+ years without being touched", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-76733", "score": 0.7296264171600342, "text": "The mAh rating of a lithium battery is not *really* a flat, constant value, it's also based on how fast you're discharging the battery. The more power you draw, the shorter your battery will last **and** batteries are generally given capacity ratings based on their expected usage. A phone is going to draw less than 5W of power while a laptop might run 50W - this can really make it difficult to compare the batteries between the two. Furthermore, when charging these devices, the laptop is going to draw much more power.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-119552", "score": 0.726696252822876, "text": "It should be noted that with Lithium-ion batteries, which is in most smartphones and laptops today, fully discharging them lowers the average lifespan. Small discharges and recharging more often between uses is encouraged in order to increase average lifespan. Fully discharging a lithium-ion battery could be if the electronic device was able to estimate how much time you had left (in time, not percentage) as a fully discharge would allow the device to recalibrate its estimates, but this should be done occasionally (e.g. on a monthly basis). **Sources:** [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) [_URL_1_](_URL_1_)", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-139970", "score": 0.7256989479064941, "text": "Actually, there is a lot happening in the battery-world. You can get normal batteries now that are many times longer lasting than a few years ago (AA lithium ione for instance). The problem is however that we also develop devices that are way more power hungry than before. Instead of monochrome displays, we use lcd etc. This results in the improvements kind of cancelling each other out.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-110119", "score": 0.725254476070404, "text": "Ahoy, fellow redditor. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: Why does the battery on your laptop or phone degrade if you charge it too much or for too long? ](_URL_1_) ^(_55 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why can't batteries be recharged infinite times? ](_URL_0_) ^(_59 comments_) 1. [ELI5:Why do rechargeable batteries go bad? ](_URL_2_) ^(_11 comments_)", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-93809", "score": 0.7242462635040283, "text": "Most (if not all) modern batteries in laptops and electronics are lithium-ion (li-ion) based. When you charge it, an electric current carries lithium ions from a lithium cobalt oxide cathode to a graphite anode. When you turn on the device, the ions then run in the opposite direction, to the cathode. Each time you charge it, some of those ions, now on the other end at the cathode, won't make the trip back to the opposite end at the anode. This is because the charging causes the internal structure of the cathode to degrade, making it less efficient. Over time, more and more ions get stuck at the cathode, and battery capacity goes down. Higher temperatures also speed up the reaction that degrades the cathode. If you've left your phone or whatever on a charger for a while, you'll notice it gets quite warm. This is degrading your battery faster, get it off!", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-877246", "score": 0.7229850888252258, "text": "Hello,\n\nI have a Dell Inc. Inspiron 7559\n\nAnd I'm just wondering if it is normal for laptop battery to go bad after 2 years.\n\nI put part of the battery report (from powercfg /batteryreport) in this pastebin, but if you need more info, I can post the whole thing if necessary.\n\n\n\n****\nI've seen a lot of battery tips online, but I'm not sure what's the best when it comes to prolonging battery life in the long term. Can you guys help me out?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2013675", "score": 0.7217546701431274, "text": "Also, a lot of the time my phone battery will die at around 15% when I'm using it outside instead of the 1-2% it can last until at room temperature. Why is this?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-310321", "score": 0.7212618589401245, "text": "When designing the rovers they decided that the weight that could possibly have gone towards a solar panel cleaning mechanism was better used for something else, likely some part of the sensing systems. The rovers that have benefited from cleaning events, including *Spirit* which is non-functional and *Opportunity* which is still functional, had a planned mission duration of only 90 Mars days (approx. 92.5 Earth days) when they landed in early 2004. The fact that *Spirit* worked as intended until it got stuck in 2009, over 20 times longer than its intended mission duration, and *Opportunity* is still working, is a testament to a combination of excellent engineering and fortune (the existence of \"cleaning events\" is on the fortune side of the equation). So *Spirit* and *Opportunity* don't have mechanisms to clean their solar panels because they were only intended to last 90 days and they didn't need them for a mission of that length.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-274751", "score": 0.7211822867393494, "text": "I'll just quote from a report done by Argonne National Lab on the availability of materials used in Li-ion batteries. You can check out the full report at _URL_0_ \"In the case of materials for lithium‐ion batteries, it appears that even an aggressive program of vehicles with electric drive can be supported for decades with known supplies\"", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-803486", "score": 0.7185931205749512, "text": "Urgent answer needed. I'm really clueless on lithium ion batteries. I have a laptop about 5-6 years old that I have been using. It's been on charge 24/7 because for some reason the screen doesn't work without it. It was swollen from heat for about a year or two but I didn't think much of it and now I have found it it could be really dangerous. Have I been breathing in toxic fumes this entire time and what should I do with it now?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-109371", "score": 0.7185072302818298, "text": "Cost effectiveness and battery capacity are the reasons — specifically cost effectiveness of manufacturing batteries with decent energy densities and output profiles. It's *possible* today to build a lithium ion battery that will last for decades without significantly degrading in performance and a high energy density; it would cost millions due to the quality control and testing and hand-tweaking and exotic processes in manufacturing. A similar situation existed a decade ago with respect to lithium ion batteries just for laptops, which don't draw much current (unless they are designed more like desktops). Before that for iPods. Before that for Nickel Metal Hydride technology. Before that for alkalines. Before that for lead-acid batteries. The challenges are similar to the ones faced by people who want to build large structures out of graphene: small structural or chemical flaws on the scale of individual atoms have a very large impact on the theoretical performance of the structure.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-184690", "score": 0.7182698249816895, "text": "Regular disposable batteries are alkaline. Basically they have two compartments of different materials that when joined create electricity. Eventually this barrier between them corrodes and the battery died because it's been all used up. Rechargable batteries have a different composition inside- nickel cadmium (they say so usually somewhere on the outside). This stuff can die because the nickel side (I think the nickel side anyway) absorbs the electrons from the other side, same as the alkaline batteries. It's just that cadmium can have its electrons replaced with another power source- that charge box you stays plugged in. Lithium ion batteries, like for phones and laptops and stuff, operate similarly with the multiple compartments but they are powerful and more expensive so they're not used for double a size for a remote or something. That's way too expensive.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-272364", "score": 0.717377245426178, "text": "Yes - actually, this happens quite a lot, and this is part of why Spirit and Opportunity lasted for so long. The Martian wind partially cleans the solar panels, so although they quickly became fairly dusty, they still ran fairly decently for quite a long time.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-256376", "score": 0.7151997089385986, "text": "The electronics are not the problem, it's the batteries (although even electronics have a lower temperature limit). The rover I assume you're asking about, Opportunity, is powered by solar panels, not RTGs, and thus needs sunlight to continuously recharge its batteries. The current dust storm is blocking over 99 & #37; of the sunlight, meaning there's no power. The rover is in a low-power fault mode where everything is turned off except the mission clock, which periodically wakes the computer to see if there's enough light to begin charging the batteries again. At low enough temperatures, the batteries will freeze, which means the mission clock will shut off, and the computer will never wake up again, and that means the end of the rover's lifetime. Normal operations of the rover include powering heaters and thermal control systems that keep the batteries and the rest of the electronics at optimal temperatures, but these are all shut down now.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2214840", "score": 0.7147732973098755, "text": "I recently bought a device (the Planet Gemini) that was hardly used. The battery was at 0% when it arrived, because the owner hadn't used it in a year. I've had some bad experiences of batteries dying from not being taken care of properly. But to my satisfaction, it's still alive and even has quite a good battery life. However, having the maximum battery life is important to me. So I'm wondering: do you think its current battery life is (significantly) shorter than if you were to buy one from the manufacturer?\n\nIn case it matters: the device is an Android PDA with a 4,220mAh battery. It gives about 7 hours of screen time as it is.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-236398", "score": 0.7143099308013916, "text": "I'm very skeptical of their results and there is almost certainly something we aren't being told. One of the greatest limiting factors in battery charging is the rate of ion transfer, which won't be aided by additional electric conductivity. One of the major causes of battery degradation is due to fracturing of individual electrode particles. This fracturing is induced by large ion gradients and will only be made worse through higher charging rates. I would be curious to see how their cycle performance holds up, though I suspect that it degrades rapidly.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-277524", "score": 0.7139875292778015, "text": "Battery life *has* improved quite a lot. Ten years ago, you'd be happy if your laptop lasted two hours, now the best easily last six hours on a battery of similar volume. When it comes to phones, it seems there hasn't been much improvement, but that's because mobile phones have gone from relatively simple devices to multimedia smartphones, with big screens and much more powerful processors and larger memory. Battery research is seeing heavy investment at the moment, so it's quite likely that the performance will continue to improve significantly the coming decades.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-313102", "score": 0.7132198810577393, "text": "The thing about electric/hybrid car batteries is that they are built and run in such a way as to maximize lifetime. They get a pretty pampered life compared to something like a cell phone battery. They have better charge/discharge cycles, better charging/discharging rates, better thermal management, better cell balancing, better chemistry in terms of lifetime, and better mechanical construction. So while they both in the same family of battery, EV batteries are given every possible advantage while laptop/phone batteries are constantly being pushed to their limits.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-24", "score": 0.7070754170417786, "text": "Because every state has a different tax rate on goods, so that would make putting tax into the price a little difficult" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-182804", "score": 0.6716959476470947, "text": "When the vehicle is re-titled in the new owner's name the tax is applied. Many states calculate tax based on the fair market value of the vehicle, not on the sale price, so selling it for a dollar \"officially\" won't get you anything. The tax will still be based on the value fo the vehicle as set by some standard, whether it's NADA or KBB, or whatever it may be.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-185293", "score": 0.6712738275527954, "text": "Let’s say you want to sell apple pies. You buy all the ingredients, make the pie and sell it. You’ve paid for flour, apples, sugar, fat, etc. For one pie, these ingredients cost you 5$. You sell the pie for 20$. You’ve added 15$ of value to those ingredients, so you are taxed on the value you’ve added. At 10% that’s 1.50$. If you had a sales tax at 10%, there would be 2$ tax. Value added tax makes it so every company along the way pays for the bit of value they add, instead of taxing the ultimate company before the final consumer purchases the product.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-530955", "score": 0.6710047721862793, "text": "Every guitar has a list price and an actual price which is a couple hundred dollars lower. Manufacturers even advertise the actual price. Why does the list price exist of no guitar is actually sold for it? I thought there were laws against having items be constantly on sale.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-52422", "score": 0.6708167195320129, "text": "While simple supply and demand is a factor, in the case of Norway its more to do with high taxes. Sales tax in Norway is 25 percent, so while you can buy less with it in Norway itself the currency is worth more than it seems.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-179940", "score": 0.6705411672592163, "text": "A sales tax is only collected at final sale to a consumer. Vat is applied every time something exchanges hands. So for example lets look at a bottle of wine. In the sales tax system only the bottles final sale is taxed but in a VAT system the sand that goes to the glass maker is taxed, the empty bottle is taxed when it goes to the vinyard, the wine is taxed when it goes to the store, and then it is taxed one final time when you buy it. If the VAT system rates are low enough there will not be much difference in the final price, but there is potential for massive price inflation very quickly because you keep charging tax as you go.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-175576", "score": 0.6702561974525452, "text": "1 - If an item is \"on sale\" 100% of the time, then it's not on sale. That's just it's regular retail price. So a business can't lure people in with \"on sale\" when it's not an actual special reduced sale price. That's considered bait and switch. & #x200B; 2 - Prices are increased to cover the cost of sales and rebates. & #x200B;", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1963265", "score": 0.669998824596405, "text": "Have you noticed that Amazon will now charge you sales tax on everything, as if you were buying at a local retailer? Or that out of state internet vendors also charge sales tax? It's a result of the Supreme Court's decision from 2018, which allowed states to levy sales taxes on internet sales from out of state. After 30 or so years of freedom, the internet is getting locked down, and this is just one of the ways.\n\nLet's pause for a moment to understand what it means to a working American, as sales taxes affect the poor disproportionately and further contribute to the growing income gap. If you spend 2/3 of your income, and out of that half goes to internet sales, and your local sales tax is 7% (pulled it off the internet without verification, \"average sales tax in the US\"), your effective tax rate just went up 2.3%. Meanwhile, if you're richer and only spend 1/3 of your income, your taxes went up only 1.6%, with the very richest affected only negligibly.\n\nAnother effect is that small merchants cannot navigate the patchwork of state income tax laws, so they need to start offering their goods through one of the large marketplaces, ie Amazon. This is the focus of the only mainstream article I was able to find via Google: from merchants, if you ever thought of starting your own marketplace business, the bar just went up.\n\nThis went down so quietly, I cannot but suspect another foul play where our attention is being purposely diverted by day to day bickerings, and profound policy changes happen quietly behind the scenes. \n\n\n\\Edit\\] Relevant chart from the wikipedia showing how sales tax affects different income groups: [#/media/File:Average\\_Effective\\_Sales\\_Tax\\_of\\_the\\_50\\_States\\_(2007).gif", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-28408", "score": 0.6699498891830444, "text": "It's backlash against the sellers who list an $20 item for $1 with $25 in \"shipping fees\" to avoid paying eBay a cut. It's legal because eBay owns Paypal, and since most payments are made through paypal they're not required to separate shipping from sales, they can just take a cut of all of it.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-140467", "score": 0.6698499321937561, "text": "It is not the standard everywhere. For instance in Europe the 40% batches were common, so they put a tax on 35% and higher liquors. Now here they sell 33% liquors.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-132866", "score": 0.6696475744247437, "text": "Its not the same for all countries. Prices are set to whatever the publishers think people will pay. In the UK, for example, games come on the market at £30 to £40 which is $46 to $61 (according to Google currency converter) and they drop in price much faster. In the US games are $50 to $60 (before tax). Its all dependent on what publishers think people are willing to pay.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-169104", "score": 0.6695711612701416, "text": "You order a thing from a store, the store orders the thing from the manufacturer, and the manufacturer ships it directly to you. The store processed the order but was never actually involved in the physical transfer of goods. This can make sense because the retailer is set up to collect sales tax and process small transactions, while the manufacturer does not collect sales tax (it's B2B, which is tax-free) and will just invoice monthly or whatever and collect a single payment on that invoice.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2142339", "score": 0.6694689989089966, "text": "I just tried to buy two of the $5 lunch specials from a local LC. The gentleman at the checkout told me the total, which was nearly $14. \n\nThe advertised price is $5 for the drink and the pizza. There's no \"sugar drink\" tax where I am (Central AR). If I go next door to Wendy's and get a burger combo for $5, the tax is something like 50¢ if that. \n\nWhat the hell?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-3422", "score": 0.6685335636138916, "text": "Sales tax is applied to everything. But on top of that the government can also impose extra taxes on certain products. So for a \"luxury tax\" that means that the government needs more money and taxes certain products a little more with the justification that if you can afford those products, then an extra 0.5% or so isn't going to make a difference to you.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-948035", "score": 0.6685307025909424, "text": "Finding a lot of conflicting info. No physical presence in US. \n\nLet's say you have a Canadian corporation, but you send stock to a US warehouse and sell to American customers. \n\nYou would also have an American EIN number, which is a required to import product there. \n\n\nDo you need to file income taxes in the US? I'm reading you have to fill out some forms to claim tax relief due to the Canada US treaty. However, the treaty covers you at the federal level. What about the State level? \n\nFor example, California does not recognize the Canada US tax treaty. So when have federal tax relief from the IRS, but what about the state level? Which state do you even pick when you file taxes with the IRS?", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-24097", "score": 0.6683346033096313, "text": "You can't sell something to yourself or someone close to you (i.e. your wife) and expect anyone to accept the sale price as the fair market value. It's not what is called an \"arm's length transaction\". This is the same reason you can't circumvent inheritance taxes by \"selling\" a house to your grandchild for $1.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-116855", "score": 0.6681789755821228, "text": "Virtually every country does this. Different taxes are used for different things. Here in the US income tax goes to the Federal government, Property taxes go to the city and county, sales taxes go to the State (and sometimes also to the County/city). I do not know the specific structure in Australia but I assume something similar with their set up.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-103939", "score": 0.6679986119270325, "text": "Not all places have prices next to food either. Generally speaking, the higher-class type of establishment it is, the less likely they are to list prices, because it is assumed the price is not of concern to you. Drinks tend to do this even at mid-level establishments, to not discourage people from ordering a few, especially as drinks are almost always the main driver of income for restaurants.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-559072", "score": 0.6679939031600952, "text": "Buying new appliances and I see a tariff tax on my quote. I did not think that kicked in yet or maybe was delayed?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-174256", "score": 0.6678857803344727, "text": "Generally there is a bunch of reasonably sensible reasons you wouldn't have to pay tax on something. Some way it is counted as already having paid, or not actually your own money or something that would be weird to tax, or something they want to encourage so they give a tax break on it or something that counts as losing money in a way that would be unfair to tax. It's all a bunch of rules that all one by one make sense. But if you hire the \"half press mario 64 A button\" guy to think about tax rules instead of mario jumps they can figure a way to break the tax game to make all the money count in all the different ways in ways that fit the exact letter of the law.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1137738", "score": 0.6678386926651001, "text": "I'm an EU citizen interested in American politics, and I've got to say that I've been really impressed with Andrew Yang's campaign. His policies and ideas are amazing and I think we need more people like him here in Europe as well. \n\nI've watched most of his interviews and there's one thing that bugs me off about his plan to finance the Freedom Dividend, namely the VAT. I was surprised to find out that America doesn't even have a VAT on a national level (here in Bulgaria the VAT is 20% and makes up a huge part of the budget). I'm not opposed to VAT on principal but Yang makes it seem as though this tax won't affect the prices for the average consumer at all, which I don't think would be the case. Prices of electronics and cars for example are much higher here in Europe, than in the US, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the VAT at least partially responsible for that?\n\nWould Amazon really be paying their fair share to the state if it just raises the prices of everything to compensate for the VAT? Am I missing something here? \nAndrew Yang specifically said in one of his interviews (I think it was Breakfast Club) that prices won't go up, because all it would take is one business owner refusing to raise the prices, to disrupt all of his competitors and that would make the prices normal again. OK, that may be true on a local level but who really can oppose Amazon when it comes to this. They've become such a monopoly on online shopping that I don't think even raising their prices with 10 or 20% would make any difference to their business at all.\nAnd of course average consumers wouldn't be so mad about such a price hike if they have a 1000$ extra every month, so it's unlikely they'll start looking to buy from competitors. So where really is the incentive to keep the prices as they are so that the VAT is something that Amazon pays and not you – the consumer. \nAlso something that I want to ask is don't you guys have a VAT on a local level in America? If so, won't a federal VAT just add to that and make things even more expensive?\n\nAnyway sorry for the long post, I genuinely hope Yang wins the 2020 elections, or at least his ideas will gain some traction. He is seriously the most forward-thinking person in politics I’ve ever seen and has a very genuine, down-to-earth, problem-solving attitude that most politicians sadly lack.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-25", "score": 0.6853238940238953, "text": "Probably because the keg has been better handled than the cases of beer have, and because bottles are not actually the best packages for beer. Light passes through the glass and can cause skunking, and oxygen can sneak in through the plastic seal in the crown, causing staling. Kegs are generally stored cold, and of course are completely opaque and are much more resistant to oxygen ingress." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-76488", "score": 0.6509444117546082, "text": "Carbon Dioxide has a taste. The straw agitates and releases the CO2 from the beverage before entering your mouth so the CO2 will be at the roof of your mouth instead of near your taste buds. Therefore you cannot taste as much of it. Drinking directly from the open container allows the beverage to enter your mouth un-agitated for the most part. The CO2 is then released on the surface of your tongue and you can easily taste it. Same reason why flat soda tastes bad.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-295411", "score": 0.6508686542510986, "text": "Because the fluid leaving the bottle creates a vacuum that is stronger than the force of gravity on the fluid. This sucks the fluid back up and let's air in to equalize the pressure so fluid pours out again. If you want to pour smoothly either go slow enough that there is a path in through the mouth of the bottle or poke a hole in the bottom of the container, like shotgunning a beer.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-69225", "score": 0.6508223414421082, "text": "There are microscopic channels in your taste buds, TRPM5s, that are responsible for different taste sensations. The reactions of these channels intensifies when temperature intensifies. Ex: ice cream isn't really sweet when it's frozen, only when it melts more in your mouth. Melted ice cream is hard to drink because it's too sweet. Therefore, companies that create these foods take temperature into consideration to find the ideal taste of their product Addition: Beer is another good example, commercial beers like Bud or Coors are recommended to be drank at lower temperatures. Warm beer is disgusting, but cold beer nullifies the taste a bit and takes the bitterness off", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-285759", "score": 0.6506593227386475, "text": "Cork is the most porous and pry caps and crown caps have a lining on the underside which is also minmially porous. Most beers designed to age will actually use wax. There is a paper/website on this topic and if I remember correctly it actually found that aluminium cans seal better than bottle caps. It also does a better job of completely blocking off any light. Edit: regardless of whether any of that other stuff is correct, the answer to your question is no. Almost all other modern day bottling techniques are far superior to corking a beer.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-986096", "score": 0.6504481434822083, "text": "I'm a budding beer geek and I enjoy evaluating new beers. However, mouthfeel is the tasting factor I pay the least amount of attention to. I can pick out differences in the mouthfeel of different beers, but I've never been particularly blown away by a particular beer's mouthfeel. Either style-specific or generally across all styles, what makes a great mouthfeel for you?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-324745", "score": 0.6503502726554871, "text": "Not really helpful during a power outage, as this is more of a camping tip: Put a bottle in a wet sock and hang it outside. As the water evaporates, the temperature of the bottle (or any other object in the sock) will decrease a couple degrees. This is because the vaporization of a liquid consumes heat energy, which will lower the temperature of the sock. Then the bottle will lower in temperature as well due to conduction to the sock, until an equilibrium is reached. Do not expect to cool a beer to fridge temperatures, but this can surely help to make a beer much more enjoyable on a hot summer day when there is no fridge near. This will work better when it's windy outside, because the wind will cause the water to evaporate faster.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-39511", "score": 0.6501853466033936, "text": "I would imagine it happens with spirits and not beer because of the alcohol content. Beer is averagely 4/5% whereas whiskey is around 40%.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-1079329", "score": 0.6501786708831787, "text": "A while ago I brewed a pale ale with floral hops and Belgian yeast for a competition. At the time it lacked the classic Belgian yeast flavour (had a floral hop character but indistinct malt/yeast flavour) and wasn't quite as clear as I would have liked. Admittedly it only spent about two weeks before kegging plus another two before bottling (counter-pressure).\n\n I tasted a bottle this evening that has spent about 2 months in a PET bottle at room temperature and then maybe 2 weeks in the fridge and it tastes just as I had hoped/designed. \n\nDid I take this out of the FV too early? Should it have been 'lagered'/cold conditioned? Would it have benefited from filtering?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-136715", "score": 0.6500976085662842, "text": "Alcohol doesn't necessarily get better with age. Many wines are aged in a process involving very specific environmental conditions before they are bottled, but once they are bottled the aging stops for the most part. The taste can still be changed through light, heat, etc, but at the end of the day if you had a $2 bottle of wine from 1970, it will still taste like cheap wine. Source: took a university course in viticulture (study of grapes) and enology (study of wine making)", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-167864", "score": 0.6499785780906677, "text": "For the same reason that warm wine tastes different than cold. Cold liquid makes your palate not be able to process taste as well. Cold water tastes like nothing. Heat the water and you can taste all of the minerals.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-16284", "score": 0.6498045325279236, "text": "Beer has a lot more variability than coke so this question is hard to answer. But I'm going to say a beer is better. With coke you're ingesting sugar, with beer the sugar has been converted to co2 and alcohol. But again, beer is a very wide open area. For example, an unfiltered ale is better for you than a filtered beer because the yeast trub at the bottom of the bottle contains a lot of vitamins and minerals.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1967857", "score": 0.6498008370399475, "text": "Tonight I did a beer tasting with some friends where we compared a Dark Lord 2010 and a Dark Lord 2009. I was shocked at how much better the 2009 was than the 2010. The tastes were similar but the 2009 was significantly more distinct than the 2009. My gut instinct was that this was a difference of recipe, but I'm not sure.\n\nWhat's the community's feeling? Can aging a beer make a significant difference in taste?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-140102", "score": 0.6497736573219299, "text": "They are not air bubbles; they are carbon dioxide bubbles. When beer is made, yeast turn sugars into alcohol and carbon dioxide. Some of this carbon dioxide dissolves in the beer. When you open and pour the beer, the carbon dioxide comes out of solution and creates bubbles.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1969074", "score": 0.6497730612754822, "text": "Lately the IPAs and DIPAs I've been trying are starting to taste more like fruit juice than beer. The last one I had yesterday tasted like grapefruit juice. Not sure I really like this trend. Maybe I need to try another style. Anybody else notice this trend?", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-60284", "score": 0.6497688293457031, "text": "I'm sure it's silly -- *I really do* -- but I've always found that Coke tastes better (and seemingly colder) when drunk out of a can, than out of a plastic bottle. I'm sure I'm full-of-crap, but my head tells me it tastes better.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-320813", "score": 0.6494079828262329, "text": "This is actually one of the cooler examples of beer physics in the sense that it's an everyday example of homogeneous nucleation. Most rain drops form by adsorbing onto dust. But the vapor in the neck of a beer bottle is pure water that condenses because, as the pressure drops instantaneously, cooling the water enough for the phase change to occur.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1628127", "score": 0.6493383646011353, "text": "So I did brew a kit that is already ready ( Micro-Brew). So you just need to add the wort to the fermenter , pitch the yeast and then wait. I haven’t brew for 2 years .. so why non going easy. \nThen I had to dry hops it around 1 ounce for only 3 days in secondary fermentation. I tasted it just before bottling and it tasted really really bitter , like if you chew a hops pellet. I was thinking that maybe the hops are in suspension so I did the bottling process. \nNo I tasted it after 1 week and then 2 weeks after the bottling process and the taste doesn’t seems to change at all. \nIt smell like a White beer ipa ( maybe a little yeast like a hefeiwenzen ) \nSo I m wondering what could be that after taste that is really bitter. What did I do wrong. \n\nContamination ? \n\nBeer too green / young .. will it improve with a long bottling conditioning ? \n\nDry Hops ? Sadly I did not taste the beer before dry hoping it , but around 1 and 1/2 oz of dry hoping should not be too much for 5 gallons. \n\nMy Starsan was around 3 years old ( in the original bottle .. so not the Starsan mix which i know is stable for around 2 weeks)\n\n\nAlso beers always smell like a good IPA even when bottling. \n\nThanks guy !", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-84011", "score": 0.6491808295249939, "text": "When water is splashed around, extra oxygen gets dissolved in it which makes it taste \"sweeter\". When water sits still for a while the dissolved oxygen floats to the surface and gets out, giving the water a flat taste.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-140662", "score": 0.6491320729255676, "text": "My best guess would be that most of the carbonation has left the bottle (depending on how fast you drink it), leaving the last drink or two tasting bland and flat.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-847491", "score": 0.6490814685821533, "text": "Is there a way to allow me to tap a keg and then have it remain fresh for two days? Like something that charges it with a co2 cartridge? I feel like I've seen them but have only come across homebrew kits in all my searches.\n\nFrom my experience the pump keg taps end up with a flat keg if you don't finish it that night due to pumping air in rather than charging it with co2 like a bar would do.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-27", "score": 0.6842718720436096, "text": "Sort of. It's called [Mithridatism](_URL_0_), after a Roman-era king of Pontus (northern modern Turkey). But you can only do it with certain poisons; others just build up in your body until they kill you." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1915680", "score": 0.6499248743057251, "text": "I'm aware a few cultures have used poison to hunt with but does that mean it's always okay or are there certain poisons that can be used that way?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-42242", "score": 0.6495266556739807, "text": "Long time ago when humans didn't have doctors or better medicine, the bodies were at a much more risky position. Imagine wondering in a forest and picking up some wild fruits that were poisonous to eat. Later on you would end up dying as a result. So the body evolved into having these reactions whenever it sensed that some poisonous things are in your food. Obviously these poisonous things are also found in other types of foods that are regarded as safe. As a result we still have these reactions in some of us.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-258531", "score": 0.6495091319084167, "text": "Every defense mechanism has false positives (for example, when you body attacks itself, like in an auto-immune disorder) and false negatives (for example, when your body doesn't attack a pathogen). Various parasites have the advantage of having had millions of years to evolve their evasive mechanisms and their defense mechanisms to avoid detection or mitigate attacks by human immune systems.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2199499", "score": 0.6491197347640991, "text": "\n\n\"...He said even childhood vaccines contain metals, which contribute to the metal toxicity in the body.\"\n\n\"In the future, he said he hopes to start more of a holistic healing center, where he could help people address the toxic behaviors in their lives, such as wearing makeup or perfume, drinking non-organic coffee, eating processed, frozen foods and really anything that is a staple of the standard American diet today.\"", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-313271", "score": 0.6490194201469421, "text": "Absolutely. Your immune system can attack anything that looks foreign, which can include cells infected with virus or bacteria, or even cells that have mutated (they now look different) and become cancerous. [Here's a link to a video of a Tc cell attacking a cancer cell](_URL_0_), it's pretty cool! We have no idea how often this happens (you'd have to have a trillion microscopes on all of your cells throughout your life). I've heard oncologists say maybe between 5-10 times in your life.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-126034", "score": 0.6490006446838379, "text": "The body *doesn't* know that those things are harmful. In fact, many poisonous substances work because the body things they are better than the real thing. Your body is not conscious aware of things that are harmful, it is operating on autopilot. For many things you have evolved an automatic response, but there are other things which your body does not recognize as harmful.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1416296", "score": 0.648936927318573, "text": "hypothetical question. let’s use cyanide as an example since it might vary via poison \n\ni’ve seen different sources say different things so i want some confirmation", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-120898", "score": 0.648273766040802, "text": "Yes there is truth to that. First of all you need to make sure that you have a simple cold, flu etc. 2nd, drinking plenty of water, eating correctly and resting are great NATURAL ways of getting over a relative illness. By not taking medication, you are MAKING your antibodies fight their own battles. NOW, the reason why more and more medications have become the norm is because people in general have become more fat and unhealthy. Being out of shape does impact your bodies natural ability to fight off routine illnesses to a point. If you implement a healthy diet, exercise and sleep schedule then your set for life.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-71550", "score": 0.648268461227417, "text": "Most animals that prey on something venomous have evolved a resistance or immunity to the venom. Mongooses that prey on venomous snakes for example are immune to their bites.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-120513", "score": 0.6479279398918152, "text": "They haven't. They're just trying to be fruitful and multiply. Any illness brought to man or beast is simply happenstance, an unintended consequence of infection and proliferation. Besides that, most bacteria are generally harmless unless they grow out of control. Take *Escherichia coli*, for example (“E. coli” for short). It lives in the human intestine, and it's only a problem when other bacteria (“gut flora” is a technical term) aren't around to keep it in check. Other bacteria are downright helpful, such as *Staphylococcus epidermidis*. You might recognize its cousin *S. aureus* as the cause of “staph infections,” but *S. epidermidis* is harmless and can even help protect against skin cancer.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-296719", "score": 0.6476890444755554, "text": "My wife, who is an RN, insists that the common cold is an almost infinite variation and that 'once you've recovered from a specific strain of a cold, you can never be infected with that exact strain of cold again'. Is our immune system really that bulletproof? My skeptic's radar goes off when she says this, but I don't have any reason to disbelieve her. Is this true or an inaccurate anecdote that is trying to express some complex function of our immune system?", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-225545", "score": 0.6476731300354004, "text": "I want to add a related question to this very interesting topic; did anyone ever perform an assassination, successful or not, by way of exploiting allergies?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-182125", "score": 0.6473029255867004, "text": "> Can't our body's immune system just deal with antibiotic-resistant bacteria by also making us immune to them? Yes we can, to some degree. And that's what vaccines are for. Stuff like tuberculosis, tetanus, and whooping cough are all caused by bacteria and vaccines make our body produce antibodies to fight off the actual disease if we're ever infected, which isn't a 100% immunity but it's sort of an immunity.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-160047", "score": 0.6470967531204224, "text": "We can and do strengten our immune system. We do this simply by getting ill, when we do our body creates the antibodies to fight that illness and then it store the \"memory\" of how to make them so next time we get that illness we can fight it off quicker and easier. (this doesn't work for flu because the flu virus is always changing so every winter it needs different antibodies)", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-170290", "score": 0.6470341086387634, "text": "While poison affects not every organism equally, plants did develop some poisons to avoid being eaten. However, if you look at the great multitude of so-called secondary metabolites, most of them are poisonous to either viruses, bacteria, fungi or other microorganisms, or insects, or even other plants. Plant evolution just hasn't had time to adapt to humans. So, if some substance from plants is a poison to us, it's accidentally so, and the target was another organism. Examples: nicotine is first and foremost an insecticide, nematistat, and herbicide; aconitine, atropine, caffeine are insecticides; many essential oils (causing allergies in human) are antimicrobial and so on. This has also to do with the fact that nerve cell physiology has not much changed since they developed in the first multi-celled animals, and poisons for insect nerves have at least some effect on human nerves. I copied and pasted this from another forum and this is the best answer I found.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-241410", "score": 0.6470237970352173, "text": "My understanding is that certain infections are \"remembered\" by your immune system, allowing your immune system to mount a more-robust response or straight up making you immune to reinfection. That being said, you really shouldn't go out of your way to expose yourself to pathogens. That is, of course, unless you're a young child. If you happen to be a young child, go outside and eat some dirt or something.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-76377", "score": 0.6469759941101074, "text": "Allergies have nothing to do with whether a substance or not is natural. Nobody is born with allergies. Allergies can only develop in response to substances that the body has encountered at least once before, when the immune response mistook it for another harmful chemical and built a memory response to future detections of the substance.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-284564", "score": 0.6468448042869568, "text": "I think you have to consider the metabolic costs involved. Toxin production is generally pretty expensive, so its much more economical to just incorporate toxins from your environment. So vertebrates could produce their own toxins (like snakes), it may just be easier, in many cases, to get toxins from diet.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-265875", "score": 0.6467974185943604, "text": "Yes, they're called [superinfections](_URL_3_) and [coinfections](_URL_0_), and can be very dangerous depending on the organism. Your body increases an immune response to the original pathogen. If a secondary pathogen also invades, it will have to mount a specific immune response against that pathogen as well. The flu is a virus, and superinections are what are responsible for deadly strains such as H5N1 due to [reassortment](_URL_1_). [Here](_URL_2_) is a good place to start if you'd like to know more. Cell-mediated and humoral immunity take 10-14 days to fully respond to an infection. It's quite an elegantly evolved form of protection and immunity. In layman's termsm, pathogens that make us sick evolve at a much faster rate than we can handle.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-246384", "score": 0.6466538310050964, "text": "Mithridates VI (The Great) of Pontus did something similar, at least according to the ancients. He was supposed to have taken tiny doses of various poisons, increasing them over time. When he was about to be taken by the Romans, he tried to poison himself and (of course) failed. Not quite what you were asking, but probably germane.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-28", "score": 0.7199780344963074, "text": "The Voltage of a battery depends on the charge. A five voltage battery may start with 5.1 Volt and slowly go down. When you're at 4.9 volt you'll know the battery is rather empty. I'm not sure if that is the case for all modern Rechargeable batteries. They might have special measuring and charging chips included." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-278292", "score": 0.6834339499473572, "text": "tl;dr: they draw from all batteries equally the majority of the time. In the vast majority of battery powered electronics the batteries are wired together in series. This means that the positive end of one battery is connected to the negative end of another battery, so the positive end of the first battery and the negative end of the last battery form the positive and negative for the whole battery cluster. This ensures (among other things) that each battery drains at the exact same rate, and it’s why most electronics powered by alkaline batteries warn against using batteries from different manufacturers or with different charge levels. That could make one battery run out before the rest which breaks the circuit and prevents the other batteries from providing power. There are some devices that wire batteries together in parallel or do other things to make them drain one at a time but that’s not very common.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-927812", "score": 0.6830710172653198, "text": "When a player successfully identifies a wand, do they also learn how many charges it has left, or should I just keep track of how many are left and tell them when it hits zero?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-34378", "score": 0.6829714179039001, "text": "Mine does. I mouse over my battery icon right now and it says \"99% available (plugged in, not charging).\" It'll get down to somewhere between 95-97% before it tops back off.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-181322", "score": 0.6828582286834717, "text": "Inside the batteries are tiny sticky bits, that hold the charge, like velcro. And like velcro, it gets worn, and will hold on less and less, until you have to replace it. Not overcharging helps, but wear is inevitable.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2065143", "score": 0.6827734708786011, "text": "I'm currently charging my watch and I was just curious is it possible for me to see what the charge is at on my phone without having to get up and go look at the Watch? If not this would be a cool feature for Apple to implement.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1906613", "score": 0.6827200651168823, "text": "I searched on google for like a indicator of battery that makes a shape (for my use, circle) turn into a certain color when charging. I also wanted to make it turn yellow when there are notifications. I figured out both codes but it doesn't work properly as intended. Can you guys help me?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-805148", "score": 0.6826376914978027, "text": "&amp;#x200B;\n\n\n\nThe aging of the battery is inevitably started when it is produced. Battery life (capacity) is related to the battery usage process (battery charging and discharging). With the increase of used time of the battery, the battery capacity decreases normally. Generally, the number of charge-discharge cycle is 700-800. A charge-discharge cycle is the action of charging the battery from 0% to 100% and discharging it from 100% to 0%.\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\n\n\n*In the above figure, the ordinate is the capacity percentage, and the abscissa is the number of charge and discharge cycles. As the number of charge and discharge cycles increases, the battery capacity gradually decreases.* \n \n\n**One of the factors that affects battery life is depth of discharge (DOD).** The figure below illustrates the Dynamic Stress Test (DST), which shows the capacity loss when circulating lithium ions at various charging and discharging depths. When a fully charged (100%) lithium-ion battery is discharged to 25% (purple), it will result in maximum capacity loss. If fully discharged (0%), the loss will be even higher. The cycle from 85% to 25% (green) provides longer life than the battery that is charged to 100% and discharged to 50% (light blue). To minimize capacity loss, it is recommended to charge to 75% and discharge to 65%.\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\n\n\n**Another major factor that affects battery life is temperature**. The ideal charging environment temperature of battery is 0℃ to 45℃, and the ambient temperature of discharge (usage) is -20℃ to 60℃. When the temperature is out of the range, you are advised to stop charging and discharging to avoid damaging the battery. When the external temperature and the use of phone cause the battery temperature to be overheat, it will affect or even damage the internal chemical structure of the battery and shorten the battery life.\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\n\n\n***PS:*** *The above data is for reference only. The actual data might vary based on different pre-conditions.* \n *Figure \\[2\\] image source:* \n * \n *Figure \\[1\\] and Figure \\[3\\] are from the network. Please contact us to delete the image if any misunderstanding or copyright dispute occurs.*\n\n*Source：", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-137414", "score": 0.6826348304748535, "text": "It used to be possible with older batteries, and you also had to avoid charging it too often as well, but modern batteries cut themselves out from the power when they're fully charged. They will also leave the battery with a very small amount of charge when the phone dies to prolong the battery life and keep the internal clock going too. Basically, lithium batteries would overheat when left plugged in, which would cause damage to the battery over time. * Source: [Older batteries shouldn't be allowed to overcharge because they would overheat -- \"modern devices are way smarter with managing power\"](_URL_0_) * Source: [Old batteries would have a limited number of recharge cycles -- \"with modern Li-ion batteries, you don't need to worry about performing shallow charges.\"](_URL_1_)", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2013547", "score": 0.6823776960372925, "text": "Alright, so I have four lead-acid batteries that are rated for 725 CCA. They are ranging from 9-12 CCA each. Well, charging takes a long ass time. Should I even bother charging these guys are call them dead?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-264065", "score": 0.6821154356002808, "text": "Lithium batteries will degrade if left in a low charge state. To get the capacity/run time out of a battery cell, manufacturers will let you push the device deep into the discharge state. But this comes at a cost of decreased lifetime. Since lithium cells have no memory like NiCd, it's best to charge them promptly. Although long term storage of a lithium cell at full charge isn't healthy either, but not as quickly degrading as discharged state. For longest life of a cell, discharging to 20% capacity and charging to 80% is generally preferred.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-267789", "score": 0.6820816993713379, "text": "I remember this phenomenon, it has to do with the technology of the batteries, before I believe they were NiCd batteries which had a flaw called the memory effect, where they behaved as if they were dischaged and caused a voltage drop but there was still some charge left, by resetting the device, the battery returned to normal voltage levels. Nowadays, with Li-ion batteries, this effect is gone and when your battery is discharged, it's pretty much 100% discharged (there is always a small amount of reserve charge left).", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-184067", "score": 0.681878924369812, "text": "The electrons will go where the voltage \"forces\" them to go, much like water falls or flows where gravity pulls it. So if the battery is the only generator of voltage, then the chemicals inside will react and produce electrons that will go through your device. However, if you connect a \"more powerful\" source of electricity, like for example a USB 5.0 V to a (normally) 4 V battery, the electrons go INTO the battery (because there's a 1 volt difference) and force the chemicals inside the battery to \"un-react\", thereby \"charging\" the battery. Basically to charge a battery you just connect a slightly higher voltage to it.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1526959", "score": 0.681691586971283, "text": "I basically want to run a script when my laptop starts/stops charging. If it matters, it's a Thinkpad x220.\n\nI was thinking maybe a udev rule, but I'm not sure if there is a better alternative, or how to make one properly in the first place.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-150770", "score": 0.6815280318260193, "text": "Your laptop computer is designed to run off its power supply. When the power is disconnected, the device switches to its battery. The phone is designed to run off its battery. When the power is connected, the device charges the battery. So when the battery becomes exhausted, it needs to be partially charged before the phone can work.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1625865", "score": 0.6814246773719788, "text": "Or do I need to look at the digital readout on the ipv3, guess where 10% is, and remove them and charge them before that? I'm wondering if the device will auto shut off and not allow me to fire my batteries too low.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-268601", "score": 0.6813940405845642, "text": "Is the charger self-contained, or does it run from external power? If its a backup system, that is self contained, then mAh is correct, but if it runs off external power (assumed to be infinite) then that is incorrec Is it [this](_URL_0_)? I think its a typo.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-322382", "score": 0.681337296962738, "text": "A battery is basically just two electrodes, and a permeable barrier between them that lets ions pass but not electrons. At each electrode there are chemical reactions, the reactions at the negative electrode deposits electrons at the terminal, the reaction at the positive electrode removes electrons from the metals and move those electrons into the other reacting chemicals. So both those reactions occur at some rate, a slower rate as the battery is depleted. When the battery is installed in a device, electrons move from the negative terminal, through the circuits, back to the positive terminal. So, the voltage of the battery is determined by the amount of free electrons on the negative terminal compared to the positive terminal. When you take away the drain of the circuitry, the number of electrons, and hence the voltage, is allowed to build up by the chemical reactions at the negative and positive terminals.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-293136", "score": 0.6810906529426575, "text": "All other things being equal, yes. Depending on the battery size, capacity, chemistry, etc. this may not be true in all applications, for example if the higher rate of discharge causes the battery to get appreciably hotter, it may perform worse than this simple model will predict.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-124569", "score": 0.680751621723175, "text": "Your phone and laptop have battery controller chips that regulate charging and discharging to keep the battery within the allowed current, voltage, temperature, and charge range. When the battery is \"full\" the controller will stop charging the battery and the phone will run off the incoming power directly rather than sending it through the battery and back out With modern devices the assumption is that the random charger you plug it into will be garbage so they all have their own controller that will protect them. You don't damage your phone by letting it charge overnight", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-289818", "score": 0.6806634068489075, "text": "When charging a battery that is also in use, the load is connected in parallel to the battery *and* the charging source. The source must be able to support both the needs to recharge the battery, and to run the load (since from the perspective of the charging source, all of it is a load). This is also what happens in a gas or diesel car when you have it running. The battery is used to store power while the vehicle is off or when only electrical accessories are used, and to operate the starter. But once the engine is started, the alternator (charging device) turns with the engine, regenerating lost electricity back into the system.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-29", "score": 0.7694017291069031, "text": "From what I understand, our bodies defenses against hypothermia is to shiver. This involves involuntary muscle contractions to generate heat. These muscles contractions still can cause muscle soreness just like working out." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-182757", "score": 0.723137378692627, "text": "When you pull a muscle you actually tear the muscle fibers. Usually when you get a pulled muscle you rest the muscle, elevate it and place a cold compress on it. Slight massaging can help blood flow to the area and prompt healing. I think what you might be referring to is a muscle cramp. And this is caused by dehydration or an electrolyte imbalance(mainly sodium, calcium and potassium). Stretching a cramped area helps reset the muscle back to a relaxed position by moving electrolytes around in the muscle tissue. [This](_URL_0_) Link shows how sodium causes a signal to be sent down muscle tissue. Once this signal is sent the muscle contracts. But if there’s not enough electrolytes in the tissue/surrounding area the muscle can not relax.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-2233589", "score": 0.7229048013687134, "text": "Muscles hurt after IM injections the day b4, would that be because of the quality of the water or what? Thank you.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-66755", "score": 0.7218300104141235, "text": "There are two things that cause your muscles to ache. 1. Because the muscles have worked really hard, they tighten up 2. Because working out causes tiny microscopic tears in muscle fibres, the muscles get a little bit swollen The common, most well known treatment for achy muscles is heat, such as a hot bath. What many people don't realise is that the swelling in recently-worked-out muscles causes a lot of ache as well. Cold reduces swelling, right? So an ice bath does for the swollen muscle fibres what the hot bath does for general muscle tightness", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-22910", "score": 0.719834566116333, "text": "Because being in water reduces stress on the muscles. Also, if the water is warm it relaxes the tension in the muscles.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-189867", "score": 0.7189286351203918, "text": "Sudden cold can cause the muscles to tighten suddenly which is painful in itself but also increases back/neck pain if that pain is originally from muscle stiffness. Source: personal experience", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-140690", "score": 0.7180768847465515, "text": "\"Feeling the burn\" is caused by a buildup of lactic acid on your muscles from you breaking down the contractile proteins that make up your muscle fibers. It it generally a feeling of muscle weakness and tenderness, and is often accompanied by Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS), which is soreness that begins roughly 24 hours after you perform an exercise that your muscles aren't used to. All of these should be more benign pain and muscle tenderness. But any kind of sharp, acute pain is a sign of actual muscle/connective tissue injury, and should NOT be worked through. The person should stop immediately, apply ice ASAP, and possibly go to a doctor if it's real bad.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-126792", "score": 0.7159857153892517, "text": "The water in the diving pool is cold, and when you're cold, your muscles tense up a little, and your circulation gets worse, especially around your extremities. Divers need to be very flexible and very precise with their movements, so they need to warm back up before their next dive - the jacuzzi warms them up so that they don't have any of the problems that come from cold water.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-19257", "score": 0.7103628516197205, "text": "Temperature sensing nerves work by temperature difference (so if the nerve is sitting at 80 degrees, then touches a 60 degree surface, it will feel colder than if a nerve at 70 degrees touching the same surface). So when you first jump into a cold pool, your nerves (which were probably pretty warm) will react strongly to the cold water. Then, as time goes on, the temperature of your skin drops, so the nerves don't react as much.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-264418", "score": 0.7093961238861084, "text": "The thermoreceptors in your skin send signals towards your brain when there is a *change in temperature*. When you have exposed yourself to cold water, you feel the immediate change in temperature at the surface of your skin. At this point, your sympathetic nervous system (which controls the unconscious 'fight or flight' responses) will stimulate the release of hormones which begin to cause vasoconstriction in your skin, arms and legs. Your extremities will reduce in temperature, and the temperature gradient between the water and your core will reduce, along with the feeling of 'cold'. Heat flow is proportional to temperature gradient, so you will actually lose less heat. Diminished skin and extremity blood flow increases the thermal insulation of those superficial tissues more than 300% [[1](_URL_0_)].", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-127618", "score": 0.7092937231063843, "text": "IIRC cold cause blood vessels to contract and \"sink\" deeper into parts of your body. The sudden rush of hot water causes a rush of blood to the skin and your brain interprets this as pain.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-2378377", "score": 0.7088091969490051, "text": "I feel like taking a cold shower after an intense weight-lifting session is a bad idea because the general advice is to stretch after working out to aid in muscle recovery. Stretching's prerequisite, of course, is to have \"warmed-up\" muscles. So if I finish working out, stretch and take a cold shower, I feel like it'd be counteracting my stretch or post-workout muscle recovery?? Is this a legitimate concern?\n\nOh and yesterday I took my first cold shower. No tricking myself or making it easier. And it was so painful at first but by the end, my body seemed to adjust and when I got out I was euphoric---couldn't stop laughing. I was cold the rest of the day, though. Anyway, I want to continue cold showers but I just wanted to know if you recommend it after working out cuz I don't think that's a good idea right now.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-5912", "score": 0.7079869508743286, "text": "This is likely related to something called the [mammalian diving reflex](_URL_0_). When cold water contacts your face, your heart rate immediately slows by 10-25%, and the blood vessels to your extremities begin to close off. This reduces the oxygen being consumed by your body, and leaves more available for your vital organs and brain.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-271034", "score": 0.7063857913017273, "text": "This happens because when your body gets cold it constricts blood flow to the extremities first so that it can maintain heat in the core areas of the body such as the brain and and abdominal. This causes nerves to shut down in the extremities which is why you don't feel as much pain when you are cold and any pain you feel seems duller. Then when you introduce sudden heat to the area it is a huge boost in energy to these nerves that were pretty much shut down and this energy causes them to surge and reconnect with the central cortex and you experience this as pain. Also, when they are hit by the sudden heat your nerves have to preform a kind of calibration to readjust themselves to what is actually painful.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-104209", "score": 0.7061532139778137, "text": "The cold water is hydrating, and it helps cool you down, both things needed when you are working. But afterwards the hot water feels nice because it loosens tense muscles and cleans your skin, helping you get that \"fresh out of the shower\" feeling where you can sit down and just relax.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-4119", "score": 0.7059374451637268, "text": "When your hands get cold the blood vessels in them contract. When you run them under *hot* water they expand rapidly, stretching them and the area around them, causing discomfort.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-164114", "score": 0.7055469751358032, "text": "Water is a much better conductor of heat than air. As a result you lose body heat much quicker in cold water than in cold air.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-719421", "score": 0.7055301070213318, "text": "I jumped in the cold shower after working out for like 20 minutes so I was feeling kinda hot and was able to shower with the cold water for 5+ minutes. does that count?\n\nI had tried once before a week prior and immediately jumped out because it was too cold.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-306666", "score": 0.7052175402641296, "text": "The main cause of damage in this sort of scenario would be from rapid volume increase in your arterioles, capillaries, and venules. When your extremities get cold, your distal (farthest from the center of your body) vessels constrict to restrict blood flow and maintain your core temp. When you warm up too fast, i.e. hot shower, that vessels pop open rapidly and you can occasionally tear the thin endothelial lining or do minor damage to the tissue around them. The opening of these vessels under negative pressure is the reason you feel pain from the water (over stimulation of nociceptors). You won't do any persisting damage though. Edit: Tearing your endothelial lining sounds more traumatic than it really is. Severely torn endothelium is what causes the dark circles under eyes. Edit 2: [Here's a picture](_URL_0_) Located under ruptured capillary. Color added.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-37936", "score": 0.7039668560028076, "text": "Two main reasons. The first is that your nerves are actually more sensitive at lower temperature. The second is that your skin and muscles are less flexible when it is cold (for a few reasons), meaning that instead of bending, they are damaged by the trauma. This means it triggers a more severe pain sensation when it is cold outside. Edit: typo/clarification", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-67820", "score": 0.7030783891677856, "text": "Your muscles contract during the winter, which leads to them putting undue strain on each other. Moving around more, stretching, and good hydration fixes the problem.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-30", "score": 0.7561081051826477, "text": "Our brains like familiar things. Something we already have seen is easier to get into than something brand new because it requires less attention and effort from our brain. It's also sometimes good watching a TV show knowing the ending (eg Black Mirror, Lost) as we can pick up on foreshadowing or minor details." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1292901", "score": 0.716749370098114, "text": "I am one that tends to re-watch old movies and especially series or franchises or universes. I am curious as to why other people do it. Even stand alone films.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-166328", "score": 0.7141633629798889, "text": "The thing I find fascinating about this question, is that recurring VIDEO bores us. We LOVE hearing that chorus blast over and over. But popular videos don't have \"choruses\" or visual sections that basically repeat over and over. WHY?!! Why do we love HEARING the same thing more than once, but we don't like SEEING the same thing more than once?!", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-57573", "score": 0.6996945142745972, "text": "You said it friend. Comfortability is key in retaining an audience. You eventually chose to watch those shows for the first time and since then continue to do so because you liked it, it's familiar, and it's entertaining. New stuff is scary and the cost-benefit analysis of wasting your time watching something new is kind of lame when you just wasted 3-4 episodes of your time trying to watch a new show but don't like it, and could have been watching your old show instead.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-50919", "score": 0.6995168924331665, "text": "There was a recent study that determined musical tastes are mostly based on repetition, simply hearing a song multiple times makes you like it. This explains cultural trends in musical tastes. Likewise, food tastes are also based around repetition, once you know what to expect, you begin to like something. It's the same reason kids like to watch the same cartoons repeatedly, they enjoy the anticipation of what's coming next, and the satisfaction of seeing what they knew was going to happen come true. Basically our brains like to know what's going to happen, so your brain rewards itself for correctly predicting what it expects a repeatedly eaten food to taste like.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1293632", "score": 0.6993246674537659, "text": "I find I'm doing this a lot lately as the years go by. I still watch the occasional full movie, but a few times lately I've turned one off only to read about the ending on Wikipedia. TV shows especially I find myself reading about, skimming, watching a few clips here and there rather than investing in the whole thing. Maybe I'm just jaded from watching too much stuff in my 20's and I'm getting old or maybe just too much stuff is being released now and, with almost every movie and TV show, available online, there's just too much content out there now. I mainly do this with TV shows, but found myself starting to do it with movies now too. Anyone else?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1293245", "score": 0.6971136331558228, "text": "If I am watching TV and come across a movie, that I own on DVD, I will watch it even though I would never got get that same movie on DVD and put it in to watch. \n\nEveryone in my family agrees with me on this, I was just wondering if others feel this way, and if so, why do you think this is?\n\nEdit: I am talking about movie channels, so there are no commercials.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1280240", "score": 0.6969793438911438, "text": "If I find a television series I can binge on, or a movie series I really like, and get into, and I know it’s getting towards the end of the series, I can’t finish it. \nI just stop watching. \n\nThere’s got to be a psychological reason for that, right?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-127111", "score": 0.6963131427764893, "text": "That sounds like a personal issue. I know many people who watch movies repeatedly. What you may be getting at though is the fact that for a movie or a TV show you essentially have to shut out the rest of the world to watch it. Listening to music takes less of your attention and it's easier to do other things while listening to it than it is to do other things while watching a movie.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-1292519", "score": 0.6946483850479126, "text": "Obviously I can't watch new \"old\" movies/TV Shows if I don't watch anything new but I think I've seen Inception like 4 times - I haven't seen in 2/3 years, and I end up binge watching TV Shows that I really liked and I have a lot of issues just starting something fresh. I want to watch The Witcher, The Irishman, and a lot of new stuff and I just can't. I'm certainly afraid of something but I don't know what... wasting my time? Not liking it? What's the point in that? If I don't like it I can just stop watching it, and even though I know that, I just can't, lol.\n\nI think I have only watched a movie that I walked out on: The Tree of Life - it wasn't a bad movie per se, it just wasn't for me, I was expecting something completely different from it - everything else I ever watched I sat through it and either liked it very much, liked it or was a decent experience but not my kind of movie. With TV Shows the experience is even better, I like pretty much everything I ever watched and obviously with a Show you can decided to opt out (I did with Walking Dead after Season 5). \n\nAnd with a great track record I still have serious difficulty choosing when to start watching something new and end up watching a lot of stuff that I already watched.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-460407", "score": 0.6923383474349976, "text": "I find it much easier to revise when I have a re-run of a TV show playing in the background. Is there a reason for this?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1992456", "score": 0.6899833679199219, "text": "Unless the content is something that specifically interests me, I find it very hard to consume entertainment that is new to me. Trying to watch a new series or movie is stressful and uncomfortable so I prefer to watch things that I already have seen and like very much.\n\nFor example, my wife will often ask if I want to check out something new on Netflix, but I usually opt to watch The Office for the billionth time. I have most of the dialogue memorized and enjoy the familiarity of it and looking for small details that I may have missed in previous viewings.\n\n\nIs this kind of thing generally considered an aspie or ASD trait?", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-415858", "score": 0.6894240379333496, "text": "I have a habit of watching entire series beginning to end and after a while I start getting this vibe that carries over a little bit into the rest of the day. Happens with Alf, The Office, Seinfeld, Home improvement, etc. I'm sure you can relate.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-58815", "score": 0.6878648996353149, "text": "As a Father of three i noticed something interesting. The shows or Movies that they watched over and over again were the ones that they first watched with a parent. for e.g. If i were to put on a movie for the first time, and leave them to it, they did'nt tend to watch it again. But, If I or their mother sat and watched it with them then they would watch it again multiple times on their own. Not sure why. It seemed to mean more to them.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2690552", "score": 0.685173749923706, "text": "I like certain TV series sure. (The Umbrella Academy and anime to be exact.) But I cannot understand how people 'binge watch' (non-stop) watch TV shows and treat it as if it is easy, even natural or fun. \n\nI begin to lose my sense of sanity, and concentration at the second episode, if even that. I sometimes will even pause half-way through a 25 minute episode. And it's terrible for movies - although I am able to cope with Star Wars (not the sequels).\n\nClass, music so on I can handle. I am actually able to do something during those things. However watching TV shows, I have to divert all my attention onto one singular thing while doing absolutely nothing. It drives me insane really.\n\nIt's painful. Can't do it. Anyone else unable to", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-50042", "score": 0.6843671798706055, "text": "They try a show and when that show has lots of viewers they get more ad money. They then try to replicate the success with a similar show and that continues until there are not enough viewers to justify the production costs. Tldr: because people watch it.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-164152", "score": 0.6823057532310486, "text": "Because some reruns are more popular than others. People are more likely to watch the more popular ones. More people watching = more advertising revenue.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1763893", "score": 0.6821625828742981, "text": "It makes me cringe how many people still get obsessed with that old tv show and keep watching old episodes.\nIf you keep re-watching old crap that you have seen x times before, I don't want to talk you", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-2065008", "score": 0.6819857954978943, "text": "Does anyone else feel the same? We always turn it on before bed or when we are cleaning or something and we always notice different stuff that we didn’t notice the last time around. It’s so nice having a show we can watch together and not get tired of!", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-56748", "score": 0.6818665266036987, "text": "This pretty much sums it up. _URL_0_ Basically, kids are learning and mastering skills by repetition, so this translates to other things, like repeatedly watching movies. Then, once they've mastered it (learning all the words, knowing the plot, whatever) they want to celebrate their success by participating in the movie, hence watching it even more.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-2074050", "score": 0.681587815284729, "text": "I feel like I’m watching the same episodes over and over again, comment some that are not as popular", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-31", "score": 0.6458147764205933, "text": "It's like a protest vote. I live in Nevada where we are allowed to vote \"none of the above.\" If \"none of the above\" wins, the candidate with the most votes still wins. It doesn't affect anything here." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-178130", "score": 0.6135191917419434, "text": "France actually has a lengthy history with terrorism, but our perception can be skewed by cognitive bias. There's a decent overview here - _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-99643", "score": 0.6135101318359375, "text": "The U.S. only has two major political parties because Congressional elections all use first-past-the-post. Because of this, it's virtually impossible for a niche party (like, say, the Greens or the Libertarians) to secure sufficient support at the ballot box to get a plurality of votes in an electoral district-- much less a majority.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1400124", "score": 0.6135092973709106, "text": "The left claims that they \"spoke out for the minorities\", right? Then why the fuck do they oppose the electoral college which was DESIGNED to stop the mob rule from inflicting their rights on the minority?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-39540", "score": 0.6134971380233765, "text": "It's creating a bunch of new rules so solve a problem *that doesn't actually exist*. There's no proof of any large scale vote fraud that would be prevented by having ID.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-32469", "score": 0.6134850978851318, "text": "The population democratically decided to petition for statehood, after the electorate was asked to vote on it. This has been done in PR four times now, and they've decided against statehood each and ever time. Note that the last vote in 2012 looks superficially as though the electorate chose the statehood option, but that's not quite correct. The governing party actually asked its supporters to leave that portion of the ballot blank in protest at their preferred option having been left out entirely. The statehood option got a majority of the votes *on that question*, but not a majority of the people who voted in the referendum that day. Anyway, that's the gist of it: the people of Hawaii voted to become a state in the late 1950s. The people of Puerto Rico never have. Guam hasn't ever really voted on the question at all, yet.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-42532", "score": 0.6134538054466248, "text": "- votes need to be counted and for that to happen without an unnecessary high risk of manipulation, voting has to have ended. - it severly impacts the voting behaviour if anouncements were to be made during the day.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-489230", "score": 0.6134486794471741, "text": "I've experienced anti-French sentiments growing up in America and cannot figure out the historical reasons. Is it related to events in their histories the last century or run deeper? The British colonies no doubt brought those ideas to the New World initially due to their own past, but why has it remained given the US support of France (and vice versa) since the 19th century?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-157296", "score": 0.6133925914764404, "text": "Because calling fat people fat in a country where 50% of population is fat is a political suicide. Those people vote for you, and the last thing you'd want is insulting them.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-117924", "score": 0.6133813858032227, "text": "Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution(the part that explains and sets out the legislative branch of the government) states: > They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. Put into layman's terms, that last part means they can't be prosecuted or sued for anything they say or do as a valid part of their business as legislators, including how they cast their votes.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-55511", "score": 0.6133715510368347, "text": "You vote in your state. Whichever side in your state gets the most votes, gets to pick their electors. If Dems win, the state picks electors for Hillary. If republican, the state picks electors for trump. The chosen electors cast their vote for their candidate in that state. The total of the electoral votes selects the president. So your vote doesn't directly elect the president, but indirectly does.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-19028", "score": 0.6133465766906738, "text": "The whole premise of our legal system is that you're initially assumed to be innocent & the state must prove guilt. Ultimately, it's a protection against torture - if the authorities can force you to confess things, people will get hurt if they're giving the \"wrong\" answer.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-224540", "score": 0.6132574677467346, "text": "Here in NZ there were two close shaves with prohibition in 1911 and in 1919. The 1911 referendum required a 60% majority to pass and garnered a vote of 55.8%. In 1919 the threshold was lowered to 50%, and resulted in a 49% prohitibition vote. The prohibitionists' loss is mostly attributed to soldiers returning from the war who were fairly keen on being able to drink. New Zealand, being an agricultural nation, had a lot of pubs and hotels which served as the centres of small communities and those who were working on farms were generally opposed to that changing. There was however a 6pm pub closing law that hung around until the 60s, which had its own binge drinking implications. After the debacle that was prohibition in the US, New Zealand's movement lost steam, though there were referendums held in conjunction with the general elections until the 80s.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1612341", "score": 0.6132251024246216, "text": "Nigel Farage gets screwed by FPTP. Pretty much everyone apart from the Tories and Labour do. However, we had a referendum on changing our electoral system to something other than FPTP in 2011, and the people voted overwhelmingly to keep FPTP.\n\nExcept we didn't, did we? We voted for soldiers to have hats (not delivered), babies to have incubators (not delivered) and voted against one specific other system, AV. However, the result was the British public voting to keep FPTP in place. That result has not been implemented, because where are the expanded maternity wards and new state of the art uniforms for soldiers? Where's the outrage that it isn't being implemented? We saw the pipe dreams, unicorns and bullshit for what they were, but voted for them anyway.\n\nI'm going to go out on a limb and assume most leavers, who want Nigel Farage to be our great and wonderful leader, dictator of the free world, oppose the system that keeps him from that role. I oppose it. I blatantly reject the result of the 2011 referendum. I want another one, with better options on it, including both of the same ones as last time.\n\nHowever, I'm consistent about that. I lost, but I am not going to 'get over it'. I'm not going to have my free expression of that sentiment curtailed using the 'will of the people' as a bludgeon to smack me over the head with when I get rowdy. Having a monopoly on the use of force does not give the establishment the right to use it excessively on its own citizens. Back to my assumption, up there, I'm guessing most leavers agree.\n\nSo then why is that result (with a larger margin) ok to oppose while the one that favours you isn't? Why aren't I a traitor for being as vocally opposed to FPTP as I am to brexit? Why aren't I anti-democratic for wanting another electoral reform referendum? Either referendum results are sacred or they are not. Which is it going to be?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1510301", "score": 0.6132108569145203, "text": "And Labour promised that if they were voted into power, they would ignore the results of the referendum.\n\nLabour then got into power.\n\nI presume they would have to ignore it, yes?", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-71024", "score": 0.6132017374038696, "text": "In the US, elections are on a set schedule fixed by the constitution. It's not that the elections take longer, it's that candidates are trying to get an earlier and earlier start to raise more money and get more name recognition than their opponents. And news media love this because campaign coverage draws ratings.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-167174", "score": 0.6131604909896851, "text": "Countries who have officials from other countries work withing their borders can grant immunity from criminal prosecution, so they can basically disregard local laws because they are meant to be treated as if they are still in their country of origin. This means that the other country is assuming responsibility for their behaviour, so it involves a high amount of trust. This is reserved for ambassadors, attaches and other people that are in the host country only in representation of the foreign country. Source: my father had diplomatic immunity.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-124777", "score": 0.6130746006965637, "text": "Online polls are subjected to a range of a specific audience. When a group of people decide to overwhelm the odds, they automatically break the selective pooling factor and it makes it seem as though they the majority, which is true to an extent. They have the majority for that poll, but not for much else. So when a poll has 5,000 people submit to it, and 4,000 of the answers are from a group dedicated on one specific answer or notion, it's not really the same. Real life polls are manipulated the same way, but it's larger groups. In America we call them \"Parties.\" Online polls are just much much smaller and much easier to manipulate.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1507867", "score": 0.6130150556564331, "text": "We need to make an amendment saying that A.) No state gets to bind the College to a popular vote and B.) that each state and the subdivisions thereof itself shall have a college for its governor and other executive elections, which shall not be bound to a popular vote, nor to any partisan cause. And that FINALLY C.) All electors shall be CITIZENS of good character and who pay income tax. Simple as that. Victory for a 1000 years.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-139045", "score": 0.6129875779151917, "text": "The Supreme Court decided that \"petty crimes\" that have a punishment of less than 6 months in prison or only result in a fine do not require a jury. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-53329", "score": 0.6129173636436462, "text": "Most trials are called 'bench trials', and happen without a jury. In these trials, guilt or innocence is determined by the presiding magistrate. This is the most common form of trial in, to my knowledge, every legal system around the world. What does differ between countries, however, is how willing they are to allow a costly jury trial to take place over a bench trail. A country like the US is very willing to do so, while France is extremely unwilling (and so only the most serious trials are conducted with a jury). Generally speaking, most countries will only allow a jury trial in serious criminal cases.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-32", "score": 0.8791933655738831, "text": "They didn't so much as 'break up' as they just started doing different things by themselves, or with other people. Eventually they just weren't doing things as 'The Beatles' anymore and decided to make it official. Paul said that they broke up because of: \"Personal differences, business differences, musical differences, but most of all because I have a better time with my family.\"" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-92685", "score": 0.8181579113006592, "text": "[I Google searched \"why did the Beatles break up\" and the very first result was an entire Wikipedia entry dedicated to their break up.](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1125262", "score": 0.7425792217254639, "text": "They had no contractual reason to continue with George Martin, and John and George both made albums with Phil Spector. I wonder would the Beatles have worked with him, or some other producer, collectively on an album if they hadn't split in 1970?\n\nJohn always complained that Martin was more Paul's kind of producer. George was probably happy to work with someone who didn't consider him a \"junior member\". Perhaps the band would've been better off working with someone different?\n\nOr could it have been the case they each had different producers work on their material? Could've been a forerunner to today's practice of multiple producers on one album.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-144770", "score": 0.7321603298187256, "text": "They think her relationship with John broke up the band. Also some people might note that the beatles wrote a ton of amazing melodic pop/rock songs and Yoko is a very *[Avant-garde](_URL_0_)* musician. Many old fans didn't appreciate her musical influence on John.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1553074", "score": 0.7102916240692139, "text": "The real reasons is because they knew that they couldn't compete with live acts like the Who and maybe the Experience (whom I'm unsure if they were around in September '66). But definitely, the Beatles as a live act was akin to a high school variety show. Ringo couldn't do anything exciting on drums. George and John couldn't do any memorable solos, and none of the 4 could improvise. Finally, they weren't visually exciting. \n\nI also corroborate my views with the fact that these men did live shows **after leaving the Beatles.** So their excuse about bad security, bad sound, etc. is all bunk to save face.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-92560", "score": 0.6992332935333252, "text": "You try hanging out with the same people day in, day out for ten years and not eventually just want to get away and do your own thing. This was also during their formative years (Lennon was 20-30 and McCartney 18-28 for instance), and they were coming into their own personality-wise. They simply grew apart. To be fair, Yoko didn't help anything.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-150290", "score": 0.6938168406486511, "text": "She intruded into the Beatles 4-man unit (watch Let It Be file to see it), was seemingly not particularly impressed by the Beatles, being more interested in her own art. She didn't fit the popular view of the kind of woman a Beatle should be with, and John made it pretty clear that he prioritised Yoko over the Beatles. This all lead to her being blamed for the breakup, though that would be a huge oversimplification. Plus, after John's murder, she did not make herself a very sympathetic character. She's outwardly arrogant, prickly, and... foreign.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-233921", "score": 0.6929555535316467, "text": "As far as I understand it, they went there primarily because their then manager Alan Williams (who sadly died recently) had developed a good working relationship with Bruno Koschmider who ran a few of the clubs over there. Hamburg was a large and wealthy city, but quite why they wanted British/Liverpool bands rather than any other I'm not sure of. Williams had already arranged for Derry and the Seniors to play in Hamburg but was asked for another band. He wanted to send Rory Storm and the Hurricanes but they were committed elsewhere, so asked the Beatles instead. They asked Pete Best to go with them as they previously had no permanent drummer. Ringo hadn't joined the band at that date, but he was a member of Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, the other band Williams considered. As to what appealed to the Beatles, probably the regular income and adventure of playing abroad, plus the experience that they could brag about and use as leverage to get future gigs back home.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-160730", "score": 0.6920518279075623, "text": "She didn't, is the simple answer. All she did was add another element to the tensions that already existed within the band. Lennon and McCartney were rarely writing together, Harrison was getting annoyed that few of his songs were getting recorded. Lennon bringing Ono into the studio was just one more problem among many. Really after the death of Epstein the band's days were numbered. But her appearance did coincide with the beginning of the tensions that broke The Beatles up, so she got the blame.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2358438", "score": 0.6857026815414429, "text": "All of a sudden, I see lots of people in music internet communities hating The Beatles. Until a few years ago, I haven't seen such comments (at least not in nowadays' frequency). Is that a meme? Or does The Beatles really annoy people somehow?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2389925", "score": 0.6838030219078064, "text": "From a casual Beatles fan, it appears the band underwent quite a dramatic change from nicely-dressed boys playing pop music during their early years to a much more psychedelic and somewhat experimental style. Did many, if any, fans or press people react negatively to this change?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-156959", "score": 0.6830146312713623, "text": "She was instrumental in distracting John Lennon away from the Beatles thus encouraging the breakup of the band. She thinks she's an artist but really is just a screaming shrieking weirdo. Source: Longtime Beatles fan.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-26480", "score": 0.6823296546936035, "text": "You know how glass can fracture, but still kind of stay in place until someone touches it? Yoko Ono can be seen as that touch. But really, she was an easy scapegoat that allowed the Beatles to break-up without it being the fault of any one Beatle.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2357591", "score": 0.6748309135437012, "text": "First off, I love the Beatles. But what made them into the worldwide sensation? Also, answers like \"The music, bro\" are not helpful.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-76101", "score": 0.6692410707473755, "text": "It was something of a pop culture touchstone for the generation. The Beatles were popular before the album, SPLHCB simply pushed it over the edge. The band stopped touring for a while after becoming tired of the screaming crowds who would yell OVER their music. After a year and a half of studio solitude the fab four released this album. It was very different from what was around at the time and influenced a lot of future artists. I would check out the [wiki](_URL_0_) and Pandora's page about the band.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-807667", "score": 0.6687746644020081, "text": "I dislike the Beatles. I don't doubt their talent but I just cant get into their music. I don't like it, im a jerk I guess. Every person I have ever met that I tell this to says \"HOW DO YOU NOT LIKE THE BEATLES, WHATS WRONG WITH YOU?\"", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1398205", "score": 0.6644243001937866, "text": "I personally love The Beatles and was wondering what people who don't like the band have to say about them.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-207670", "score": 0.6621496081352234, "text": "The (apocryphal) quote is generally attributed to a Decca Records A & R executive named Dick Rowe who supposedly said it to Brian Epstein (the Beatles' manager) in 1962 who quoted it in his autobiography in 1964 and the quote then became \"canon\" with Hunter Davies (the band's authorized biographer) when he published it in his book (and in a Life magazine article) in 1968. Mark Lewisohn, the leading Beatles' historian is [not so sure about its authenticity](_URL_0_). So on to the question of what that A & R man could have meant by \"guitar groups\" being \"on the way out\". I believe one can only speculate here. Could it be that Decca was scouting the market for more solo acts instead of \"beat groups\"? If so, why then did Decca sign a beat group instead of the Beatles? Brian Epstein was a brilliant marketer and he knew the power of well-crafted publicity. Could the quote simply have been a fabrication?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1764843", "score": 0.6617410182952881, "text": "This is something i've just felt like I needed to get off my chest for a long time. I'll start it out by saying music is a HUGE passion of mine. I listen to a ridiculous amount of music and stuff from pretty much every genre, so this always seems to be a weird opinion to people. But back to my main point:\n\n\nI don't like The Beatles. I really don't see what is so \"amazing\" or \"unique\" about them. So many of their songs sound so similar to me, and their lyrics are boring, and they just sound so dated. (yes I understand very much that they are older but dated is the best word I could think to describe them) 9 times out of 10 when i'm looking at something online about music, they always seem to be in some list that has \"music's greatest\" in it. It drives me crazy, I just don't see the appeal. I have actually tried listening to numerous hours of their music on multiple occasions. I just don't get why they are so hyped. I feel like I get hate or annoyance from people far too often when I say I don't like them.\n\n\n\nIf you like them, that's cool. But DO NOT try and go on a rant to me about, \"why they are the greatest\" or that \"they are legends,\" because I just don't care.\n\n\n\n\nTLDR: I hate The Beatles", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-2309237", "score": 0.6607159376144409, "text": "In this SPIN article, they claim that one of the reasons Pixies may have broken up is because of possible \"romantic tension\". I can't find anything else on the topic.\n\nAnyone have any books or something that can shed light on this?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1509676", "score": 0.6596580743789673, "text": "Why the hell did EMI choose The Inner Light as the B-side to Lady Madonna?? Hey Bulldog is the greatest single that never was. It would have been like any other Beatles release: John on one side, Paul on the other, two bluesy and rhythmically similar tracks that would have reached number 1.\n\nI have nothing but love and admiration for George, but IMHO the decision to opt out Hey Bulldog as a single release is the greatest Beatle catalog tragedy second only to the lack of Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane on Pepper.\n\nEdit: George, not Geoege.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-33", "score": 0.8203874230384827, "text": "Phones lack a cooling system because there's no room for that. It takes up way too much space for a pocket-size device. If that wasn't an issue, phones would've had vents. Besides, phones don't work as hard as other computers do. They are weaker, so they produce less heat. Still, they can get hot sometimes, especially during charging, and there is nothing we can do about it. Phones cool by radiating heat away and through conduction - passing heat into the surrounding air/skin." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-71971", "score": 0.7660900950431824, "text": "Phones use less powerful components that are significantly smaller, generating less heat. Phones will also get hot overtime though just like computers, you just can’t hear the cooling systems in the phone like you can with the computer.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-3976", "score": 0.7464324235916138, "text": "A fan in phone would make it too fat. So it uses a heat sink instead. When it reaches maximum temp it then bottlenecks itself til working temps ate resumed..", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1979", "score": 0.7421494126319885, "text": "Phones are designed to utilize passive cooling only. That being, they do not generate enough heat through standard operation to require a fan. This is due to the size, power, and space required for fans and various failure points introduced by them - and also any CPU that generated enough heat to require active cooling would not be usable as a mobile device as it would drain the battery very quickly. Since you mentioned the iPhone in particular, the most powerful iPhone's (iPhone X) CPU is the A11, I can't find exact specs on this but the power usage of the CPU is likely in the 5-10 watt range. For comparison, processors in laptops are usually in the 25-45W range (on the low end, these may not need active cooling to cool) and desktop processors tend to range anywhere from 65W to 85W+.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-128941", "score": 0.7374194264411926, "text": "Smart phones and tablets are often compact. By using metal parts which are in contact they can effectively dump heat directly away from the CPU, through conduction as opposed to computers and laptops which have gaps and spaces and rely on convection to release heat. In this case a computer/laptop would require a fan to deposit hot air and reintroduce colder air, if I remember correctly.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-150883", "score": 0.7125614285469055, "text": "Smartphones are very small. They are built with components that have to fit very tightly together, otherwise there either won't be room inside the case, or the components might interfere with each other, or the heat dispersal won't be effective and the phone will overheat. The same problem applies to laptops too, which usually only let you replace a few components such as the RAM and peripherals. The concept of a [modular smartphone](_URL_0_) is in development, but so far there have been very few practical implementations.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-67032", "score": 0.7100115418434143, "text": "The main reason there aren't more widespread appliances like that is, because it's a lot easier to add energy to something than to take it away. Until fairly recently, the only real way to cool something was to buy ice from your local ice dealer, who imported it from somewhere very cold. In general, you can only cool something via convection, which is a fairly slow process, but you can heat via radiation, which can be much faster.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-93484", "score": 0.7081187963485718, "text": "It's for the same reason a decent laptop costs $300 and a desktop with those same specs costs $200. Miniaturization is *expensive*. You not only have to figure out how to cram all of those same components in a smaller space, but you now also have to deal with heat dissipation. And in the case of a phone, you can't really have a cooling fan so you need to find a way to use less energy while also having both cellular and wifi transmitter/receivers. Additionally, phones have touchscreens, which are a fairly expensive component as well.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-189760", "score": 0.7009846568107605, "text": "This is a very complex question if I get in depth on the engineering decisions that make them different, but without that, it becomes oversimplified. Heat. Think of phones as ultra small computers. Unless you want a fan in your phone, they depend on passive cooling, and unless you want the phone to be heavy, batteries can't be very big. Now, luckily, if a chip takes less energy to work, battery needed to keep it running is smaller, and that energy which is dissipated as heat is less of a problem. With this in mind, the whole concept of a portable phone requires low power chips, and low power means lower performance, even if performance per watt (power and energy required) is better.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2311833", "score": 0.6969611048698425, "text": "I used one of the magnetic phone holders that clip to the vent. Is it bad to have my phone on there when the air conditioner is on? Will it damage the phone?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-188632", "score": 0.6955247521400452, "text": "Because a LED bulb with a heat sink will emit many time more light then the screen of a iPhone. A low power LED bulb do not need a heat sink. Just try to illuminate a wall in a dark room with the screen and compare that to a light bulb. There might be a difference in efficiency and the phone product less heat for the same amount of light and that is because how you it is constructed so you can run a LEDs on mains voltage versus the battery in a cellphone. A LED bulb often is made as cheap as possible but the cellphone charger and voltage converter in the phone is more advances, expensive and efficent. But the main difference it still the amount of light they emit.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-55910", "score": 0.6934627294540405, "text": "Because the design of the chips is made such that even though it's a quad core processor, it doesn't run as fast/hot as a desktop quad-core. they're designed to run slower so as to not overheat. And have you felt the back of a smartphone after it's been recording video or something for more than 5 minutes? I use a dashcam program to record my commute. If I don't keep my front windshield A/C fans blowing, I literally can't touch my phone by the time I get home, it's so hot.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-132418", "score": 0.6933927536010742, "text": "Because the design of the chips is made such that even though it's a quad core processor, it doesn't run as fast/hot as a desktop quad-core. they're designed to run slower so as to not overheat. And have you felt the back of a phone after it's been recording video or something for more than 5 minutes? I use a dashcam program to record my commute. If I don't keep my front windshield A/C fans blowing, I literally can't touch my phone by the time I get home, it's so hot.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-162244", "score": 0.6914083361625671, "text": "Laptops and desktops use active cooling with fans, and may have mechanical drives which produce noise. Tablets and phones only use solid-state storage and passive cooling without moving parts such as fans. Due to this they have more limited performance and power consumption, but are completely silent in operation.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-12564", "score": 0.6871939301490784, "text": "Because cell phones are portable, they are small and compact by design. House phones are bound to a nearby outlet anyway, so size doesn't matter", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-183988", "score": 0.6869533061981201, "text": "The ARM processors inside phones are designed to be energy efficient and produce much less heat. This makes them better suited to mobile devices. The heat of an ARM chip can be easily dissipated by the casing of the phone. The trade-off is that they are much less powerful and don't have all the bells and whistles that a PC processor does. That's why phones have to run stripped down operating systems that can't do half of what Windows or MAC OS does.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-93385", "score": 0.6861168146133423, "text": "They do need cooling, the whole case is basically a heat sink. If you do something (like video streaming) you'll notice the case heating up as the excess heat builds up.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-33152", "score": 0.6844320893287659, "text": "The phone CPU runs at the same speed but uses less power, so it generates less heat, so it doesn't need a fan.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-67358", "score": 0.6835392713546753, "text": "It's a combination of factors: 1. The hardware inside your phone is designed to operate within a temperature range that the phone can maintain continuously under \"normal operation\". So as long as the phone doesn't heat up beyond the range the internals were designed to handle, they're fine. 2. The hardware inside your phone was designed to run on fairly little power, and less power used = less heat generated. 3. In many/most cases, the case itself acts as somewhat of a heatsink, so heat from the internal components gets passed to the case, which can then radiate it away into the air around it. This is why phones in cases overheat more easily, and why you're not supposed to let them sit in direct sunlight for long periods of time. 4. Most phones can be overheated pretty easily if you're making an effort to do it. The lack of ventilation or cooling fans contirbutes to this. There are many existing threads about this topic, [here's one with some similar info] (_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-100996", "score": 0.6822463870048523, "text": "Passive heatsinking is a thing - you can dissipate heat by conducting it through the heatsink material, and most phones use special heat-dissipating stickers that conduct heat through the phone's casing. That's why your phone will warm up when playing high load games. In addition to that, mobile phones are very, very good at minimizing their own heat production especially when not under load, as this also prolongs battery life. They also have hard caps on how high their load can get, so that heat produced doesn't exceed the ability to sink the heat.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-6554", "score": 0.6821578741073608, "text": "I think some of the answers are great, but missing a major point that I want to add: The chips in smartphones ([SoCs](_URL_0_)) are built from the ground up to turn the energy in the battery into useful work as efficiently as possible. In industry terms, smartphone SoCs have truly insane Performance Per Watt, which is a unit of how much screen brightness, CPU speed, etc can be achieved using only a joule of energy every second. So to answer the question, mainly because they barely produce any heat. Heat is what happens when energy from the battery is lost, and not turned into useful work. This is why the mobile device revolution only happened recently. Chips this efficient are a very new invention.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-34", "score": 0.6025468707084656, "text": "Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the Middle East put out so much supply to try and put US companies out of business which if successful they would then jack prices up and get money to themselves." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-173151", "score": 0.5724104642868042, "text": "The 85 octane is cause of the high altitude. The lower the octane the faster it burns. With the already thin air at that altitude, 85 octane pretty much acts like 87 octane would at sea level.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-587116", "score": 0.5724061727523804, "text": "Celsius lowered the rate for stablecoins back to 10.51% after around two weeks of 12.5% interest rate.\n\n12.5%... you will be greatly missed.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-167580", "score": 0.5723893046379089, "text": "It all has to do with boiling point and chemical makeup. When crude oil is being refined it's distilled into it's heavier and lighter components. The lighter stuff is gasoline and it vaporizes quick making it easily fired off with a short burst of electricity(sparkplug). Diesel is heavier and more dense and must be compressed to a high pressure to detonate but requires no spark. Diesel is used in most large equipment mainly because it can output more energy per gallon. This is my first answer on ELI5 so I hope it was dumbed down enough...even though I can't really explain it any further.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2352360", "score": 0.5723636150360107, "text": "When i check the stock level in my individual business there's around 900k worth of stock. Thats between cash, coke and sporting goods. However when i check my nightclub which is supposed to be running them all there's only about 30k of stock. My stock bar in the nightclub isn't even 1 bar yet. All my technicians are assigned accordingly. Any idea why there's such a difference in selling prices?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-25883", "score": 0.572350025177002, "text": "It's not so much that they're selling the cars below the cost to manufacture them. They're losing money because the amount they're spending on expansion and R & D is less than the profit they make from their sales.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2096146", "score": 0.5723471641540527, "text": "I understand that the weekends are almost always dips, and during the week is when the bull run starts again.\n\nIf I have funds that are available tomorrow, is it better to invest during a \"low price\" at the start of the week? \nOr wait until next weekend when things will dip even lower again? (though there may be a higher floor).\n\nI appreciate the feedback", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-50120", "score": 0.5723318457603455, "text": "There are some actual negative interest rates. Some central banks charge a fee for other banks to keep money on deposit. It's an extreme condition caused by the nearly zero prime rates in the US an the EU.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-67661", "score": 0.5723186731338501, "text": "It's a measure of viscosity. 10W-30 means that the oil is SAE10 viscosity at low (**W**inter) temps and SAE30 at high (100C) temp. Your engine won't seize with the wrong oil in it unless it's *really* wrong. Using the wrong oil will increase wear and degrade engine performance though, and some engines depend on the oil for things other than lubrication and have very strict viscosity requirements. It's always best to use the oil recommended by your engine's manufacturer.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-226821", "score": 0.5723130106925964, "text": "It's still as good a question as it was when you asked it 11 days ago, and I hope someone answers. But I wonder why you're still assuming the US government to have consistently intervened to protect oil companies from nationalization--as I pointed out last time, this assumption is not supported.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2192263", "score": 0.5722902417182922, "text": "Hello World. I've been in the oil industry for 5 years now and whereas most of my colleagues see the plunge in oil price as a time for panic I see it as a time for opportunity; the opportunity to re-skill myself and get that step closer to finding a job I actually enjoy.\n\nI'm a geek at heart so I'd like to do what I should have done years ago and transition into a career in IT/computing\n\nSo here is my question - if you had £20,000 to re-skill yourself how would you spend it?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1131990", "score": 0.5722703337669373, "text": "The DAX just reached new all time highs, almost every single stock I'm looking at is soaring through the roof, a lot of them also reaching all time highs. Similarly, Bitcoin is up 100% from its peak in 2017.\n\nI don't think I quite get how this makes any sense. I'm hearing on the news every single day that the economy is damaged beyond repair, millions of people lost their jobs, thousands of businesses had to close, lockdowns are still issued all across the world. But stocks just keep going up.\n\nIs there no relation at all between the \"economy\" the news are talking about and the actual value of the businesses that are supposedly affected by this? Where is all this money coming from the keeps the prices so high if everyone is losing their jobs and businesses are making losses due to the lockdowns?\n\nTo me this defies all logic. Has something happened that I missed? How can the markets be at their highest peak ever when the economy is so broken?\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nFor reference, here's a chart of the DAX: \n\nAnd here's one for BTC: ", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1965921", "score": 0.5722668170928955, "text": "Royal Purple and Wix to be exact. Honestly, I was completely blown away. Last time I changed my oil, it was nothing like this. It felt like the whole engine was just running *better.*\n\nI'd read plenty that the better stuff was, well, better, but christ, I didn't expect it to be immediately noticeable like this. Now what else can I replace with higher quality bits...", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1106448", "score": 0.5721948742866516, "text": "With all these huge reverse repo numbers going through the roof which are said to be because of lack of liquidity. I was just watching random videos on YouTube. \n\n\n\nThis video with u/dlauer mentioned a flash crash from years ago that he said was because there wasn't any liquidity. I think many of us would agree that the majority of trade action isn't really from retail traders but probably high frequency traders. What if at the 350 price point there was a combination of hft not selling because it was about to pop off to the moon and lack of retail buying or selling because it was getting to expensive to buy much but no one dared sell either because it was about to go interstellar. What if this caused liquidity to fall to basically nothing and the same sort of thing happened in this video. \n\nI'm just dumb and I have no way to look at volume from that day or even investigate it. What if it didn't crash from a huge short but every body freaked out and liquidity dropped for \"30 seconds\" as Dave lauer put it. \n\nI don't really know but I'm drunk and thought up this idea watching YouTube. Maybe I'm trying to connect things with no relation. Maybe a wrinkle could think about it and say I'm tripping or maybe there's something to the idea. dlauer interview\n\nEdit: \nThat video led me into this with dlauer taking about the same thing. I think I kinda tuned out on it but it perked my interest close to 30 minutes in. \n", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-659881", "score": 0.5721736550331116, "text": "I've heard this one a thousand times, and I feel it's one of the cornerstones of distrust in the US government, one which opens doors to other shaky national conspiracy theories (e.g. the US government created HIV). Thing is, it makes no sense to me at a fundamental level.\n\nWhy would an oil company want to (presumably) start wars so as to increase oil availability/supplies? Assuming that human actions can be explained by \"bottom line\" economic motivations (which I generally don't believe), wouldn't oil companies want (pretending here that a brainless paper entity has \"wants\" above and beyond those of the individuals that make it up) to have as many oil fields as possible flat-out destroyed, reducing supplies greatly, raising prices and profits enormously? Isn't that the exact opposite of pushing the US into wars of oilfield conquest and acquisition?", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-107291", "score": 0.572163999080658, "text": "If there is less air in the tires, there is a larger piece of the tire that is \"bend\" . Bending a tire costs a lot of energy. This means you need more fuel for the same amount of distance.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-26131", "score": 0.5721544027328491, "text": "Because it makes the gas look a little cheaper. It's the same reason that everyone uses the 99c thing on prices - $39.99 looks a lot cheaper than $40. So gas stations do the same thing, but another decimal place over. That means that over a few thousand gallons of gas, they make a few extra bucks than if they'd just used 99c.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-171686", "score": 0.572123110294342, "text": "Short answer is we’re not. Take a read at this article from 2015: [forbes](_URL_0_) There’s really no short answer for this other than it’s a lie.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1028564", "score": 0.5720429420471191, "text": "I could understand things like the banking sector being hit... But why does seemingly the ENTIRE market get hit pretty hard on this kind of news? Why does, for a single example, AAPL go down because of this?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-108962", "score": 0.5720317959785461, "text": "The short answer is yes. Some persons have large amounts of money, and if they spot an opportunity (i.e. a panicked market undervaluing certain stocks) they'll exploit it. Additionally, there are various financial instruments, put options for example, which can compel a person to purchase a stock, even at a disadvantageous price.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-344646", "score": 0.5720046162605286, "text": "I lost my college fund to this price drop. I will not be able to pay next semester if the price doesn't recover but I am confident it will. Until then I will not be sleeping :)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-35", "score": 0.6795148253440857, "text": "The metal interior of the oven is grounded. It does pick up a charge from the microwaves, but the charge is dissipated to ground, and so does not arc. Your fork, or the foil on your plate, are not grounded, and thus the charge can build up until it is strong enough to arc to a grounded panel." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-124676", "score": 0.645510733127594, "text": "Those things are both completely unrelated. It's *time* that makes milk go bad, not *heat* (as you have clearly found out through experimentation) - and keeping milk in the fridge will not *stop* it from going bad, eventually! All the organisms living in the milk are slowly making it go bad. Putting it in the fridge slows them down considerably. Heating the milk up doesn't make them work faster.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-305216", "score": 0.6454694271087646, "text": "It's a eutectic alloy which is liquid at room temperature. When it slams into a watermelon, it disperses into very fine droplets as it starts off as liquid so you get a very fast exothermic oxidation which liberates combustible hydrogen from the water in the watermelon. The fine droplets have a higher surface area to volume ratio than the soft chunks you would get from a fragmenting sodium or potassium pellet. Surface area to volume ratio is important because all of your wet reactions can only happen at the surface of a droplet or solid particle of reactive material. That guy should put on safety glasses and practice better trigger discipline.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-561623", "score": 0.6454640030860901, "text": "Many premade frozen meals recommend a minute or two of sitting, but I extend that to at least 5 minutes and I do it with everything.\n\nMicrowaves naturally create pockets of varying heat based on the water concentration within your food, but letting food to sit will let this heat dissipate and spread through your food more evenly.\n\nMy food almost feels oven- or stovetop-heated, and so much fresher, when I follow this tip.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-309227", "score": 0.6454546451568604, "text": "I'm not aware of any formulae, but I can say why they are less conductive. Think of a metal as a very organized set of atoms, in a neat structure and that they are all connected with tiny springs. When a metal conducts heat, the atoms vibrate and this causes the atoms next to them to vibrate as well. When they are all the same size and type, no problem, but in a constituent metal, sone atoms are replaced by different sized atoms with stiffer springs. Now the vibrations have a much harder time spreading through the material, so it is worse at conducting. For electrical conduction, the story is very similar. Normally they can flow freely in the material, but the different atoms form \"roadblocks\" of sort. This reduces conductivity", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-32313", "score": 0.6454325318336487, "text": "They built the electronics to survive the conditions by using materials that don't degrade. (much, anyway) Gold is a good one, that's why the Voyager record is plated in gold. It's expected to last approximately a billion years before it becomes unreadable. Actually, the cold is less of a problem than you'd think. Most spacecraft have more trouble getting rid of excess heat than with freezing. That's because without air to conduct heat away, you have to rely on radiation which is a much slower process. Spacecraft will often have large radiators to deal with the heat problem. The bigger problems are debris and radiation. Those are dealt with by various forms of shielding, either strong materials to protect from debris or conductive materials to protect from radiation. Aluminum is nice, because it fits both requirements, is lightweight so it's cheaper to launch, and is relatively common and easy to work with.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-69949", "score": 0.6454219222068787, "text": "What you feel as heat is not the temperature of the object, but how hot it's making *you*. This is why people can walk on hot coals - the coals are outrageously hot, but it takes them a while to transfer the heat -- so if you walk quickly, it's as if they're not hot at all. Similarly, metal left in the freezer isn't any colder than other things left in the freezer, but it transfers the cold really quickly, so *you* feel as if it's colder than everything else (because it's making you colder faster than everything else). All of this has to do with heat conductivity. Basically some things hold onto heat more than others. Things that don't hold onto heat well will feel like they're at a more extreme hotness/coldness than other objects of the same temperature, since they palm off that heat onto you (or absorb your heat) as fast as they can.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2351073", "score": 0.645383894443512, "text": "I've got a few tvs, radios, and such that I'm taking apart. When first learning to solder, I was told if you're taking apart wires and components, it is ok to just use a hot iron to remove joints. Is this true? No wick or solder? Just put the hot iron to the joints and it'll come right off. I don't want to end up ruining my iron for something so simple.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-140064", "score": 0.645353376865387, "text": "Pieces of plastic can become *charged*. Because plastic is an insulator, any time you place a charge on it, the charge tends to stay where it's put. When you rub two insulators together, both can become oppositely charged. Plastic can't become *magnetic* because magnetism requires moving charge.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-280760", "score": 0.6452395915985107, "text": "A microwave makes much stronger waves than a wireless router, which is good because otherwise you may well get severely burned sitting near a wifi hotspot (no pun intended). To get an idea of the microwave cavity's function, think of ~~mr skeltal~~ a human blowing into a trumpet. Simply blowing through their lips in that position would make what, for argument's sake, is comparatively quiet noise. The resonance frequencies of the various trumpet components filter out most frequencies, and amplify the rest, making a loud, comparatively pure tone. A wifi antenna is closer to a small speaker. Feed a frequency into it, and it quietly converts that electrical energy into air/EM waves of that frequency. At its resonant frequency, it's loudest.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-16681", "score": 0.6452097296714783, "text": "I'm going to assume that you mean glass carafes like [this one](_URL_0_). The reason is that glass can become unstable when heated too much and can be more likely to shatter even though there's no obvious sign of damage. So, to be on the safe side, they recommend that you get rid of it so that you don't accidentally shatter it the next time you put it down.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1012571", "score": 0.6452042460441589, "text": "Would a desk made out of the stop be unsafe or hazardous to ones health? I've heard nasty stuff about it. I was thinking of buying a desk made out of it.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-114778", "score": 0.6452009081840515, "text": "The simplest explanation I can come up with: Lots of electric current flowing through a thin wire causes the wire and surrounding metal to heat up enough and melt. It's the same principal as a light bulb filament or the element in your toaster. MIG, as I'm sure you've gathered from the Wiki, stands for Metal Inert Gas. The gas, usually Argon, is a nobel gas so it is non-reactive. Oxygen would react with the metals causing them to rust and it can prevent the melted metals from properly fusing. Argon, or some other inert gas, is used to flush the atmospheric gas (oxygen and nitrogen mostly) away so you get a good weld that won't rust internally (if done properly).", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-302237", "score": 0.6451467275619507, "text": "squirel713 covered it pretty well, but I'll like to point out one distinction: Microwave work via [dielectric heating](_URL_0_) - using the electric field component of microwave radiation to rotation water molecules. IR radiation can be directly absorbed to increase both _vibrational_ and _rotational_ motion. So based on this point alone, I will argue that it's _not_ \"pretty much the same as sticking it in the sun for a while.\"", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-3364", "score": 0.6451447606086731, "text": "I believe it has to do with the surface and how porous it is/isn't. Bacteria need tiny holes to hang out in (which also traps stuff they feed on), otherwise they get brushed away easily and there is less available 'food' for them. Also some metals give off ions that apparently kill bacteria. I know silver does, not sure about other metals.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-314032", "score": 0.6451447010040283, "text": "When water is heated, it can hold less dissolved gas. In a boiling kettle,the agitation causes the excess gas to come out of solution. In the microwave the water heats and becomes supersaturated with gas, even after the water is no longer boiling ( < 100C). Your introduction of the tea bag provides nucleation points for dissolved gasses to come out of solution (like carbonated water in a chipped or dirty glass). Edit: corrected to \"solution,\" not suspension.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-90193", "score": 0.6450623273849487, "text": "Much like a small sect of coffee drinkers, there are tea ~~connoisseurs~~ snobs that will turn their nose at you if you don't brew your tea at the *proper* temperature. Tea pots are designed to heat water to a specific temperature, where the microwave can produce irregular and inconsistent results. In reality, most people will never know a difference and most tea consumers can't taste the difference. If you are among the few that can taste the difference or can't take the mockery, a teapot may be good for you. Otherwise, enjoy that quick heat from the microwave-induced vibrating water molecules.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2694025", "score": 0.645048201084137, "text": "anything you have to put in the microwave or reheated food in general? i find it makes me extremely anxious. any advice on how to deal with it?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-293172", "score": 0.6450151801109314, "text": "Mostly it's a matter of the active compound (or protein/antibody, in the case of some drugs) decomposing in some fashion, either spontaneously because the compound just isn't very stable, or due to interactions with air, or both. More complex organic compounds than not eventually break down, especially as they're exposed to oxygen and water from air. As a general rule, heating things up makes spontaneous reactions (which this sort of decomposition counts as) happen faster. Some compounds are more resilient to this than others. But it's important to note that it's not just storing things outside their recommended storage conditions that makes them go bad - even a nominally shelf-stable medication may gradually lose activity over long periods of time.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-149543", "score": 0.6449966430664062, "text": "Microwaves cause water molecules to vibrate, producing heat via friction which turns the water into steam. You just utilized the moisture in the air and in the bagel to steam it back to a softer state.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-240622", "score": 0.6449611186981201, "text": "Permanent magnets don't induce a current in objects unless they're spinning or moving rapidly in some way. A stationary permanent magnet isn't really going to do much of anything to a processor unless it's strong enough to physically pull on it and disconnect a contact point. Hard drives are a different story though. Since they use magnetic dots on a disk to store data, a powerful stationary magnet will easily erase data. [Here's a video of an extremely large rare earth magnet being used on different types of electronics.](_URL_0_) The PDA and calculator are solid state electronics without a magnetic hard drive so the magnet doesn't harm their electronics in any way. (Though it does pull the battery out of the PDA) In the computer, the magnetic hard disk is destroyed by the magnet, making the computer crash. Nothing happened to the CPU besides not being able to read the operating system's instructions anymore.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-36", "score": 0.7754591703414917, "text": "We still have them. Ever gone \"EW\" from spoiled food and decided not to eat it? Ever smelled something horrible and realized that it wasn't edible? The issue is that we've realized that there's a lot more items out there can that kill us, and notice it. Our ancestors would have just died from eating it, and then warned the surviving descendants to stay away from it." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-300737", "score": 0.7353451251983643, "text": "It should be noted that this is basically a question of evolutionary psychology-- basically you are asking why it is adaptive for this instinctive response to occur. There is currently no way to prove evolutionary theories, so these theories are just scientists' best effort at deductive reasoning. Anyway, scientists suggest that a sour/bitter flavor often signifies that a food is poisonous, and thus the resulting unfavorable facial expression is important to the fitness of the species, as it allows others to know not to eat that food without having tried it themselves. Here's the article I found discussing this: Erickson, K., & Schulkin, J. (2003). Facial expressions of emotion: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Brain and cognition, 52(1), 52-60.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-79325", "score": 0.7350607514381409, "text": "It's the brain that does the identification - the nose just passes signals on to the brain. Our sense of smell tells us what is good or bad to eat, and it has learned this through evolution. Those in the past who happened to evolve the experience of a bad sensation when smelling something harmful or toxic survived and passed this ability on through their genes; those who didn't, to put it bluntly, ate crap and died before they were able to reproduce. Similarly for things that are healthy. To a dung beetle, dung probably smells beautiful.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-112602", "score": 0.7343396544456482, "text": "My understanding is that we're super adaptive and good at a lot of different things in general. We're generalized, not specialized. That's why we lack more specialized stuff like poison and shells, haha.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-159616", "score": 0.734135627746582, "text": "At the most basic level, evolution. We've evolved to think some things smell good so that we want to eat them or know they're safe, and to think some things smell bad so we avoid eating them or being near them. The way we've evolved this is as follows: say someone really liked the smell of poo, it smelled to them like delicious food does to you. (I'm taking millions of years ago here). They'd probably eat poo every time they saw it, and they wouldn't live very long due to lack of nutrition and diseases they get from it. Someone who hated the smell would avoid this, and they'd go on to have many children who also hated the smell. And the same scenario but opposite for things that smell good.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-159206", "score": 0.7333006858825684, "text": "The evidence seems to indicate that because children need so many more calories to support their growth, we've evolved to be particularly attracted to sweeter things during physical development and, complementarily, since smaller humans with still developing brains are more sensitive to toxins—which turn out to be more often bitter tasting than are safer foods—we've evolved to feel an aversion to them until adulthood. Why not retain that aversion into adulthood? Evolutionarily, it's probably because a wider pallette means more food available.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-90610", "score": 0.7331520915031433, "text": "The evolutionary reason would be that we need to develop certain skills to the very limit, and that means discovering for ourselves what those limits are. Can we outwit that leopard by climbing that sheer rockface? Can we get that deer if we jump out of a tree onto its back? We will never learn to hunt or survive if we sit around saying, \"Looks far too dangerous, I'm not even going to try.\" It may be that some individuals will kill themselves taking these risks, but the species as a whole benefits. We disapprove of this type of risk-taking now because our civilizations and technology make this unnecessary. But you can't just stop instinct, so adolescents still do it.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-49690", "score": 0.7322484254837036, "text": "You are right, sort of. On a bigger scale at least. We like sweet things because sugar was free energy. We can't stand rotten meat because it will kill us. However, it's not perfect. Small things we don't normally eat won't necessarily be influenced by this, as not enough people have died from it to make not liking it an evolutionary advantage. Cyanide supposedly taste like almonds (I haven't tried it, of course). Belladonna tastes sweet. Etc.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-112018", "score": 0.7310978770256042, "text": "Because we evolved in an environment where people shared food a lot. If the guy next to you ate something poisonous that made him sick, it's likely you ate the same thing and should probably puke it out of your system too before you also get sick.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-38126", "score": 0.7310708165168762, "text": "Consider the evolutionary mechanism: You're wandering in some forest, you get hungry and eat some mushrooms. The mushroom is bad and you get violently ill. If you need to eat almost immediately after puking, what are the odds that you're going to eat the same kind of mushroom? What are the odds that it isn't the plant, but the environment that is toxic? It's a safety mechanism: if the area itself is harmful, eating more from it won't be helpful. As such, it would be best that you not need to eat so you can leave the area and ideally find somewhere not poisoned. Evolution is a game of statistics. This scenario played out before and now we account for it.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-69455", "score": 0.730811595916748, "text": "The root is in biology. We want to learn from other peoples mistakes (in order to avoid doing them ourselves). In return, we let other people know about stuff we did, so they can learn from our mistakes or adapt our strategies if they lead to success. Imagine finding a plant and wonder if you could eat it's fruit. Of course, you could just find out and eat the fruit, and live with the consequences, but that would be a bad strategy on an evolutionary perspective. You'd probably be happy if someone told you that he's seen somebody eating this fruit before (or preferably he's eaten the fruit before and has survived). In the end, you want to expand your knowledge by learning from other people's experience, see the example with the fruit. Assuming that you never share your experience with others, the other people probably will stop sharing their experiences with you, and you will be worse off, because you'll have to find out stuff by yourself.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-292836", "score": 0.730685830116272, "text": "The evolutionary psychologists view of these fears is that something like a spider (bugs) or a snake has the potential to kill you while not harboring typical evolutionary cues that it can (bigger, fangs, etc). Our brain has hardwired these fears because over time it was naturally selected to do so. If there are apes (non-human or otherwise) that do no fear these things it is because there is a likely competing survival need (like you mention food) that outweighed the natural selection of specimens that had an inherent fear of them (they starved to death because they did not eat them because they were afraid of them). As far as pinpointing when the moment of hardwired fear was universal in humans, its probably impossible, but probably whenever a large enough population of humans shared their environment with the threat for a few thousand years.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-184938", "score": 0.7303946614265442, "text": "A big part of the reason is that the crops we eat have been altered significantly by human farmers since the invention of agriculture to make them tastier. For instance, wild carrots are harder to chew and have a stronger flavor than domesticated carrots and are also mildly toxic. Meanwhile, wild bananas are small and filled with seeds. And so on.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-248204", "score": 0.7299003005027771, "text": "Humans evolved in the wild. We were not always so completely safe from other predators. People who developed a good response to the possible threat of a predator typically survived long enough to reproduce and pass on those traits. What you consider as irrational now may have been a perfectly justified response when our ancestors roamed and foraged. Having an instinctual response to a possible risk of predation is commonly seen in other animals ranging from fairly basic animals right up to primates. It's a fairly basic response, except in humans it has developed as a complex state of alarm and corresponding changes to things like adrenaline release, feelings of anxiety and paranoia, goosebumps which (were we to have hair like apes) would make us look bigger and more threatening, also blood in your body is redirected from your gut and viscera to your limbs and brain to allow fight or flight. This is your sympathetic nervous system engaging.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-65086", "score": 0.7294515371322632, "text": "Insects don't \"know\" things in the way we use that word. They're pretty much nothing *but* instinct. But it's worth noting that humans wanting to eat when they're hungry is an instinct, too.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-264047", "score": 0.7294365167617798, "text": "Things many claim are acquired tastes tend to have a bitter component (e.g. coffee, beer). Our tongue has only one receptor (actually a dimer thereof) for all \"tastes\" - sweet, salty, sour, umami - except bitter, for which we have somewhere in the 50's i think (correct me if i'm wrong). This is because we've evolved to find potentially harmful compounds as bitter (we could have 50 different sensations for them but the brain likes economy). And indeed, many commonly found toxic compounds are bitter - e.g. mold. However, many harmless foodstuffs are bitter, as mentioned above, especially today. Thus, when we first drink beer or coffee, we usually don't like it, because our brain is telling us that it's probably harmful. However, if our experience ends up being positive for whatever reason (social context, effect of caffeine or alcohol), the brain learns to dissociate that particular taste from the aversion reflex.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-96312", "score": 0.7281529307365417, "text": "Like most phobias it's a primal fear; some bugs are lethally poisonous to humans. Evolution decided to err on the side of caution and hardwired into us an instinctive fear-response to flee from, or kill, little bugs instead of risking potentially fatal interaction.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-127166", "score": 0.7278299927711487, "text": "Probably because we haven’t had to hunt and kill for food and survival in thousands of years. Also, that’s just our DNA. That’s like Koko the gorilla saying, “How come I had to work so hard to learn the basics of a language when human kids are learning mathematics with letters and putting chemicals together and shit?” We survived with brains. They survived with brawn", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-289628", "score": 0.7277114987373352, "text": "Over the course of evolution, it has behooved a variety of species to avoid certain stimuli and approach others. We (and other species, of course) have various olfactory receptors which respond selectively to certain airborne molecules. In general, evolution dictates which of these generate repulsive or attractive effects on our behavior (it's not evolutionarily advantageous for us to eat/play with poop, for instance, so poop smells bad to us to discourage us from messing with it). Food smells, in general, attract us because food is an evolutionarily advantageous thing to acquire. As to idiosyncratic preferences between individuals, that's a matter of combined nature/nurture. Some people acquire taste preferences from their parents, but these can change in response to upbringing (people who expose themselves to spicy food, for example, experience changes in taste sensation that result from downregulation of [capsaicin receptors](_URL_0_)).", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-152736", "score": 0.7276991605758667, "text": "Evolution, there needs to be a basic instinct to eat for any animal to do so. If there ever was an animal that didn't have an instictive need to swallow food, that animal would die out after a few weeks. We as humans can ignore our hunger until we die, which pushes the need for either a stronger instinct, or some other incetive, enjoyment. Edit: spelling", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-257499", "score": 0.7272209525108337, "text": "A well cited [article](ftp://_URL_0_) provides that cultural behavior is responsible for this. A quote from the same article: > Our genetic predispositions bias us to like sweet and salty foods, we don’t have to learn to like these tastes; we are predisposed to learn to prefer energy-dense foods over those more energy dilute; and new foods, especially those that are not sweet or salty, will be initially rejected as a result of neophobia.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-37", "score": 0.7207870483398438, "text": "The simple answer is stress causes this. By setting a schedule your body will fall into a rhythm. After a while you don't really need the alarm at all. However as we know our natural rythems get disturbed occasionally. When we must get up we are creating stress that is easiest to avoid by doing nothing and that is what we want to do (avoid stress). On the weekend you don't have stress to avoid and your body is doing its thing. A sign of depression (just one of the signs) is oversleeping. Your mind allowing your body to avoid the stress of life every chance you get. Feel good that you feel awake when you don't have to. Your life is manageable to you." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-729203", "score": 0.684175968170166, "text": "Why do some people apparently wake up well rested after 4 hours, while others need 9 hours? Is it possible to train your body/brain to get by on less sleep?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-729923", "score": 0.6835710406303406, "text": "Hello everyone! \n \nFirst of I'm not diagnosed with DSPD nor am I sure that I really suffer from it; maybe a mild form? Anyways let me introduce myself. \n \nI'm male, 20 years old. When I was a kid I always had my troubles with getting up early for school, which started at 8.00 am. On free days I'd usually sleep in till 10 o'clock and occasionally even later. Simultaneously I wouldn't go to bed as early as my parents wanted me to, and even then just lay there and watch the time run. \nI didn't even realize that children are supposed to be early risers. I just thought whatever it was was normal. Who likes to go to school anyways, right? \nAs I got older my everlasting tiredness during school got worse, and when I was 14 I started sleeping polyphasically, even though I didn't know that something like that existed at that time. I was so tired after school that nothing was fun anymore and I figured, why not just sleep after school. So I started sleeping after school every weekday, at first just a nap but it got longer and longer, usually from 16.00 to 20.00 or later, and a second phase of sleep at night so i could get up again at 6.00. \nAt first my parents weren't so fond of my new habit but I stubbornly adhered to it and when they noticed that I would be much more refreshed in the morning if I had slept the afternoon before and when my grades at school started to get better they stopped whatever complaint they had and just let me do. \nThis worked quiet well, even though I'd usually drink some coffee during the morning and still feel my best in the late hours. \n \n \nNow I'm an apprentice technician at a production plant with 24/5 production. Workers here have a rotating shift scheduled in the order of night shift/late shift/early shift. The working times are 22.00~06.15, 14.00~22.15 and 06.00~14.15 respectively. \n \nAs an apprentice technician my schedule is a bit different. I have much to my nondelight two weeks of early shift per cycle. \n\nAnyways I noticed that most of my coworkers really dislike the night shift. My direct coworkers, usually 2 per non-early shift, will mostly sit around or kill time by walking around at the plant. Not doing anything to spend their time well. And that's kind of expected too! \nI'm in the \"shop\" department, we deal with technical problems at the production line, repairs as well as maintenance and so on. \nSo during the night shift my technician coworkers are just expected to be ready for some sudden problem or a quick repair. \nThe company (and basically everyone else here) regards the early shift as the default working hours and time to get \"real\" work done. \n \nI, as a late-rhythmed person *hate* tue early shift. Not because I'm lazy or anything but I just can't work well during that time. I make lots of mistakes. I am out of my mind, can't focus, talk like idiot. I am involuntarily slow at getting my workload done. \nIt's the opposite during night-shift-weeks. I feel much more clear-headed and motivated to work. Problem is, I just got nothing to do. I need to *ask* my boss to give me more work. Last week I asked him to just give me something that keeps me busy all week. I had it finished in two nights. \n \nAnyways the worst thing about my schedule are, you guess it, the two weeks of early shift. It's not that I have trouble getting up at 4.30, it's actually quite easy since I only sleep lightly during that time. But when it's around 8.00~9.00 it hits me like a train and just get so tired. I chug some coffee and go on. But it's not a state to be in. \nI usually try to go polyphasic during those weeks and it kind of works however my tiredness-induced incompetence often stresses me so much I just can't get any good sleep, at any time during those weeks which just maked it worse and worse. When it's finally Friday I'm looking and behaving like a zombie. I just hate it. \n \n \n \nSorry for the long rambling. I guess i just needed to vent.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-74027", "score": 0.6830816864967346, "text": "Your body doesn't just charge up like a phone plugged into an outlet. Your body goes through periods of deeper sleep, and lighter sleep, throughout the night, generally in periods of 90 minutes per cycle. If you wake up in the middle of one of the deeper parts of your cycle, you will likely wake up feeling like crap. Your brain was in the middle of deep sleep and was not prepared to be woken up and things aren't really spooled up quite yet. However, if you wake up during a lighter portion of your sleep cycle, you will feel more rested and alert, ready to tackle the day. So, it can be important to try and fall asleep at a particular time to try and time it so you wake up in a lighter portion of your sleep cycle. There are apps and calculators that can help you do that. In the end, those factors can be more important to how you feel in the morning than just how many hours you were asleep.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-729279", "score": 0.6829479932785034, "text": "So growing up I was always a night owl and both my parents are night owls so I guess it might be a genetic thing for me?\n\nAnyways I've really tried recently for the past 2-3 weeks to wake up really early and shift my schedule to where I get up at 5-6am and get my stuff done in the early morning instead of staying up until 1-3am getting stuff done. \n\nHowever, I'm a lot more productive when I'm up late: I'm more creative, I get in flow a lot easier, I'm not tired etc etc. Its like my night owl tendencies come into full force. \n\nDo I just need to give myself more time to make the transition?\nOr should I just embrace being a night owl?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-34055", "score": 0.6828080415725708, "text": "You have sleep cycles that alter your physiological states. If you wake up from the middle of one, your physiological state can be quite different from awake (lower core temp, different brain waves etc.), so you don't deal with the situation in a normal awake way.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-727626", "score": 0.6827236413955688, "text": "So this has became an occurrence that I have never really thought about until now. If I set an alarm the night before the morning I wake up, no matter what time it is (unless its really late during the day of course) I will always seem to wake up ~5 minutes before my alarm. It feels like my body keeps track of time or something?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2177121", "score": 0.6826080083847046, "text": "This is something I've struggled with for most of my life, and I feel like it's one of the big things that's holding me from being able to accomplish work some days. I tend to get lazy with my sleeping schedule, so that can mean I sometimes to go bed at 4am, other times at 11pm. It kills my energy some mornings, and I have to sleep a LOT more to make up for the horrible sleeping pattern. \n\nI want to be able to wake up at a specific time and do the same thing every morning, so I can get out of the house quick and without thought. Sometimes I wake up and still think \"Should I even bother getting out of the house today?\", whereas I would love to make that an automatic yes.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-2642916", "score": 0.681853711605072, "text": "When I get up early not marketable tend to get angry about things and didn't we just have a lot more issues I sleep in till 10 most things are fine.\n\n this morning I was up very early and found myself feeling angry about things that happened a long time ago. stuff I thought I was over. also when I'm up early and have to go to work I really need to play music on my way to work or else I'll just be insanely Talkin to Myself in the car half awake half asleep rambling and sometimes making myself feel miserable but if I can get 12 hours sleep I'm mostly fine.\n\nSo if I were in the habit of getting up early my ASD would be a lot more apparent.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-729830", "score": 0.6818281412124634, "text": "After years, I’ve mastered the art of waking up early, with an app called Timely. However, I find it impossibly to get to bed early. I know very well there are consequences if I sleep late. I can barely function properly with less than 8 hours of sleep and my acne worsens. But when it is time to get ready to sleep, my brain constantly chooses the instant gratification of listening to one more song or reading one more post.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-56437", "score": 0.6817388534545898, "text": "You can wake up randomly for any number of reasons: sudden noises, flashes of light, someone touching you, or just your brain randomly deciding it should wake up. As for the feeling rested part, it's because of the mammalian sleep cycles (as you know, humans are mammals). When we sleep, we alternate between REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep, and deep sleep. During REM your brain activity would register on a measuring device almost as if it were awake, which indicates to an increased brain activity in that phase (contrasting deep sleep, when your brain is less active). Because of that, if you wake up during REM sleep, you'll feel well rested; it's the state of alertness that counteracts drowsiness.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-85482", "score": 0.6812501549720764, "text": "The simple answer is sleep inertia. When you go to sleep your body released Adenosine and Melatonin to assist in helping you fall and stay asleep. Without an alarm your bodys internal clock will wake you up when its fully rested using cotrisol and dopemine. This process takes place an hour before you wake up. When you don't get enough sleep its usually because you messed up the normal cycle and your body wasn't able to release the needed hormones to wake you up. This is amplified based on where you wake up, if you're in deep sleep the sleep inertia will be worse.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-12263", "score": 0.6812298893928528, "text": "Your brain can trick itself into thinking that it has just woken up using its internal clock. When the receptors in your eyes start detecting more light, as they often do when the sun is rising in the morning, your brain receives hormones that tell the brain it is time to start the day. This will have your body operating as though it had gotten some rest the night before, although it really hasn't. After a number of hours, this feeling will fade, and you may eventually feel even more tired than before.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-64182", "score": 0.6811346411705017, "text": "It's just something that we can't control voluntarily. Our bodies determine how hard to [pressure](_URL_0_) us into relaxing enough to allow it to sleep. If the body doesn't need sleep, we're fine and dandy, and there's no reason to sleep other than maybe being bored. However, if we're sleep deprived or sick, the body makes us tired, signalling that it's time to sleep as soon as it's safe to. If we had the power to decide when we slept, I'd bet most people wouldn't make it another year without damaging our bodies in some way. edit: It's a case of mother nature knows best.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-143366", "score": 0.680849015712738, "text": "In my experience going to bed early and laying awake till the time I would normally go to sleep causes me to have a less restful sleep. When I go to bed at my regular time and fall asleep at my regular time I feel more rested Assume I fell asleep at 11 p.m. in both cases but wen to bed at 8 p.m. and tossed for two hours, and the second scenario I went to bed at 10:45 falling asleep at 11 p.m. Time and time again I have tested this theory and going to bed early does not net me more rest. Conclusion: spending too much time awake after going to bed ends in a less restful night. I find this to be the case for most people, there are always exceptions to this.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-64051", "score": 0.680723249912262, "text": "Because you sleep in states. Deep sleep, light sleep, etc. When you wake up in a state instead of then end of one then you can feel tired or sleepy because you're technically waking up in the middle of sleeping. If you want to feel refreshed then at the time you go to sleep, count in 3 hour intervals until you get to a time that's acceptable for you to wake up", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-4280", "score": 0.6807203888893127, "text": "Probably because you have the variation your PER1 gene expression (part of the gene group that controls circadian rhythm) that makes you a night owl rather than early bird / day lark. In prehistoric times, you would have been the one of the people watching over the village at night, keeping your family safe from predators. Unfortunately modern society was set up by a bunch of prudes that thought nocturnal activity was inherently wrong, and so the 9-5 working day became enshrined as the normal/healthy time to be awake and alert.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-65852", "score": 0.6805711984634399, "text": "Circadian Rythms aka your biological clock. You get used to sleeping until 1, so when you wake up at a different time you don't feel so great. [source](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-29378", "score": 0.6803563237190247, "text": "One of the potential many reasons this happens is due to Cortisol which is secreted from the adrenal glands just above the kidneys. You may have heard of the body clock or the biological clock, and this is one of the things which helps this clock work. If you wake up at say 7am every morning for example then your body will produce a higher amount of cortisol at this time to give you that morning boost of energy. If you stay up for a long period of time you can expect to find a time when all of your energy is minimal and you feel tired, but then at a certain time your body will produce the cortisol and you will be granted a minor energy boost. Although you have this boost, you will not operate like you would with a full nights sleep, your body will still have much slower processing and reaction speeds, you just feel more energized for a small period of time.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-124966", "score": 0.680275022983551, "text": "Perhaps someone will chime in with a biological reason, but I always assumed it was due to FOMO (fear of missing out). They think fun stuff happens after they go to bed, so they want to stay up, so they try to pretend they don't need sleep by being wild, and in doing so they only hasten their exhaustion.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-101101", "score": 0.6801431179046631, "text": "We have hormones that control this Usually these hormones are influenced by daylight to build up the need to sleep. An offset to this cycle makes us unbalanced, sleepy during the day and awake at night Lots of things can create this offset.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-38", "score": 0.8787150382995605, "text": "The short answer is that it's not just the US government pushing to include \"backdoors.\" Tech companies could move to a country without these laws, but places like the US could restrict or prohibit them from selling their products in the US. The better option is to follow Apple's example and refuse to build the backdoors." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-11975", "score": 0.7438300251960754, "text": "Yes. Assuming the country they move to doesn't demand backdoors either. Also, they would have to move *all* their operations overseas.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-163144", "score": 0.7418038249015808, "text": "These days a backdoor would almost certainly be implemented in software and at least some buyers are able to negotiate access to source code as part of the purchase agreement. I believe that the F35 falls in this category because the other countries are considered to be co-developers rather than just buyers and in some cases have unique capabilities built just for them. I suspect that this applies to a fairly small number of contracts but when it does it gives the buyer an extra layer of protection.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-98614", "score": 0.7393810749053955, "text": "Google does business in the EU, so they are required to comply with those laws. That's the main reason -- lots of companies do business in multiple countries.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2392440", "score": 0.7381013035774231, "text": "Something that just came to my mind. \n\nWhat prevents governements from around the world to ask Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Seagate and co. to add hardware backdoors in order to censor state-unapproved software? \n\nIt's because CPU, Hard Drives and Graphics cards require very expensive and very specialised machinery to produce at a reasonable cost and time. What are the odds that hardware manufacturers become compromised in the same way that big tech companies give direct access of their data to the NSA? \n\nOne example: The Intel Management Engine. \n\nPS: Probably unlikely, but that's still food for thought.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-187988", "score": 0.7349317073822021, "text": "If a foreign company wants to do business in America, then they have to follow American anti-trust laws. There's nothing stopping Microsoft from picking up and moving to Botswana, but if they want to sell Windows in the US then they still have to follow US laws.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-46833", "score": 0.7338210940361023, "text": "They're not a rogue group. They're funded by, and fully within the control of the President and the Congress. Either of which could effectively dismantle their operations if they so chose. Assuming the people involved wanted to keep doing these things without the permission of government (although I don't know why, since their actions are done to benefit the government) then it would be easy enough for tech companies to just ignore them. They don't have to take demands from random person formerly from the NSA, but they do have to take demands from the NSA.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-45926", "score": 0.7333606481552124, "text": "Some military equipment are made with R & D from the government (military, or defence agency). Sometime, it's the government that paid for the developpement of the equipment/vehicle. This is usually the case with a lot of aircraft and armored vehicle. A company rarely can develop one of those by themselves, especially since they usually develop them for a specific military. So in those situation, the government like the US have to give their ok if you want for the manufacturer to seal to another country. Additionnally, some of these weapons have the top level in term of military software and technology and in those case there is a law that can prohibit the sell of those to foreign power for national security reason. That's why the F-22 was never sold to anyone outside of the US even if a lot of people would have wanted to buy it.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-1909739", "score": 0.7288624048233032, "text": "Yesterday, President Obama made the biggest mistake in the history of his political career, and possibly the biggest political mistake of America in the 21st century.\n\nHe implicitly approved of gimping cryptography systems within the United States by allowing a shallow FBI mouthpiece to spout the plan out to the general public.\n\nMaybe Dubai can get away with badgering RIM into implementing a cryptography backdoor. They aren't a major market, and they don't set technology trends. RIM could manufacture a custom version for them, and the entire world rests at only a slight unease. But the US can't get away with that. It's too influential.\n\nLook around the world, and you'll see that US software keeps information flowing. The overwhelming majority of end-user systems are Windows-based, Linux is developed mainly by American corporations, and Apple is just as beholden to American law as the rest of them. FreeBSD is an American project. NetBSD is an American project. OpenBSD is a Canadian project; Canada may as well be America, Jr. when it comes to laws of this nature. Cisco is an American corporation. Juniper is an American corporation. Every single system underpinning the Internet either comes from North America, or requires significant involvement from North America.\n\nBy requiring every American communication system to implement government-approved cryptographic backdoors, the Obama Administration is asking software and hardware providers to compromise the security of every other country on the planet. If they are willing to plant backdoors in software to spy on their own citizens, they are even *more* likely to enforce those backdoors worldwide. Even if they didn't, every single piece of software coming out of the United States would become suspect. As far as communications infrastructure is concerned, that's every single piece of software, period.\n\nChina won't take this lying down. They could fork Linux, Free/Net/OpenBSD, even Solaris, sure, but if it were economical to duplicate the wholesale development of even a kernel for them, they would have done it by now. That's not covering the proprietary systems, though, the majority of which are pirated copies that can't easily be inspected by Chinese security agents for intentional foreign attack vectors. It'd be easier, and cheaper in the long run, for them to *invade us* than independently maintain their systems.\n\nI don't want to see a war against China. They'll win, based on numbers alone, considering Russia's brutal war record. They have two potential soldiers for every single American citizen. We can't win against that, no matter how well we've trained, no matter how good our weapons are, and no matter how motivated we are to not die. And we won't have allies this time. They'll hate us just as much as China will, because we'll have compromised their security, too.\n\nI'm really surprised that the people we elect to think things through haven't thought things through. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. The past two years have been nothing but vapid bickering and false dichotomies. This Hopey Changey stuff we were promised hasn't worked out at all.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-175550", "score": 0.7251471281051636, "text": "(bug companies?? Bug companies???) Anyway assuming your question is about _big_ companies then your point is pretty flawed 1. Facebook _wasn't_ big at that point? They were just a small company 2. Most of the US's biggest companies aren't based in California! [The top 10 of Fortune 500](_URL_0_) has companies based in Texas (Exxon Mobil), Arkansas (Walmart) & Michigan (Ford & GM) I think what you are asking is why are lots of tech companies based in California (specifically around san francisco bay)? And the answer is because lots of tech companies are based in California! It makes sense to have your company near other similar companies so you can share from the same pool of employees and other resources. It's why GM and Ford are both based around/in Detroit, why all the financial firms were historically on Wall Street, why film companies are all in Hollywood... Now why those places became centres for certain industries in the first place - well, that's a different question.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2738937", "score": 0.7251093983650208, "text": "There are front page headline articles right now about how the FBI and other agencies need a backdoor into encryption software that tech companies produce in order to keep us safe from terrorists.\n\nIronically, the first assertion they make before saying this is that \"the encryption terrorists are currently using is unbreakable\".........presumably unbreakable without a back door since they want tech companies to create one for them in their software.\n\nIf the tech companies provide the government a back door into the encryption software they produce, ignoring the gaping security holes it would create for every industry that uses encryption (banks, hospitals, trade secrets, etc), it would only allow the government to spy on the average Joe citizen who isn't sophisticated enough to code their own encryption software.\n\nBy the government's admission, encryption that is uncrackable exists which is why they need a backdoor. Therefore, if they do obtain a backdoor, nothing is stopping a well funded group from just coding their own encryption software to which no backdoor exists.\n\nSo as it stands, I do not see how having a backdoor into encryption would benefit the government at all in fighting terrorism, it would only make every critical business in the world more insecure, as well as rendering any companies that sell encryption software useless since if the government has a backdoor, so do potentially any bad actors.\n\n_____\n\n&gt; *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules]( *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki]( *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us***. *Happy CMVing!*", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-105146", "score": 0.723019540309906, "text": "If you want to do business with people, you've got to go where they are--and nobody lives in Imaginationstan. They live in states that have the power to impose tax, and will punish you for not paying it. For example, if a company operating in the United States violates our tax laws, the government can seize its property and force it to stop doing business--it doesn't matter where it's headquartered, because it's doing business in the U.S., which leaves it both legally and practically vulnerable. The digital economy is not really an exception. The Internet infrastructure is still under the control of states, and increased cooperation makes international tax law enforcement increasingly viable. If all else fails, products can be seized at the border.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-89692", "score": 0.7208995223045349, "text": "The US government is made up of people. Each of those people think they are good people doing good work. They work to protect other good people. They think they are the good guys. They want to defeat all bad guys. They think that encryption back doors will give the bad guys fewer places to hide. They want to beat the bad guys so much that they are willing to give up your privacy. They want to beat the bad guys so much they are willing to destroy the entire concept of privacy in order to win against all bad guys everywhere. They don't understand that the \"back door\" they want to build can be found by the bad guys. They believe that their safety is more important than your privacy.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2391708", "score": 0.7198859453201294, "text": "There has already been a lot of talk about European companies looking for alternatives to Google and the like, over privacy concerns. How could a company like Volkswagen justify using Google servers when they know that it means that the US government always knows what they are up to? Imagine they were planning a hostile takeover of Ford Motor Company. Why would they trust the US government to keep their secret, when it was *in their interest to do otherwise?*. \n \nCan we expect the emergence of new internet giants in Europe?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-147669", "score": 0.7126386165618896, "text": "Many US companies do business in Europe, so they will have to comply with those laws. If they are going business in any place where a court ruling against them would adversely affect their business, then they will want to comply with those laws. And even if a company isn't doing business in Europe now, they might plan to at a later date, so designing their website to comply with that law isn't a bad idea. Also, it will protect them if the US passes a similar law in the future.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-51317", "score": 0.7086421251296997, "text": "According to the European Union's data protection law, companies can transfer and store European citizens data only to those countries which have strong enough data protection legislation. USA is not one of these countries. Because of this, USA and EU made a separate agreement called \"Safe Harbor\" which enables the above mentioned acts as long as the US companies agree to take care of sufficient data protection. Now because of Edward Snowden's leaks about NSA basically spying everyone everywhere, EU has questioned if this agreement has any value at all and now EU indeed has rejected the agreement. This may have quite large implications on US Internet companies (Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter etc. etc.) which might be forced to store their European data on European data centers in the future.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-11681", "score": 0.7073986530303955, "text": "Let's say you own a pretty profitable business in the US but you're tired of paying taxes. First, you make a shell company where there are lax regulations and low taxes. Then you transfer the assets that your US company has to the shell company, in name at least. You continue to use those assets in the US to make money and do business, but all the money technically belongs to your shell company. Since your shell company is outside of the US, it doesn't pay US taxes. The tricky part is being able to use assets outside of the US to do business in the US without having to keep the money in the US. There are different ways to get around this. For example, a tech company can transfer all of its patents to its shell company and then the US company can lease them back under terms where money made from their sale belongs to the shell company.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-96692", "score": 0.704849123954773, "text": "Most of the companies who do this are not in the US. They're in places like China, India, Russia, etc where their government won't go after them for it. The US laws preventing it generally only apply to the US (plus maybe a few other countries). Also, they're pretty tough to track down. They usually change name/product and service after a few months and like I said above, it doesn't help at all that most of the places they reside in aren't interested in finding them.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-3197", "score": 0.704094409942627, "text": "It is actually against the law for the US or companies of the US to sell a WHOLE range of things without very special permission, and for some countries, the answer is often no--like China--and always no for some - North Korea. This is why espionage and spying on technology is such a high stakes activity. Like here: _URL_0_ We also do not share everything, as a rule. Nobody else has the stealth bomber (some of these things are just so complicated and expensive, a nation couldn't build one) and in the meantime, the US continues to invent the next model even as the current model is getting launched. The US doesn't sell to unstable countries and usually what they get is something we've already left behind and can easily take out.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1730797", "score": 0.7037792205810547, "text": "It would be interesting as the most of the world depends on software/internet companies from California. If america cuts that out, people will be left scrambling and communication will breakdown. But again, major software companies have important operation centers around the world like India and China, so that would be another factor if these countries would decide to cut them off..", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1932285", "score": 0.7035660147666931, "text": "I'm a IT geek from Russia. And as a normal geek I have my personal side projects that I do for fun. And maybe one day I will do a business on top of them, who knows. However, I don't have any specific plans at this moment. But I would like to know what opportunities do I loose if I start software business outside of the USA.\n\nSpeaking about hiring, I think Russia is a good place to find well skilled developers and/or business partners to cooperate with. But as far as I understand building a product is just a half of work. I'm not sure how difficult will it be to promote and sell something outside of the country I live in.\n\nIf residence in the USA is vital for IT Startup, I would like to know how can I get there legally. The only opportunity I know is obtaining work permit visa(H1B etc). But I don't really need a work permit per se, since I'm not looking for a job. All of my friends who moved to the USA did it to find a job. But this is not my case, so they can't advice me.\n\nAlso I have israeli citizenship. Not sure, but maybe it could help somehow?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-39", "score": 0.6789992451667786, "text": "Well, actually, that's not their one job. They also have to meet with people, work on legislation, and so on. Many of the Senators may be in their offices. When an important vote is called, they will come to the floor to vote. They can get from their offices to the floor in just a few minutes." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-2470824", "score": 0.6448490619659424, "text": "So when the Democrats were the minority party in the Senate while GWBush was in office, they made an argument that voting on Supreme Court Justices was unfair to the minority party because they didn’t have any way to be properly represented as the minority party. And the Republican majority party agreed that it was unfair. So they changed the rules of voting on Supreme Court Justices from a simple majority vote to a 60+1 vote to even out the playing field for the minority party.\n\nBut when the Republicans were the minority party in the Senate while Obama was in office, the Democrat majority party decided to go back to a simple majority vote because the Republicans were stopping Obama’s nominations for the Supreme Court Justices from being elected claiming that the minority Republicans were stopping the progress Obama was trying to make. They removed the 60+1 vote back to simple majority, and told Republicans to grow up because the rules were the rules.\n\nNow that Democrats are a minority party in the Senate again, and President Trump has the ability to nominate yet another Supreme Court Justice, and potentially even three more given the current circumstances of the Supreme Court Justices, they want to go back to the rules that they need 60+1 votes for Supreme Court Justices? Weren’t they the ones who removed this rule for their own ability to get a simple majority vote on any Supreme Court Justice they wanted? Weren’t they the ones who decided that the rule was necessary in the first place?\n\nI really don’t understand the Democrat strategy, except that involves shooting themselves in the foot almost every step of the way. And if I were a Republican Senator right now, I’d be telling them to grow up, the rules are rules.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-214739", "score": 0.6448022723197937, "text": "The decision overturned part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, on the grounds that it caused the Court to overstep its original jurisdiction granted in the Constitution. In other words, that part of the Act was unconstitutional. This decision established the power of the US courts to review and overturn Congressional acts if they are a) in conflict with other laws or b) in conflict with the Constitution. What's a little bit confusing is that the impact of the decision meant that the court was *denying* itself additional powers (to intervene directly in administrative appointments of the government). So in a way it's as if SCOTUS were taking judicial powers away from itself. But in reality, by establishing the Court's power to review & overturn acts of Congress, the precedent it set was plenty powerful.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-219102", "score": 0.6432695388793945, "text": "Before the *Marbury v. Madison* case, the Supreme Court had not made any decisions that would significantly affect United States law, and was hardly recognized as an equal power to the other two branches. It had been realized that the courts had this power, but it was not until the SC had to step into the *Marbury v. Madison* that people had seen the power that they possesed. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-52273", "score": 0.6432508230209351, "text": "Pretty complicated hypothetical question for an ELI5. It isn't safe to assume anything about what the Supreme Court will ultimately decide.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-84157", "score": 0.6430203318595886, "text": "Senators were not always elected. Prior to the 17th amendment which came about in 1912, they were appointed by governors.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-143844", "score": 0.6427174210548401, "text": "The repeal was only partial - it only stopped the filibuster of presidential nominees, so the other situations haven't changed. There are a lot of openings on the federal courts at the moment, though, and these are lifetime appointments, so it could have a big impact on the interpretation of laws in the years to come. There's also a chance of retaliation from Senate Republicans, but it wouldn't be directly caused by the rule change.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-111946", "score": 0.6425861716270447, "text": "No, because Presidents only nominate Supreme Court Justices. The Senate has to confirm them (which balances the power between those branches.) The Justice then serves for life and has power to review the constitutionality of executive and legislative actions (which balances the power between the Justice and the other two branches.)", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-116118", "score": 0.6416918039321899, "text": "You are incorrect. Federal judges require the approval of the Senate, as do all high-level federal officers.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-46096", "score": 0.6415782570838928, "text": "It is against the decorum and rules of the senate to impute another senator on the Senate floor. Essentially, you can't use the Senate floor to question the conduct of another Senator. There are other ethics committees and places where such matters are meant to happen. The idea is that the Senate floor is supposed to be a professional and productive use of everyone's time and not resort into a back and forth name calling session. Warren used the Senate floor to make the argument that Sessions was going using his position to attack the rights of black voters in America and the Republicans invoked the Senate rule to make her stop. She is now holding press conferences and doing everything in her power to get as much media attention out of it as possible, as is par for the course for Warren. Every week she does or says something \"controversial\" to get into the spotlight. She's ramping up for a 2020 presidential run a little early.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-98256", "score": 0.640815794467926, "text": "Well, you've already hit upon the reason: the Senate. Since Congress has to approve new states entering the union, there's absolutely no way that that would ever get approved, because it would dilute the voting power of every other state.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-33686", "score": 0.6400339007377625, "text": "Because the president is enormously powerful. If you're elected to the senate you share your power with 99 other senators, and all the senators share it basically equally with the house of representatives. If you're appointed to be a supreme court job, you share that power with 8 others. If you're elected president. You're it, you basically have complete sole control of the powers of the executive branch. While the president doesn't have absolute power, he has sole authority to make decisions with the authority his branch has, no one else has that much power alone.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-69039", "score": 0.6396495699882507, "text": "It basically states that if a President doesn't veto the law within 10 days of receiving it, he loses his chance to veto it... unless Congress isn't in session at the end of those 10 days (which means both the President and Congress are ignoring the bill). This is very similar to the way the President can appoint people to the Supreme Court by himself if the Senate has a ten-day period where they don't meet.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-130829", "score": 0.6394932270050049, "text": "They have a time when they need to have the vote done. If it's not done by then it needs to be rescheduled. A filibuster that just gets the vote rescheduled isn't really beneficial, just annoying (which is sometimes the goal) but usually it's to gain more time to negotiate more.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-57616", "score": 0.6391574740409851, "text": "Two main reasons: 1) No party will have a solid 60 person majority; the country is too divided. Even if you have 60 \"D\" or \"R\" senators, a decent amount of those are going to be moderates that won't always fall in line with their party. This is because a few of these people will be D's in places that usually elect R's or vice-versa. Thus, they have to show they aren't a shill for their party. 2) There was only a 60 Dem majority in the Senate for roughly 2 weeks. Remember, it took months for Al Franken to get sworn in (due to the recount), and Ted Kennedy was incapacitated just a little later. Then, Scott Brown (R) was elected to take his seat. Were there things the Obama Administration could have done differently to pass more stuff? Yes. No one, however, expected the R opposition to be as lock step as it was, particularly in regards to bills that R's themselves were trying to pass just a few months earlier. It was quite literally unprecedented. But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-103", "score": 0.6385862231254578, "text": "Because politics quickly becomes political. Currently D.C. is extremely Democratic, so Republicans don't want 2 new Democratic Senators. If the situation was reversed it's likely that the sides would quickly flip and Democrats would be blocking the amendment.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1509211", "score": 0.6384700536727905, "text": "We're already later in the year than Scalia's vacancy 4 years ago. I'm no stranger to the hypocrisy of politics, but was any precedent set by the actions in 2016 to make it standard to leave a SC vacancy unfilled by a certain point in the presidency? And would that have any legal ground?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-200172", "score": 0.6379379630088806, "text": "At the time, rank and file members didn't have offices. They didn't get offices until the respective House and Senate office buildings opened (now Cannon and Russell) in the early 1900's. So if anything changed, it would've been basically limited to floor layout.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-81261", "score": 0.6378523707389832, "text": "No, the constitution doesn't require them to take any action. You can argue that it's highly unprofessional and a breach of decorum, but it's not a violation of any law. If you don't like it, the only remedies are to protest and get the Senators to change their minds or vote them out.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1508097", "score": 0.6368730068206787, "text": "So we've ratified the constitution and we have the senate. Now what? I can't do MY job properly if I can't have anything to base sentences on. People can legally appeal their trials, since it was based on a DRAFT of laws, which has been deleted entirely.\n\n**TL;DR** SENATE, GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER. IT'S BEEN 2 WEEKS SINCE THE ELECTION AND YOU'VE DONE ALMOST NOTHING TO IMPROVE LIFE IN ORION. MAKE SOME LAWS.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-56435", "score": 0.6368234753608704, "text": "The Supreme Court consist of nine people (currently eight) who are selected based on extraordinary merit in law, along with a good deal of politics. It is not in any way, shape or form meant to be a representative sample of the population of the United States. It's not even representative of lawyers (themselves not representative of Americans), since the Justices rarely come from but a very small pool of top law schools.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-40", "score": 0.7818502187728882, "text": "No, you'll actually be going faster. The speed is calculated based on the OEM tire size, whereas if you put a larger tire on, there is more circumference so the hub will spin slower, yet will be traveling the same speed. You can have it recalibrated fairly cheaply." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-292745", "score": 0.7412829995155334, "text": "Your GPS is probably more accurate. Your car's indicated speed depends on the diameter of your tires, which wear with time, so your indicated speed is, in effect, a function of the \"newness\" of your tires. When your car first rolls off the assembly line, it is required to be calibrated to only +/- 10%, but to ensure conservative error, most auto manufacturers calibrate it so that it's a little high on a new tire, and close to zero error on a bald tire. Car & Driver did a test a while back and showed that the average error for about 200 cars is 2%, though some were quite a bit higher. Edit: +/- 10%, not 5%", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-52810", "score": 0.7396188378334045, "text": "Speedometers measure the speed of a vehicle by using a magnet attached to the vehicle's transmission through a series of gears. As this magnet spins it interacts with the speedometer needle and pulls it a certain amount depending on the speed of rotation of the transmission. speedometers must be calibrated so that the amount the needle is pulled accurately reflects the speed of the vehicle and the difference in speed you describe is most likely due to either your's or your girlfriend's speedometer being calibrated incorrectly. Tire diameter can affect the speed of your vehicle without changing the measure speed on the speedometer, so if you have much larger tires and in particular if these were not the original size of tires of the vehicle this could cause the reading on the speedometer to be incorrect For completeness: Electronic speedometers work in a similar way, just the reading is transmitted to the speedometer by wiring from the transmission instead of mechanical gears", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-133799", "score": 0.7368512749671936, "text": "Tire diameter is an integral part of the car's design. Changing the diameter of the tire can throw off more than just the calibration of the speedometer and the odometer, but also things like ABS systems, anti-skid systems and other dynamic stability control often found in modern cars. It also affects the load put upon your brake system - it is entirely possible to run your brakes hot if they are not designed to handle the new tire diameter.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-471372", "score": 0.7356926202774048, "text": "Currently my Mazda runs a tire size of 205/55r16, but I was able to get a set of brand new winter tires at a great deal. Unfortunately they are sized 205/60r16. I read that this could throw off my spedometer due to the added size. I was curious as to what the real physical differences are between these sizes and if I can damage my car by adding the larger tires during the winter?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1212562", "score": 0.7328379154205322, "text": "Long story short I want to make a car that can't slide due to power, auto, and wide factory wheels, slide. I'm considering putting some smaller old tires on the wheels and running them at max pressure. I figure that aught to make it easier to get out in a track setting. \n\nYes I have a better car for this but I feel like being an idiot.\n\nEdit: For the record I'm talking about 205 on a 8\" wide wheel. This will be on a closed course and I will not use these to get there.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-470356", "score": 0.7319806814193726, "text": "A couple years ago I had bought Winter Tires for my 1996 Mustang GT, which are 245/45R17. I had sold that car and now own a 2010 Acura TSX, which has tires that are 225/50R17.\n\nLast winter I called my autoshop (Firestone) to see if they can put these tires on my TSX, and they told me that they would only put on tires that are specifically sized for my car.\n\nSo I'm not sure if they were just following corporate guidelines, trying to sell me new tires, or what. So my question is, do any of you know if this is something that normally can be done, or would these new tires really not fit on my vehicle without problems? \n\nTo clarify, I want to go from my current 225/50R17 to 245/45R17 tires. Thanks!", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-324515", "score": 0.7313225865364075, "text": "It will depend on more factors than simply the diameter of the tire. A larger diameter will give more resistance to change in its [rotational inertia](_URL_0_) than a smaller tire. When you are out next, pay attention to the diameters of different vehicles wheels. Less powerful vehicles (like the Prius, Smart car, etc.) which are designed for efficiency over speed will have smaller wheels because the motor would struggle to move the wheel with 20\" diameter wheels on it. The larger diameter wheel may cover more distance in a single rotation than a smaller diameter wheel, but because of its moment of inertia it will take more energy to turn it a single revolution. Add to that the likelihood that a larger-diameter wheel (or simply a larger diameter tire) will most likely weigh more than a smaller one, the added weight will also have an effect on a vehicles mpg.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-55656", "score": 0.7302130460739136, "text": "It does, that's why you match tire size to rim. The numbers on the tire rating will change, ie if you have a 14\" stock wheel, your tire size is 195/75/R14 195 is your width in millimeters, 75 is the percentage of the width as side wall height (so 75% of 195mm) When you change to say a 17\" wheel, your tire size will alter to ~205/40/R17 This is to reduce the overall diameter of the rotating mass so it doesn't throw off your speedo gearing ratio, and the math's are correct. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-5190", "score": 0.7289837002754211, "text": "It does not know. It assumes the tires are in proper contact with the ground, and when they are not, it gives an incorrect reading. Future speedometers may be corrected using GPS, but that generally is not done today.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-176090", "score": 0.7275617718696594, "text": "Generally GPS based speedometers are considered to be more accurate. A number of factors can be at play with the physical speedometer in your car including gear ratios and tyre rolling circumference. Any variations especially in your tyres can cause the speedo to read faster or slower so car manufacturers tend to build in a tolerance in your favour to protect you from getting speed tickets etc.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-311541", "score": 0.7275598049163818, "text": "Yes, but not due to the radius... The main factors are the increased width of the wheels and the shorter sidewalls on the tires that wrap them. The tire compound make a drastic difference as well, but sticky tires aren't exclusive to huge rims... You can make a perfectly competent sports car with small radius wheels. You just need wide tires, thin sidewalls, and a sticky compound, no need for a large radius. It's just more common to see those characteristics in larger diameter wheels, thereby creating the illusion that the larger diameter is what matters, when it really doesn't mean crap. ;)", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2340401", "score": 0.725389838218689, "text": "I'm talking about a 2008 Nissan Rogue SL AWD. I need to buy some new tires this winter and being a bit higher could help to not get stuck in the snow. I heard that if you use tires that are too big, it can mess up your speedometer and other stuff. Although, I went on Canadian Tires website and found that the 18' are available to the rogue.\n\nPS: Sorry for my bad English.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1963561", "score": 0.7250019311904907, "text": "I put all 4 new tires in my car back in May. Today I was hit piece of glass and it tore the front tire. I had to get it replace in an emergency and replaced it with a brand new tire. The old tires have no more than 9k miles on them, and I told the guy to put the new tire on rear wheel so the front tires are the same for steering. When driving home, the car did jitter a lot when going ~60Mph. Should I have the tire shaved down, or is it whithin tolerance levels for my car?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1965445", "score": 0.7236282229423523, "text": "My cars stock tire size is 215/70r15. My front tires are bad and i have two 195/65r15 sitting in my garage. Can i put these tires on in place of the stock ones, or will the difference in width make it dangerous to mount those tires on the rims?", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-95434", "score": 0.723541259765625, "text": "What you were told was in fact correct. The people speculating here that a wider tire = larger area of tire touching the road are incorrect. See: _URL_1_", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1964940", "score": 0.7224076986312866, "text": "I’m looking to get new rims and tires and I originally wanted 305mm wide tires but my friend said that would just slow me down because of my 3.15 gears and that I should go for 275mm instead. My car is an auto and I almost always do rolls instead of digs. I plan to add more mods over time (right now I have an intake, tune, and catback exhaust) so I want to have wide enough tires to handle up to around 600hp give or take. I plan on getting the Nitto nt555 g2 tires. Drag radials aren’t quite practical enough for me which is why I went with summer tires. Thank you in advance.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-627291", "score": 0.7211755514144897, "text": "I was thinking about buying some Method race wheels and mounting AT tires on them but found out that my OEM Wheels are the same size. Do aftermarket wheels chance anything other than style?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-25715", "score": 0.7206904292106628, "text": "The radar detector is likely to be more accurate. For two reasons: Your speedometer actually measures rotations of your drive shaft or something directly linked to it, so it presumes that your tires are the same size as those used by the manufacturer to establish the speed, if you've changed brand, tire dimensions, or even potentially inflation pressure it's guaranteed to be off by some amount. Tire size also has an effect on fuel mileage (since it changes the gearing of the engine to road). Second, it's likely that the radar detector is owned by the police department and as such is likely to be tested and certified to be admissible in a court (someone who gets a ticket and can show that the certification is out of date will have their ticket voided in court), even if it wasn't being used for tickets at the time.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1963785", "score": 0.7191512584686279, "text": "Backstory, when I bought the car, it was a project, and the owner had a cracked rear wheel. So he ordered a new one, I had it put on with new tires. Drove it home and noticed it's wrong And it had the front tires on them. I ordered the proper fitting wheel to match the other side. When the new wheel comes in, if I drive the car to the shop to get it all swapped around, will the small difference in the width of the rear wheels harm my diff?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-147193", "score": 0.7187862396240234, "text": "Your car's speedometer is measuring the speed at which your tranmission is turning, and calculating that according to how fast your wheels turn, and assuming the size of your wheels, how fast you're going. So a lot of assumptions there. The radar is actually measuring how fast you're going, so trust the radar reading.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-41", "score": 0.821695864200592, "text": "Bugspray is actually a chemical weapon. As in it shuts down biological functions bugs need to stay alive, like forgetting how to breathe for example. It can also cause military chemical weapons detection gear to register false positives." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-142928", "score": 0.7388826012611389, "text": "If you mean the kind that kills bugs instead of the one that keeps them away, I got this one. Generally, in the hands of most users, it drowns the cock-roach or whatever. The average user sprays and keeps spraying until the bug is no longer moving or showing signs of life, and then sprays some more. Very wasteful, and you don't need to do it. Just zap the pest with a quick spritz and it will die soon enough. The way it works is most bug sprays are mild nerve agents. The nerve agent messes up the way the neurons fire and makes the muscles (or whatever bugs have resembling muscles) tense up and twitch uncontrollably. The insect won't be able to breath, the circulation will go crazy, and the insect will quickly expire.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-316510", "score": 0.7302496433258057, "text": "Most bug sprays are neurotoxins. The toxin is taken up causing paralysis and respiratory arrest. I imagine it actually takes more than a few seconds to totally kill, but the paralysis kicks in within seconds.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-150789", "score": 0.7159630656242371, "text": "To start off with most bug sprays are very VERY toxic to the insects in question. And then when you consider how small the bugs are and how much spray you are using it becomes pretty clear how they work so well. I mean, if you completely coat almost any animal in neurotoxins they die pretty fast.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-192671", "score": 0.7155892848968506, "text": "There are at least two different types of bug sprays: Repellents: These work by keeping bugs away. Typically they use a smell that bugs really dislike. Others, such as DEET, which repels primarily Mosquitoes (But also repels other biting insects), will block the receptors that Mosquitoes use to track down their prey. This basically makes them blind while around someone who's using it, but it does not kill the Mosquito. Insecticides: These are toxins that poison the insect. The most common and quick reacting ones are neurotoxins such as pyrethrin. They basically cause all of the nerve cells in the insects body to fire at once, paralyzing them and causing rapid organ failure and a quick death.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-323328", "score": 0.7146825194358826, "text": "Bug spray is a low-level nerve gas (please be careful!) that affects the insects just like pepper spray, mustard gas and cyanide would do to us (three different levels, right there-Google each one). The bugs nervous system is shutting down, the air that surrounds it becomes toxic and death follows painfully. But, it is a bug that wouldn't think twice about biting you, stinging you or landing in your potatoe salad when you're trying to eat, sooooo, fu*k 'em! Spray away!", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2363902", "score": 0.7016704082489014, "text": "My workplace sprays for bugs, and I typically come across a bug once it’s already feeling the effects of the poison. What do I do about these? I feel bad for them. \n\nWhat would you do?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-58448", "score": 0.699181079864502, "text": "Not all of them do. But i think certain pesticides kill bugs by giving them a seizure, which causes them to contract all their legs at once, go up on tippy-toes, and fall over. Then they cant get up again and die that way. Poor widdle bugsies Oh, and you stay AWAY from that cabinet in the shed, you hear me? It's locked for a reason.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-114637", "score": 0.6951349973678589, "text": "A lot of has to do with strength, and spray pattern. Wasp spray needs to be extra strong and spray on a stream to get inside the nest. Flying insect killer needs to spray a mist to stay in the air and continue killing. In addition some bugs, like spiders, breathe through their skin and some poisons don't work on them for to this​. I have sprayed was with spider spray and it works. I have killed ants with wasp spray.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-274011", "score": 0.6935157179832458, "text": "Many bug sprays contain pyrethrin family compounds which mess with the nervous systems in most insects by preventing the resetting of their nerves. Once tensed, muscles cannot relax so the bug basically siezes up. Larger vertibrates have sufficient enzymes to inactivate these compounds before they can affect our nervous system.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-27207", "score": 0.6889909505844116, "text": "You can only hit the bug as hard as the bug can hit you. Punch a feather in mid air, or a piece of paper, no damage is done. Physics 101.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-318557", "score": 0.6840578317642212, "text": "Generally speaking, it depends on what kind of insecticide (bug poison) is being used. The insecticide can either remain on the surface and have an insect step in it (or you have superb timing and directly spray the insects), or it can be absorbed by a plant, and when the insects eat the plant, they get a dose of the chemical. The latter type can be very useful for those pests which attack in a way where one can't efficiently apply a direct spray. Some do both, although I don't know which ones in particular are marketed that way. But basically the majority of insecticides - of either application method - are chemicals that interfere with nerve function (typically either ion channel function or acetylcholine metabolism). The commercially available bug spray Raid (at least the original formula, as memory serves) is essentially a synthetic version of a naturally occurring botanical insecticide. Hope this was helpful!", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2363933", "score": 0.6809073686599731, "text": "Maybe a stupid question, but I’m trying to figure out a solution to a problem. Recently I have been dealing with a minor infestation of Rollie Pollies / Potato Bugs / Pill Bugs in my apartment. Their presence doesn’t bother me really and if I find one crawling around I will gently pick it up and put it back outside. Frankly, of all insect problems to have I’m glad it’s this one. I find Rollie Pollies to be kind of adorable and hardly a nuisance.\n\n*However*, that being said, the ones I don’t find immediately end up dying because this type of bug needs pretty much constant moisture. If my memory serves me correctly, they are not even really bugs, but some type of crustacean. \n\nI was wondering if there is some kind of spray or oil I can use to try and repel them without hurting them or killing them; kind of like how citronella is known to repel mosquitos. \nI don’t want to harm them and the only reason I want them gone is because they keep dying like mentioned earlier. I don’t want my home to be potato bug suicide center and cemetery. It makes me so sad when I clean and sweep them up. :(", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2027603", "score": 0.6807399988174438, "text": "Mosquito population exploded in my area after lockdown, and it's been very uncomfortable to stay at home. I can basically use bugspray randomly in my area and clean up mosquito corpses afterwards haha. Will probably poison myself with bugspray at this rate. \n\nAnyone else going through similar issues?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-185742", "score": 0.6792321801185608, "text": "You can kill the bugs but you don't necessarily destroy the toxic chemicals that they've already produced by their metabolic processes. On of the most poisonous substances is the toxic protein produced by the bacterium Clostridium Botulinum. In minuscule doses under the name Botox, it is used to paralyze facial muscles.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1884339", "score": 0.6758768558502197, "text": "I'm trying to get rid of black widows. The wasp &amp; hornet spray is nice because it shoots like 8-10 feet, and quite often the widow web is out of reach. It doesn't do much to the adult widows, from what I can tell, but what about the babies? Will they die? Do I run the rick of them mutating and becoming super widows?", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-2362611", "score": 0.6756864190101624, "text": "I'm relatively new to caring for houseplants. I currently have 6 various houseplants, 5 little individual succulents and one herb kit plant.\n\nA couple of months ago I started noticing fungus gnats flying around the apartment. One of my newer plants was infected and the bugs started to spread to other plants. I did some research and found that apple cider vinegar in a closed container kills the adult bugs. I tried that for a while and it killed a few but not that many.\n\nThen I read that a hydrogen peroxide solution can kill the eggs and larvae. I've been doing that periodically and also have gotten those yellow sticky traps for three of the larger plants. I've also sprinkled cinnamon powder on the soil as I read that bugs hate it.\n\nIt seemed to work and the numbers of bugs flying around has greatly reduced. I just replaced the yellow sticky things with new ones and watered my plants with hydrogen peroxide solution this past weekend. Today, I checked and there's one dead bug on the yellow sticky trap. I looked in the pot and could see three little white babies crawling around.\n\nI'm at a loss. How do you kill this cycle? I read that a layer of horticultural sand on top helps. Has anyone tried this? How about Neem oil sprays? I want to get more plants but not if this bug thing doesn't go away.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-302596", "score": 0.673890233039856, "text": "I'm no insect physiologist, so I can't answer your second question, but I'll be glad to tackle the first. Depending on what you're trying to kill, the spray will contain varying types of insecticides. However, in household products, you will generally see a group of chemicals known as *pyrethroids*, which includes permethrin, cypermethrin, and imiprothrin. These compounds are neurotoxins and work as such: * Compound penetrates the insect's exoskeleton and locates a neuron * Prevents the sodium channels from closing * The nerve is unable to \"de-excite,\" which leads to paralysis. To ensure lethality, synergists will often be added to the spray. In particular, we would probably see something like piperonyl butoxide, which inhibits detoxification enzymes and prevents the insect from actively clearing its system of the insecticide.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-309534", "score": 0.6731627583503723, "text": "The answer is simply its small mass. Even though the bug is accelerating to the speed of the tip of your finger in a fraction of a second, the overall force required to accelerate it to that speed is still minute. Also, the bug's small size means that it has a very high surface area to volume ratio - not a lot of 'stuff' in it to throw around relative to the surface area of its relatively strong exoskeleton. These two points combined make it hard to kill bugs with an impact unless they're up against something that will take more force to move (like a wall or table).", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-295849", "score": 0.6728687882423401, "text": "Probably because bug killers contain very dangerous substances which attack the nervous system. More information: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-12057", "score": 0.6698687672615051, "text": "DEET is an obscuring agent to insects that interferes with their ability to track animals, like humans, and don't let them see carbon dioxide or lactic acid through their antennae. Mosquitoes just don't see you. This applies to other bugs like horseflies, gnats and chiggers. If applied correctly, it creates a layer of DEET that slowly evaporates and creates a vapor barrier to prevent them from landing on you, but the exact way it works is still relatively unknown. Products that keep bugs away without DEET are usually nonworking. Ninjaedit: DEET does not kill bugs. A bug will die if you spray bug spray on them, but they will do that with any canned gas.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-42", "score": 0.8231219053268433, "text": "If you're talking about Windows Vista and beyond. **Disabling visual effects doesn't increase performance** More detailed explanation is here: _URL_0_ ELI5: This checkbox just switches off new system (GPU rendering) and brings back XP CPU rendering, because some software can't use new system. Starting from Windows Vista GUI is rendered on GPU(actually it's pretty complicated for compatibility reasons, old programs still use CPU rendering, and resulted bitmap is passed to GPU for composition and rendering)." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-53664", "score": 0.7795940041542053, "text": "It depends. The integrated GPU in the CPU is a seperate chip and does not affect the CPU in any way. So if you use the integrated GPU the CPU will not have lower performance. If you use a dedicated GPU and have the monitors connected to that the integrated GPU is not doing anything by default. However some games will recognize the integrated GPU and move workload to it so they will get improved performance. Especially physics have similar computation patterns as graphics and will benefit from being done on a separate GPU.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-103436", "score": 0.7540228962898254, "text": "Diminishing graphical returns. Gpus draw triangles and the difference of 100 to 1000 is big 1000 to 10000 is noticeable and 10000 to 100000 is unremarkable. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1448222", "score": 0.7532014846801758, "text": "So I have a long running task that uses the gpu. It can use up to 100% of the GPU. \n\nMy problem is when it does use 100% or close to it the system glitches. Basically it stutters.\n\nOn windows the same process just gets it's access to the resources reduced and whatever action the user takes has priority.\n\nAny way to reduce this process when a user is trying to perform other actions so it doesn't glitch?\n\nI've tried in Gnome and Plasma. Any suggestions is appreciated.\n\nThanks\n\nUpdate:\n\nIt's a dual Nvidia system. I'm pushing some ml tasks to the gpus but I still wanna use the system. In windows it automatically lets my actions supersede the gpu task. On linux it basically makes it use 100% and only occasionally let's my actions take effect so it results in a stuttering.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2795390", "score": 0.7528573870658875, "text": "When I gamed on my laptop, obviously I wanted High Performance. However, on my desktop does this actually make a huge difference? What are pros and cons?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1128907", "score": 0.7513977885246277, "text": "I was thinking about this that some programs have amazing graphics and run better than some that have worse graphics; what makes it this way does the efficiency of the code affect it?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1450248", "score": 0.7409306764602661, "text": "Depending on the application or game you could see a 50% to 150%+ improvement in performance (The biggest increase will be when using the iGPU but you will still see an improvement while in a dGPU configuration).", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-280720", "score": 0.7401430010795593, "text": "GPUs benefit from massive parallelism. The cores are all pretty much doing the same process to a large set of data so things go faster in parallel. CPUs however are less specialized and applications are very diverse in what they need so you face a law of diminishing returns by adding more cores, where greater benefits may come from other features like larger instruction caches, wider data and address busses etc. Graphics intense applications become CPU bound much faster than other applications.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-840618", "score": 0.7387856841087341, "text": "I need a pretty powerful laptop for my studies, so I decided to also use it as a gaming rig. It has two GPUs, one on the motherboard that's used in low-performance mode and a dedicated GPU, used for 3D-applications such as games. \n\nMost games play fine on the dedicated GPU, though Civ VI was always a bit sluggish in the later game. Today I went into the graphics settings and noticed the game was using the **on-board GPU instead of the dedicated GPU.** I've owned the game since launch, but pretty much every other game uses the dedicated GPU by default.\n\nI've changed the graphics settings to use the dedicated CPU and it now plays *so much better*! It's a remarkable difference. So yeah, this is a bit of a PSA: if you feel the game underperforms, check that the right GPU is used.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2794929", "score": 0.7359568476676941, "text": "I want to know because I have already enabled hardware acceleration and WebRender through preferences and it has made performance a lot better, so will these two make my performance even better than it is? \n\nThank you in advance for you help and clarifications.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-24103", "score": 0.7344298362731934, "text": "A GPU (for the most part) is only useful for rendering graphics. The CPU is responsible for handling AI, the state of the game world, physics and all that jazz. When your CPU can't figure out how to update the game world fast enough, it doesn't matter how fast your GPU is. When the CPU becomes the limiting factor in performance, you call it the *bottleneck* in the system. If you can turn down the resolution & performance goes up, it's a sign that your GPU was having trouble keeping up. If you turn down the resolution and performance doesn't go up, it's a sign that your GPU was *not* the limiting factor in performance.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-2135124", "score": 0.7330917119979858, "text": "While playing The Witcher 3 I noticed that my GPU usage was at 95-100%, but my CPU was around 40%. I play at 2560x1440 and I use Vsync, but even with Vsync off the percentages stayed about the same. Maybe 2 or 3 percent difference. Also, my CPU is overclocked to 4.6ghz and my GPU is at the factory overclock.\n\nMy specs are in my flair.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-942583", "score": 0.7298964262008667, "text": "\\~400% increase in useful ops/sec due to **enabling integrated GPU** &amp; better use of discrete GPU\n\nCould it be :) ?\n\nr/", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2094051", "score": 0.7293715476989746, "text": "So I only have a surface-level understanding as to why input latency increases significantly when the GPU is under heavy load, but the end-result is palpable quite often and gets in the way of landing shots accurately in the midst of numerous effects popping off at once.\n\nFrom my understanding, Overwatch uses a threaded rendering engine that buffers frames (even with V-sync disabled) before they hit your display. When the GPU is under heavy load, more frames end up being buffered because it takes them longer to complete than usual. The end-result is input lag spiking significantly whenever something is happening on-screen that taxes the GPU.\n\nThe devs suggested lowering your settings to improve input lag, which makes sense given the relationship between GPU load and latency. But my thought is: why does it have to be this way? Tons of competitive shooters have input and rendering isolated from one another, to my understanding, so that input lag is unaffected by GPU usage spikes or framerate dips.\n\nIn fact, I see people routinely recommending uncapped framerates for less input lag, but for me that increases the load on the GPU and actually increases latency. I have to cap my frames at around 90fps just so I can keep it stable without over-taxing the GPU.\n\nSince this is happening at the rendering engine level, I'm doubtful that it will ever be addressed. But don't you all think that maybe it should, if possible?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-262332", "score": 0.7287896275520325, "text": "Put simply, GPUs are designed to do lots of parallel computations. When it comes to problems that scale well with the number of processors applied (like, to some extent, factoring numbers), your graphics card can outperform your CPU.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-2144526", "score": 0.7285147309303284, "text": "I saw a while ago when it was introduced that it didn’t benefit the game and actually had a bad affect on performance but since it’s been a while since then and nvidia drivers have been updated a lot, is it a viable setting. Only reason I’m asking is because I haven’t seen dety or anyone else make comments about it.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-2795028", "score": 0.7281132340431213, "text": "When I am running a application that is both CPU and GPU intensive, the CPU will go from running at ~3200MHz, to ~800MHz, and consequently cause framerate drop by about 50%. I've set all my Windows power setting to maximum performance, but that hasn't helped. I couldn't find much online about this issue, or a fix. I'd appreciate some help guys! Thanks.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2797177", "score": 0.7275351285934448, "text": "Also does anyone know exactly what role it serves? Is it partially responsible for Nvidia's better performance in CPU bound workloads?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-251342", "score": 0.7257527112960815, "text": "They are used for different things. Graphics memory is used for calculations inside the GPU while regular memory is used for stuff done on the CPU. Because it takes time to send data to the GPU the graphics card needs a buffer to work with, this memory needs to be very quick for the graphics card to get a good use of it and it is therefore attached directly to the graphics card. Integrated GPUs, the ones found in many laptops and cheap desktops, actually use the regular ram for graphics calculations. That is one of the reasons they are much slower than dedicated GPUs.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-2049091", "score": 0.7257303595542908, "text": "I've been lurking around the net, most of the suggestions seem to center on just lowering mesh and tessellation. \n\nI'm always wondering if the performance loss is worth getting everything to ultra (or fade-touched) or just leaving some at high (that my eyes won't notice anyway). But I can't see any deep explanation that would justify leaving settings at high or ultra. \n\n@,@ Your proofs may help me decide fellow inquisitors. :D", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1403875", "score": 0.7255524396896362, "text": "Very very confused about this concept, especially when reading the news regarding the leaked Nvidia Pascal compute performance. \n\nThanks in advance :)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-43", "score": 0.6539621353149414, "text": "I'm no expert on Constitutional Law, but where did you hear that the US income tax has no basis in law and is unconstitutional? The entire purpose of the [16th amendment](_URL_0_) was to make the income tax permanent. It was ratified almost a century ago. People aren't tricked into paying it for no reason, you can go to jail for tax evasion. Your income tax is not necessarily deducted from your paycheck, it depends on your withholding allowance." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1718038", "score": 0.6212542057037354, "text": "In late 2018, near the end of the term, a close friend (that also went to Waterloo) was killed and my mental health deteriorated significantly. Not wanting to hurt my GPA, I decided to take 2019 off. I didn't tell my parents and pretended to go to classes when I was really working and volunteering.\n\nMy parents pay for my schooling and are now asking for last year's tax form. They don’t closely monitor the tuition they pay. They only paid for the fall semester last year and I used the credit to pay for Winter 2020. My parents also have their own accountant. \n\nWhat are my options? The only thing I can come up with right now is that 2019 tax forms require you to put your SIN # a few months prior, I wasn’t aware of it and didn’t have my SIN # (my parents have it) so it is not appearing. \n\nI CANNOT tell them the truth. \n\nForging tax forms is not, and never will be an option.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-717591", "score": 0.6212153434753418, "text": "Heyy dear Americans!!\nI tried to post a longer text but got too long,maybe i post all my questions separately.\n\nSo question in hand:What taxes are you doing and why are you doing?\nWhere i live (Hungary)we have a yearly tax declaration and the tax departmant do it for us,you just have to sign it that you accept it.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1961354", "score": 0.6212058663368225, "text": "Rich people skipping out on taxes? No problem! They get no say in government. Middle class stuck supporting the country on their shoulders? Take consolation in having the power to make changes. What could go wrong?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-345176", "score": 0.6211702823638916, "text": "I have heard this too many times that you get a bigger refund by going to a tax specialist to do your taxes for you. Coincidentally, I did my own taxes for the first time, and I got 600 dollars less than I did the year prior. Would like to know because I'm going to do mine this weekend.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2804360", "score": 0.6211212873458862, "text": "I have student loans now in default that I took out in 2007, and Credit Karma is telling me these will fall off of my credit report next year. Last year was the first year that the government garnished my taxes to put towards my student loans (I think? I was never able to get a clear answer where the money went and which loan it was applied to) and I'm almost positive the same thing will happen this year. My question is - is it worth it to start paying down these loans or should I just take the hit with the garnishment and let the loans fall off my credit report? I've always heard that repaying on a loan will \"reset\" the clock in terms of it reporting on your credit but I don't know how much truth there is to that or what the benefit of that is. \n\nThe reason theyve been in default is I only recently (like, last May) landed a full-time job making a decent salary. I now have a solid job with a somewhat stable income (38k salary, between 25 and 30k yearly bonus).\n\nHappy to share whatever information is needed, I'm completely illiterate with financial matters but willing to learn.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1392631", "score": 0.621059238910675, "text": "This is the first year living in Japan where I have only earned money in Japan, and not the US. I don’t need to pay anything, with the foreign tax exclusion.\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nHowever, turbotax says I need to mail it in? Not efile? The reasoning is:\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nAll of the following lines from Form 1040 have zero value:\n\nLine 7b: total income\n\nline 8b- adjusted gross income\n\nline 12a- tax\n\nline 12b- total tax before credits and other taxes\n\nline 13b- total credits\n\nline 16- total tax\n\nline 19- total payments\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nDid I do something wrong? I have heavy tax anxiety and dont want to mess this up.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1553062", "score": 0.6210581660270691, "text": "Like a good majority of you folk, my place of employment got it's ass rocked by COVID last year (I work at a gym) and pretty much put a damper on my need to survive by means of making money. And like a good majority of you folk, had to file unemployment while trying to stay afloat. Fast forward to today, I'm trying to finish my taxes up and forget 2020. I'm using Turbo Tax(the $90 one where if things go belly up you're covered) and at the part about unemployment it's asking for 1099G. \"Well gosh golly gee willakers, I'll login into my UI on EDD and pull that up!\" BUT UH OH! It says it's not filed?! So on a level of 1 to the titanic is unsinkable, how much deep shit am I in?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-717495", "score": 0.6210278868675232, "text": "First off, I am claimed as a dependent (qualifying child) on my mom's return. I originally used FileYourTaxes.com to prepare my own 2015 return, which has income almost entirely from taxable portions of scholarship and grants*. It came out with a balance due of $498. \n\nI then decided to prepare the same return using a different website (FreeTaxUSA) for unrelated reasons. When it was done, my balance due was $11.\n\nHaving compared the two, I realized that the difference was in the calculation of the standard deduction (the minimum of $1050 for FileYourTaxes and $5945 for FreeTaxUSA), and my assumption is that the basis of that is in their treatment of taxable scholarships as earned or unearned income.\n\n**The two sites don't ask the question any differently. Isn't this a huge problem?**\n\n*Approx. $5,247 of taxable scholarships; also $348 of 1099 receipts on Schedule C, $249 of qualified dividends, and $450 \"other income\" from research participation at school.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-947677", "score": 0.6209909319877625, "text": "I am a Canadian living in the US with a 10yr green card and am considering pursuing citizenship. My tie to the US is solely my husband, and if anything happened to him, I would be moving back to Canada. \n\nMy only issue with becoming a citizen is the possible dual taxation i would face if i moved back to Canada as a US citizen as opposed to only being a green card holder and abandoning my status. If I knew there was a way to avoid extra taxes, I would apply for citizenship asap.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-717140", "score": 0.6209891438484192, "text": "So you're self-employed and missed time from work in 2020 due to COVID-19 or local stay-at-home orders or to care for your kids while school or day care was out. You filed Form 7202 with your 1040 tax return to take advantage of this credit.\n\n\\- Did you eFile or paper file? \n\\- What date was your return accepted by the IRS? \n\\- Did you get your refund or has it been approved? \n\\- Were you asked to provide documentation to support your credit claim? \n\\- Separate from the 2.12/early filers purgatory snafu, if you filed with Form 7202, what has been your experience?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-715573", "score": 0.6209815144538879, "text": "from \n\n1. what's the conclusion? \n\n1. can taxes be filed for free\n\n1. if so what's main way?\n\n1. anything else that's important to know?", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1580939", "score": 0.6209478378295898, "text": "**[edit] USA, Washington State**\n\nWell, my mother won $68,300 from playing bingo last year (W-2G forms). My dad makes $11k from PT work, $16k from retired pension, $11k from social security, and $18k for my moms work. (29k work, 27k retirement).\n\nMy mother didn't deduct taxes from those winnings, and as a result my parents are left with about $10,000+ in taxes they owe to the Federal government, for which they cannot pay and are unsure of what to do at this point.\n\nThings my mom did (and we claimed)\n\n* Gambling losses of $17,207\n\n* Medical expenses of $5,960\n\nMy mother blew it all on travelling to the Philippines for 2 weeks, and spending the money on them ($20k worth - which is not taxable it seems?).\n\nShe spent it on a new car ($17k, which about $2k is taxable from sales tax and licensing tax); my mom hit a deer later that year, and the cost of repairs was about $3,900.\n\nShe spent it on a new roof ($6k, which $500 is deductible from energy savings credit).\n\nI'm not sure what to do at this point, other than tell them they have to sell their house...", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-582709", "score": 0.6209218502044678, "text": "How will they know if one person hasn't paid? There's too many people to keep track.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-716577", "score": 0.6209114789962769, "text": "I am a contract employee. I submit quarterly tax payments online. I made the simple mistake of missing my payment one month ago in June. I simply added three months to my April payment and tax prep. The June date is printed on my worksheet and I made a simple mistake like anyone does on occasion. \n\nHow can I best and most quickly remedy this? Should I simply add up April, May, June income and pay per my tax bracket amount like I had not missed a date at all? \n\nTL;DR - Whoops, please Hammer don't hurt 'em", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-52282", "score": 0.6208835244178772, "text": "What is being taken out of your paycheck is your **estimated** tax. The actual tax that you owe is calculated when you file your taxes once per year. What is likely happening is that, as your paycheck size fluctuates, your employer re-calculates your estimated yearly earnings as if all your paychecks were that size, figures out your tax rate based on that estimate, and then deducts that estimate from your paycheck. But since your income varies so much week-to-week, they have to re-estimate every week, and end up with different results each time. When you finally file your taxes, you'll find out if what your employer estimated was too high or too low, and will either get a refund, or have to pay the remainder.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1836244", "score": 0.6208567023277283, "text": "I had to print off some important documents so I loaded those documents onto my external hard drive at home and brought it into work. I printed everything I needed to and then got side tracked at work and left the external in my desk over night. It was the first thing I was looking for the next day when I came into work and I couldn't find it. I asked my coworkers and they said they hadn't seen it, shit someone walked off with it.\n\nThe drive had a few personal documents which include 2016's tax returns, basic mortgage info, and work files. I know I need to contact the IRS and then check my credit for any unauthorized open lines but I feel like there is more that I need to do. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.\n\n // NOTE: The tax return is password locked but I would rather be safe than sorry. \n\n// EDIT: added \"then\" in between \"contact the IRS\" and \"check my credit\" for clarity", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1582225", "score": 0.6207370758056641, "text": "I am potentially going to obtain Hungarian citizenship via ancestry and would like to work and live in the EU someday. I am aware of a dual tax treaty between Hungary and the US that means while I will still need to file with the IRS I probably won't get double taxation.\n\n\nThe issue comes in whenever I'm working in a third country. For example, I would like to work and study in the Nordics (specifically Norway)... Who would, in this case, I owe taxes to? Three governments?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-715711", "score": 0.6207133531570435, "text": "The LLC had 0 income and minimal expenses (mostly web hosting). I'd be happy to lose the deduction for the web hosting because it wouldn't be more than the standard deduction anyway.\n\nCan I just file a personal return and skip the Schedule C?\n\nWould I be better off to file the Schedule C anyway, even though it would have no impact on my tax liability?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-717402", "score": 0.6206730604171753, "text": "Hello everyone, I have only been working for about 2 years so I am sitll learning about taxes. In 2014 I worked at Pizza Hut as a regular employee so received my W-2 and got my witholding return no problem. However the situation is different this year.\n\nI am:\n\n- 21 years old\n- Live in Florida\n- In a public university. My FAFSA EFC is 0. I receive full financial aid of which about 70 percent is grants and my state's scholarship (bright Futures). The rest is federal loans.\n- My parent's, who file jointly, make about 20k annually combined. They claim me as a dependent, as well as my under-18 sister.\n- This year my income consists of financial aid and Uber and Lyft driving. I am supposed to get a 1099 at the end of the year for each. I started driving in April 2015.\n- I have saved about 13% of my payments for tax if I need to pay tax. \n- I have an app which reports and estimated total of my miles driven (while on a ride, not in general) in the year. However, I did not keep a mileage log. \n- My earnings with Uber are (so far): $2,999\n- My earnings with Lyft are (so far): $2,234\n- My total earnings are (so far): $5,233\n\nTax time, I go to the same guy my father goes to to file taxes, and he takes care of everything. However, I would like to know the following:\n\n- Since I made over $400 in self-employment income, I have to FILE taxes, correct?\n- As a dependent student, with earnings of about $5,500 total in the year, will I actually OWE any taxes or will I owe 0 due to the $6,200 dollar standard deduction?\n- Even if I have not tracked/logged my mileage day-to-day, can I claim standard mileage deduction for my total mileage that Uber and Lyft reports?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-2225149", "score": 0.6206660270690918, "text": "I received a CP2000 suggesting I owe $7k ($5500 in taxes, $1100 understatement penalty, and $300 in interest) because I failed to report income from Uber. I had filed with Credit Karma, and accept that I clearly messed something up and it didn't get reported. However, my deductions (Ubers fees, tolls, standard mileage deduction, etc.) were also not reported. Is it sufficient for me to send them evidence of these deductions and allow them to tell me the correct amount I owe, or is there some form (perhaps a 1040X?) that I need to fill out and send them? The CP2000 I received doesn't make it clear what my steps are for being in the middle - I am accepting fault and that I owe money, but believe it should be approximately half of what they're quoting.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-44", "score": 0.7270749807357788, "text": "Your banks routing number and your account number as well as your name exactly as it is written on your account are all printed on the check. That is the information they need to set up direct deposit. With the check they can be sure there are no mistakes." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-715699", "score": 0.6903430223464966, "text": "I believe my company made a mistake disbursing my bonus. They sent me an email telling me my bonus check would be \"x\" dollars, and that they would give me a live check. Bonus day came and my payroll person handed me a check. When I deposited it, my balance seemed a little high, so I went home and checked. There was a \"4x\" deposit into my account that same day made from my company. I reported it to my payroll person and she said she would look into it when she returned from vacation next week. Part of me thought the amount in the email announcement was a little low, and I'm praying that they made a mistake in the calculation, and not the deposit. Just to be on the safe side, I transferred the money to savings so I don't spend it. So, my question is, can they just take the money back? or do they have to go through me in order to get it? I ask, because I don't have enough in my checking account to cover the bonus and I don't want to overdraft the account if they just take it back.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-2496988", "score": 0.6897421479225159, "text": "(USA) Check from uni came in, unfortunately I will have to go to the bank in person to deposit it which already has me anxious. What exactly are the steps I take to do this? I have endorsed the check by signing it. Then I will go to the teller and just tell her to deposit into checking, right?\n\nCan you elaborate on a deposit slip? Will I have to fill one out beforehand? I don't have checks, will there be some sitting around?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-384449", "score": 0.6895637512207031, "text": "I was wondering if it’s possible in the state of Utah for an employer to withhold your paycheck from you for any reason? I am considered an independent contractor (I’m on 1099 tax form) the company I work for is supposed to pay weekly, but they’ve withheld my check from me just over 3 weeks now, almost 4. They’re withholding it because supposedly of 2 customers(out of 16 accounts I worked on and completed, and have yet to be paid on) being unsatisfied with the patching job I did to repair a hole in the wall. Mind you I spent my own money on the materials to patch the holes, I get paid per job ($100 a job) and went back to the job site 3 times per each account to make sure the job was done correctly, one being 100+ miles away, the other being 57 miles away so I lost money on each job just in driving and to top it all off no where in my job description does it say anything about patching drywall. I can understand my pay being deducted in order to hire someone to patch the holes, but to hold my entire paycheck from me for an entire month seems absurd?\n\n*Edit: I live in Utah if that helps/makes a difference.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2398110", "score": 0.6888763308525085, "text": "Attention Panera Employees: If you had never set up direct deposit, you have been automatically enrolled in a payroll debit card program, and your paycheck is in an unauthorized ADP account. Automatic enrollment is such a program is in direct violation of the the California Labor Code. In 2011, an amendment to the labor code was passed that explicitly states: The employer has obtained the employee’s voluntary written consent to receive wages by payroll card. (section 213.5 \nPanera Bread, a billion dollar publicly traded company blatantly BROKE THE LAW.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-9493", "score": 0.6887623071670532, "text": "It's been years ago, but I used to be a proof operator. Essentially the checks, with the deposit slips and cash in/cash out tickets are collected from all branches and sent to the proof operator. That person encodes each item for its individual amount. If you notice when you get look at your check, the amount is encoded on the bottom right (next to the account number). The proof operator is the one who does that. Once everything is encoded, all transactions are run through a machine that reads the bank code, account number and amount. Once that is read by the computer the actual paper check isn't necessary anymore. Checks used to be sent back to the customer each month. Now, the bank keeps a digital image that customers can request on demand. That's how it was 25 years ago. I don't know if it still works the same way.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1232887", "score": 0.6878973245620728, "text": "Hello everyone!\n\nThe situation:\nI am a recent college graduate (May). Finances have never been easy and my student loans savings (smart right?) ran out in July. Thankfully, I was able to secure employment in July and started a new job as a software engineer at a local start-up. They wanted me to move in to the company house/office. I was fairly uneasy about it, things were moving too quickly for me as I had not begun working yet. However, I had little choice, under their pressure I felt the only thing I could say was \"I don't trust you,\" which is a poor way to start a job you desperately need. There was more sketchiness, like a probation period in which I will work 40 hours/week and make $1000 a month. If you do the math, that is below federal minimum wage. But I am salaried. I ended up moving in, hoping that it would make life easier by saving money for rent (they offered free rent at a $1000 value, a luxury I already had living with my parents before (glamorous, I know, but not slavery)) and time on the commute. With no money, there was little choice.\n\nThe problem:\nThe company has never bothered asking for my payroll information. It has been over a month now since I was hired. My contract (which I am open to share if anyone is interested in helping) states that I should be paid every second and fourth Friday of the month. On the second Friday of August I inquired about my paycheck and was told to sit tight that the company was just working out my payroll information and that some delay is normal. I've worked other jobs before, I know that can be true. The second pay period passed and I asked again about my pay to which they replied they would collect my payroll information for direct deposit on September 1st. In this time I saw another employee (a fraternity brother of the CEO) get hired and they got the direct deposit information immediately when they did the rest of the paperwork, but mine still hasn't been collected? There is another employee in the exact same situation as me. Neither of us have been paid for four weeks of work and our payroll information has not been collected. I wonder how long they would have let us work without pay if I had not been asking about it.\n\nThis seems to me to be a flagrant break of the contract that I signed. I have bills, car insurance, phone, food, etc. I can't continue going hungry and asking friends for loans much longer (as a full-time employee!). Additionally, there have been other violations of the contract or illegal actions by the company. For example, my contract said I started on August 1st (a Tuesday), but they made me start on July 31st (the Monday before). On half of the weeks I worked more than the 40 hours that my contract states. They lied (in the contract!) about the benefits package they said they were offering me, I later found out those are the benefits they hope to one day offer, though that was not how it was presented when I was being hired. Perhaps the largest issue though is that the CEO is an engineer for another company and is having me and the other employee do his work for him. He is regularly giving us proprietary information/technology from the company in which he is just an employee of. This surely must violate his NDA.\n\nNow I am in the office house, watched all the time, always made to feel guilty for not working. I know I need to leave, I am applying to other jobs, but I don't have them yet and I still have no money to be unemployed again. I'm worried about the other employee too, she said her savings ran out this week.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-183799", "score": 0.6875938177108765, "text": "A signature is not rock solid proof of identity. A signature is more proof of _intent_ - if you can prove (somehow) that I signed the check, it's hard for me to argue that I didn't intend to give you money.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-1752661", "score": 0.6875938177108765, "text": "I don't even know if I used that term correctly, but I have quite the question. I work for a small business in the construction field. It is also family operated - all of us in the office are related. \n\nToday I found that some of my office has been asked to bring in personal receipts to enter into our Petty Cash account to offset the cash we use to pay our field employees overtime.\n\nWhen I brought up my reservations about this, my Office Manager (Also my mother -.-) told me this was normal for business to do. She explained that we absolutely cannot afford to pay them overtime on their checks, so this is how we \"make sense\" of the amount of money going into our Petty Cash. Not only that, she said that she has never worked for a company that was truthful with their books. This bothers me.\n\nI can partly understand the reasoning, but my main focus is the fact that she said this always happen in business. Is this really common? Am I just naive to the fact that businesses really do things like this on a regular basis?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2328374", "score": 0.6870372295379639, "text": "Hey guys, so I recently deposited a check for 746 dollars from my job in the ATM like I always do, but when I deposited it it put 2746 into my account. The check and pay stub clearly say 746 and I told my boss as soon as I realized what happened. He doesn't really know what to do either as this hasn't happened to him before and said maybe I should take the money out now and come out 2gs on top but I don't know the repercussions. Anyone have any experience in this situation?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2597860", "score": 0.6867319345474243, "text": "I’m not eligible for the extra check, and I was with the company for almost 4 years. Had no personal or vacation time in the bank. Really struggling to find out what it could be?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-383475", "score": 0.6866859197616577, "text": "TLDR: I owe company 300ish dollars, verbally agreed on 20 docked from check, now taking 60 without notice.\n\nI work for a small car dealership that has 2 locations in IL. 15 employees between the two. I got some repair work done at the one I work at, and made a verbal agreement for them to dock my pay 20 dollars each month until it was paid off fully. After about a month, starting this week, I will be docked 60 a week. I have a new job starting in less than 2 weeks and my general manager knows this, but not the actual owner who is docking my pay. So I guess I have two questions. \n\n1. Is it illegal for them to take money from my check without any notice (I only found out today from the accountant's pay calender. I haven't been informed in writing at all)\n\n2. Can they hold my last check knowing I owe them money? \n\nI honestly don't make much which is why I got my new job. The company I work for currently allows customers to make payments for repair work as long as they know them. I'm aware some small companies can get away with stuff like this by working around the law, but I can't live on this wage and I'm considering just getting my check and walking out so they can't hold it.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-716947", "score": 0.6866387724876404, "text": "Just like the title says. I left my previous employer back in November 2018 and received a paycheck from them in the mail in January. \n\nI realized once I got it that it was an overpayment and never cashed the check. As they are a big global company I opened a case with them about the check and they said they’d get back to me. \n\nI received a letter in the mail this weekend from them stating that I owe them the amount of the check and to pay them within 30 days. I called up a payroll representative and she said that I should just cash it and send them the payment. \n\nI brought up if they could just cancel the check and put in whatever system they have that I don’t owe them anything. The rep said she would have to get back to me on that. \n\nNow my concern is would this cause any tax implications on my end or should I just cash the check and pay them back?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-107171", "score": 0.6865320801734924, "text": "There is tax reasons and fraud reasons. They have know exactly who you are so they can report your balance to the IRS and also so when they see large transactions they can report this and know exactly who made the transactions. In addition if there is a fraud attempt and your account gets locked down they need to know who you are so they can authorize the transfer out of the account. If you only gave them a name and a pin number they might end up with two people with the same information both trying to access the account. You do not have to fill in all the information on the forms but the more information you fill out the more information the bank have on you in case there is a problem.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1729867", "score": 0.6865153908729553, "text": "Is it because theres a chance someone might be skimming/ not recording checks or cash when they are received?\n\nIf so how does an audit work to alleviate that risk?", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-715914", "score": 0.6863819360733032, "text": "From what I've read, it seems like this check is just a waste of money. How do I clear it?", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-718103", "score": 0.6863178610801697, "text": "Title pretty much captures it all. Everyone said people on disability with direct deposit do not need to sign up for anything, you will automatically get the stim check in the bank. Haven't gotten anything yet. Get my payment website says something about they're unable to provide a status because they don't have enough information. What information do they need, when they already direct deposit the disability payment.\n\nWill the direct deposit stim still happen? Or are we going to get paper checks now?\n\nBy the way, if you have no earned income, just a low monthly disability payment, you'd never have to file taxes anyway, right? Disability isn't actually earned income.\n\nNo one would be claiming me as a dependent, and no kids to claim either. Not married.\n\nThe disabled need this money.\n\nWhen and how do we get it?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2096316", "score": 0.6861000061035156, "text": "New to direct deposit and I'm finishing up a job acceptance form and after I put in my direct deposit info there's a section labeled \"deposit amount\" that will only accept a numerical amount, what is this referring to? Thanks for any help", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1580298", "score": 0.6857089996337891, "text": "I asked r/personalfinance but didn't get much feedback. Long story short I need to cash a check but it is in my mom's name (and she lives 200 miles away) Any way this can be done without resorting to me mailing it to her, her cashing it then depositing it into my account (the sooner the better otherwise I wouldn't mind waiting around.) I have Wells Fargo, she just uses her company's bank so it makes it a little more tricky. I think she is a beneficiary on my sister's account with Suntrust, so maybe I can deposit it at Suntrust and then she can deposit it to me?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-2038624", "score": 0.685605525970459, "text": "This is a simple question. Assume no employer contribution match here, just your own money.\n\nIf you elect to have $500 a month set aside from your paycheck and put directly into a 403b, 457, or 401k, that money goes in untaxed. You will only have to pay taxes on it when you withdraw it. \n\n~~But what if you instead get your paychecks deposited it into your bank account, then at some point during the year decide to put, say $2,000 of that cash into your 403b, 457, or 401k? Is that $2,000 still considered untaxed? Obviously, you would have already had taxes taken out of it, but the question is could you then subtract that $2,000 from that year's taxes, reducing your taxable income?~~\n\n~~Aside from the convenience of your employer doing it for you, is there any *financial* advantage to your employer depositing it rather than you yourself doing it?~~ \n\n~~And, in the case of a job that has a mandatory percentage-of-salary pension contribution, how does this affect this issue? Which money goes in first, the 403b/457 or the pension money?~~\n\n----\n**EDIT:** Wow, as the commenters showed, that was based on a really wrong assumption! So my question makes no sense. Leaving here for others in case anyone else misunderstood this as much as I did.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-80003", "score": 0.6854543685913086, "text": "If you attempted to deposit 1T by personal cheque, they would tell you they can not accept it due to its high probability of bouncing. If you attempted to deposit 1T in cash, the police would be called and you'd have some serious explaining to do as to how you came about the money. If you attempted to deposit 1T as an authorized transfer from another bank, you'd have some forms to sign and they'd have to confirm with the other bank but they would likely accept it.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-45", "score": 0.7479006052017212, "text": "How often do you polish the inside of your oven? I suspect a big reason would be just to keep the interior from quickly looking horrible." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-103015", "score": 0.7094393372535706, "text": "They're called frits. They assist in reflecting heat. This increases heating efficiency in the oven, and insulating efficiency outside. Usually made of ceramic.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-137377", "score": 0.7093139290809631, "text": "One side of the glass is a very very thin layer of aluminum. If you keep the non-aluminum side dark, and the aluminum side lit bright, the light will reflect off the aluminum and make it really hard to see through to the dark side.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-110540", "score": 0.7089322209358215, "text": "One factor not mentioned is that the sides, top, & bottom of the oven chamber, along with the rack or baking sheet you place the food atop, being solid metal will hardly give up much heat the time the door is opened to place something inside the oven. This is the purpose of preheating, for it takes longer to heat up the metal than the small mass of air inside the oven chamber. Which after the food is placed inside & the door is again closed, it will take little time to heat the air up again to proper temp.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-98431", "score": 0.706315815448761, "text": "It's because it will allow the Maillard reaction to happen. That's a reaction between sugar and protein, which creates a lot of flavor and brown color - it's what makes bread crust and grilled meat so tasty. If the oven is much colder than that, the surface will not reach a high enough temperature and the food will start drying out before becoming brown, whereas a much higher temperature will quickly burn the food.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-51568", "score": 0.7057784795761108, "text": "Only things that can absorb (or suck up) water like wood and paper, and sponges -- stuff like that -- appear darker when you wet them. Hard plastics, ceramics (with a glaze), metals, stuff that doesn't have lots of little nooks and crannies to get into, that kind of stuff doesn't look darker when you wet them. Why? Water fills up the nooks and crannies, and what you're seeing is the actual color of the material. It looks darker, because when those nooks and crannies are full of air, they scatter the light bouncing off them more effectively - The water lets the material absorb light better.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-137334", "score": 0.7036963105201721, "text": "When you heat stainless steel like that, the thickness of the chromium oxide that coats the outside of the steel and makes it stainless changes. The heat grows the layer. The layer reflects light differently based on how thick it is, so you get a rainbow effect.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-531057", "score": 0.7034634351730347, "text": "Saw a utube today explaing that machines cant \"see\" black plastic used as food trays etc. If so why not change the colour?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-96675", "score": 0.7034298181533813, "text": "I believe it's because the outer white covering that's \"moisture resisant\" becomes transparent and shows the inner brown material. The inner material also looks darker when moist.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-15921", "score": 0.7012593746185303, "text": "The reason *why* it is black, is because it is absorbing much of the light striking it among all wavelengths, rather than reflecting off some or all wavelengths and causing you to see white/colors. That absorbed light turns to heat. Interiors of cars are further warmed by the fact that windows are transparent to visible light, but fairly opaque to the resulting heat. So light goes into your car, gets absorbed, becomes heat, warms the air in the car, and can't escape easily.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-303234", "score": 0.6988229751586914, "text": "In the visible range, surfaces that we perceive as 'black' are so due to the absence of reflected light. So obviously, those surfaces are also good absorbers of light. What's not so obvious at first is the fact that those surfaces are also good emitters of thermal (or [Black Body](_URL_2_) ) radiation, which is a consequence of [Kirchhoff's Law of thermal radiation](_URL_3_). For heat sinks, however, its important to be efficient at radiating heat in the infrared. Fortunately, the surface characteristics of coatings that are good absorbers in the visible often make them good absorbers at longer wavelengths as well. The common aluminum heat sinks used for electronics are simply black anodized aluminum, which raises the emissivity of the surface from something below 0.1 for the bare metal to something closer to 0.9 in the anodized state. This provides a cheap and easy way to increase the radiative efficiency of the heat sink.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-33822", "score": 0.6966909766197205, "text": "Because an oven is a fairly controlled situation. There's no air circulation from the room (unless an oven fan creates it). More importantly, there's no escape of heat from a poorly insulated pan. The oven is fairly well insulated to prevent excessive heat loss. But probably the most important thing is that an oven has a *feedback* mechanism. Besides heating coils, it can have a thermocouple to measure the temperature and turn off the heat if things get too hot; turn on the heat if the temperature is too low. Burners lack this kind of feedback control that allows for fairly precise regulation of temperatures.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-139345", "score": 0.6957969665527344, "text": "Black surfaces are black because they absorb light instead of reflecting it. The energy from the absorbed light gets converted into heat, which is why black things become hotter.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2568", "score": 0.6945933699607849, "text": "it's physics. and you got it the wrong way 'round. objects appear black to you BECAUSE they absorb the electromagnetic waves we call light. that light carries a certain energy with it which gets absorbed, which is then converted to thermal energy aka heat. If thats not what you meant, please elaborate a bit on the question", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-119367", "score": 0.6944104433059692, "text": "That is oxidation caused by heating. The degree of heating will determine the color by thickness. Unless you are an expert reading the colors for heat treatment purposes, it's only decorative as it is only a few thousandths thick.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-180244", "score": 0.6942774653434753, "text": "For the same reason your stove isn't immediately hot when you turn it on yet warm way after you turned it off. The sun barely heats the air (IIRC something like 11% of the sun rays don't reach a surface). The sun shines on surfaces heating objects which then radiates that heat into the air. So while the sun isn't shining the objects radiates off the excess heat during the dark hours until they're the same temperatures as the air. And the cycle begins again", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-6601", "score": 0.6929132342338562, "text": "It's not color that affect heat absorption. It's the physical propriety of material that absorb different wavelenght of light. So if a material absord all visible wavelength of light it will appear black because it doesn't reflect back light into our eyes. Alternatively, something white is made of something that reflect all the visible light back so we see the color white. Something that absorb more wavelength will absorb more energy from that light, which will become heat.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-153168", "score": 0.6928240656852722, "text": "When an object heats up, it emits thermal radiation. At low temperatures, this radiation occurs below the visible spectrum, so you can't see it because our eyes are only capable of detecting electromagnetic radiation within a certain narrow range. It's still there though, and you could probably see it with an infrared camera. If an object becomes hot enough, it will start to emit radiation in the visible spectrum, which you can see as visible light. The pan probably isn't as hot as the stovetop itself.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-185829", "score": 0.6916692852973938, "text": "The lighter parts are more shallow and darker parts deeper. Since it is shallow it allows light to reflect off of the surface. But since it takes a longer amount of time to reach the bottom of a pit so it just gets absorbed and nothing is reflected back.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-136854", "score": 0.6905286312103271, "text": "It's like layers. If you have colored transparent/translucent layers and stack enough of it, light has more stuff to shine through, making it seem darker. A good example is glass. Certain kinds of glass (window, mostly) are actually tinted green. However, you don't notice unless you look at the edge. At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it works.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-561109", "score": 0.6903671026229858, "text": "Hi all. I baked this banana bread recipe, but it turned out very dark brown. The most bottom layer is definitely burnt, is that why the entire loaf would turn a dark brown color? I’m unsure of why this happened and want to prevent it next time! The rest of the loaf doesn’t taste burnt, but maybe it was all over baked and that’s why it turned such a dark color?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-46", "score": 0.7485030889511108, "text": "The way microwaves work is through jiggling charged/polar particles in your food (the water primarily). This jiggling increases their temperature and that heats up the rest of your food. That's why you can't heat oil as easily as you can water. However, metals like iron are *great* conductors of electrons. What makes them good conductors is a little complicated but basically, the reason is that they have a soup of electrons moving from atom to atom with almost 0 energy needed to move an electron from one atom to another. Thus when the microwave jiggles these electrons, rather than giving energy to the atom, it gives it to the electron which zips around in the soup. The amount of energy given to the soup can get high enough to bypass the natural insulation of the air and cause electrons to jump from the metal and rip through the air. This is called a spark and is basically what happens during a lightning strike." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-121400", "score": 0.7096234560012817, "text": "Atoms and molecules are like people, and they love to start dancing when \"their song\" comes on. Microwaves work by playing the song that makes water and fat molecules dance the most, and this makes them hot from dancing and bumping in to each other. This works out well because most food usually has either some water or fat in it, so microwaves work for most food. If something doesn't have any water or fat in it, there won't be any dancing so it will not get hot in there. If, on the other hand, the Only thing you put in is water and fat, which cream cheese is mostly just water and fat and some proteins, it will get pretty hot pretty fast because all of it is dancing at once, and the bumping into each other that normally spreads to the parts of the food that isn't dancing, doesn't have anywhere to go, so the molecules just keep bouncing and bouncing against each other until they start to turn into steam, and bubbling out to the surface.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-10642", "score": 0.7079932689666748, "text": "When you heat something in the oven or toaster you are directly exposing the food to heating elements that give off intense radiation and heat which stimulate all kinds of chemical reactions in the upper layers of the food, usually causing a toasting and hardening of the outermost layer. Microwaves do not work by exposing the food directly to heating elements like ovens do. Microwaves work by firing microwaves into the food at a particular frequency which causes water molecules in the food to flip back and forth violently, banging into other molecules and thus creating heat inside the food. But this method of heating is not suitable for causing the dramatic chemical changes you see in ovens that are responsible for a good browning and toasting.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-116960", "score": 0.7078755497932434, "text": "Microwave ovens tend not to heat very evenly. That is why we stir things after heating them in the microwave. What you're hearing is some small portion of your food getting hot enough to \"pop\" (boil, turn to steam) but most of the food is still luke warm. When you stir it, or it's something that can move around like soup, the hot spot quickly evens out.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-28669", "score": 0.7077168226242065, "text": "Microwave energy can cause an electric current in metal objects. Metal in certain shapes (notably those with sharp corners) will accumulate substantial electric charge, if the charge becomes greater than air can resist (dielectric breakdown of air) the electric energy will jump (arcing) to nearby conductors (often the metal walls of the microwave) which causes the light show.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-123130", "score": 0.7076001763343811, "text": "If you cool a metal pan too quickly it can warp the pan or cause the coating to come off. Also, if a pan is REALLY hot, you could cause water to flash into steam and give yourself a nasty burn (I did that once with a cast iron pan).", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-325003", "score": 0.7072159647941589, "text": "Microwave ovens heat food by jiggling molecular bonds in water and fats. This process tends not to get foods to the elevated temperatures needed for the [Maillard reaction](_URL_0_) to take place and browning to occur.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-82112", "score": 0.7067145109176636, "text": "The metal rack in the microwave was designed by the manufacturer to not absorb the frequencies used inside. The rounded corners and overlapping welds help is avoid acting as an antenna. A randomly shaped conductor is much more likely to absorb a broad range of frequencies. If it absorbs the one the microwave uses, high currents can be generated, and bad things will happen.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-158270", "score": 0.7063227891921997, "text": "You should never boil water in the microwave in a perfectly-smooth container, as you just discovered. What happens is that the water becomes super-heated. That is, it rises above its boiling point, but the glass is so smooth that there are no nucleation sites to allow the water to begin transitioning to steam. So you end up with liquid water that is above its boiling point, and the slightest disturbance will cause it to explosively flash-boil into steam. Most of the time, you see this with people heating water for coffee/tea in the microwave. It looks like normal water when they take the mug out, but as soon as they stir the liquid, it \"explodes\", flinging boiling water everywhere. In this case, it sounds like the water was eventually disturbed enough, or reached high enough temperatures, to finally start turning into steam.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-242356", "score": 0.7057559490203857, "text": "The current would heat the metal, which would reduce it's strength. I suppose for a metal with a low ductility transition temperature, the heating could make it *tougher*, or able to absorb more energy before actually breaking.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-97496", "score": 0.705427885055542, "text": "If your plate is getting very hot in the microwave, it's probably not microwave safe. Some ceramics have ingredients which microwaves interact with, resulting in the plate being heated directly.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-319099", "score": 0.704822301864624, "text": "Your bowl may have something in it that absorbs microwaves. Try the same experiment with a clear glass bowl, see if there's a difference. Ideally, microwaving food in a bowl should heat only the food, not the bowl, except that the heated food may heat the bowl as a secondary effect. I have to ask -- this isn't a metal bowl, is it?", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-318001", "score": 0.7047353982925415, "text": "It is called oligodynamic effect ([wiki](_URL_0_)) and the exact mechanism is not completely understood AFAIK, but these metals are wide ranged catalysts, meaning they could easily push an otherwise stable protein over the treshold of some reaction that would denature it. This is most likely the effect.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-288760", "score": 0.7044633030891418, "text": "Unless the heat starts a chemical reaction within the metal, no.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-107917", "score": 0.7040402293205261, "text": "If a pot is heated when empty, especially one made of thin metal, it can quickly get hot enough to be damaged. Aluminum might warp, pots made of multiple layers might start to separate, and non-stick coatings might get so hot that they will release toxic gases. Metals in general have low specific heats compared with most foodstuffs (especially the water in them), so that it doesn't take too much heat energy to make them very hot. If the pan has contents, the heat will be transferred to them and the pan will not get as hot.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-297770", "score": 0.7038371562957764, "text": "It has to do with how the solids are staying together, in a sense. Metals have a crystalline structure, which has natural faults (known as dislocations) in it, which makes them more malleable. Think about how you can bend a metal ruler, but if you had a piece of ice in the same shape and tried to bend it, it would snap. As you add energy (heat) to the metal, these deformations become easier, so it becomes more malleable. Metals are held together by what are called metallic bonds, which share a lot of electrons and transmit the energy better, so the heat is also dispersed through a metal and it heats more evenly. Ice is held together with hydrogen bonds, and make a very solid but brittle structure. To further what I said above, these share electrons only between adjacent molecules, so heating ice to the point it melts is also very localized, which is why ice also melts very unevenly.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-12595", "score": 0.7027918696403503, "text": "Microwaves work by exciting water molecules in foods. So if you recall there was a commercial years ago of Velveeta and a popsicle being heated in the microwave. The cheese melts first. The water molecules in ice are locked in place pretty tightly. When heating up food the water heats up more in some spots than others. When the water gets hot enough to it expands rapidly, like the bubbles in water boiling (only you can not see them.) The volume of the pocket increases rapidly and causes a small explosion.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-311852", "score": 0.7025340795516968, "text": "This has to do with the surface at the bottom of the pot. There are small fractures in the bottom of the pot which gives the gas bubbles places to form. If there were no bubbles you would experience flash boiling. Many people don't know, but when you first purchase a ceramic mug it is not safe to boil water in the microwave with. The inside is very smooth and without spots to catalyze the formation of air bubbles, the water reaches temperatures higher than boiling. Then when you go to put your coffee, tea or whathaveyou, in the water instantly boils, spraying very hot liquid everywhere. This is why you should chink the inside of a mug with a piece of silverware prior to using it in the microwave. But yes, small fractures catalyze the formation of air bubbles and where the fractures are larger more air collects there", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-253880", "score": 0.7024655342102051, "text": "It could be absorbed by an electron and re-emitted, it could be absorbed by an electron and not be re-emitted (this would just result In a fast electron, but not fast enough to leave the metal in any high likelihood), it could jostle to crystal lattice to form a phonon (quanta of vibration) which can be interpreted as heating the metal, and in pretty unlikely circumstances it could pass right through. Probably lots of other things too, but the seem to be the most apparent ones to this physics undergrad!", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-143729", "score": 0.7022866010665894, "text": "They have a melting point that is far higher than the point at which the metal is liquid. The composition of the items changes it's chemical properties, including melting points.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-54652", "score": 0.7018038630485535, "text": "You can microwave hot pockets and get them crispy because the liner in the sleeve is aluminum. Perhaps they do it in a similar fashion", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-47", "score": 0.7844040393829346, "text": "It's not so much that Americans developed a distinct accent, but rather that speech on both sides of the Atlantic changed significantly, with both sides diverging quite a bit from what they had sounded like earlier on. This process is still happening, with accents on the Canadian and US sides of the great lakes undergoing vowel shifts at this very moment, and in opposite directions; Canadian and US accents are actually becoming less similar, even among people in the niagara region who live a few km apart. Why? We don't really understand this process at all well. The key thing relevant to your question though is that accents change a lot, that distance and separation make this process easier and more likely, and that neither English nor an American speakers sound much like their 16th century forebears." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-157878", "score": 0.7444807291030884, "text": "Both the modern dominant British accent, and the modern dominant American accent are different from the accent used during the colonial era. They both also have different features from that earlier accent that they held onto. Some linguists believe the American accent is \"closer\" to the colonial era dominant accent but there is debate about it. As to how/why the accents developed, that happened for the same reason all accents develop. Certain speaking habits get passed on and emphasized within a given community or region until they become distinct from other regions within the same language.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-323005", "score": 0.7387601733207703, "text": "Naturally, as we are raised, our mouths begin to form so that we communicate comfortably with the vowels and sounds we’re used to. But when we’re confronted with a different environment with a different language and set of linguistics, our mouths struggle to perfectly imitate the sounds, thus, the accent is created", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-11976", "score": 0.7376480102539062, "text": "It's called the trans-Atlantic accent. It doesn't actually have a home, the only ways you would pick it up is by traveling between the US and Britain a lot, go to boarding school where they teach it to you, or learn it yourself. A lot of actors adopted this accent because it sounds intelligent and sophisticated.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1124675", "score": 0.7364990711212158, "text": "Hey, so I was curious at what point the American dialect and accent became something distinct enough from the original Colonists.\n\nI know it's difficult to track voice accents prior to recording, but I wondered if there was a point when people started talking about the differences between the dialects.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-60356", "score": 0.736128568649292, "text": "People didn't necessarily sound like this in every-day conversation. Back in the 30s, 40s and even the 50s, it was thought that theater and television performances should be conducted in a specially trained accent (sometimes referred to as the Mid-Atlantic or Transatlantic English accent) which is sort of a manufactured accent that sounds like a cross between American English and British English. One of the reasons for using this accent is that it makes it easy for all English speakers to understand, regardless of which side of the ocean you are from (i.e. America or Europe).", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2517066", "score": 0.7356531620025635, "text": "What about accents? How did they come about and where are they found? Are there any stereotypes associated with particular accents/dialects?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-106896", "score": 0.7342245578765869, "text": "I would assume a large part of it is because American media is much more common in Britain and Australia than the other way around. For that reason, British and Australian people are familiar with American accents, and grow up hearing them.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-141932", "score": 0.7339586615562439, "text": "From the moment English settlers arrived and settled permanently in N America, accents on both sides of the Atlantic started drifting. It's not that the American colonists used to sound English (as we'd understand that today) but that [neither Americans nor English sound all that much](_URL_0_) like they did in centuries past. Note: someone is going to come in here and tell you that it's the English who lost their accent, and that Americans sound much more like what was spoken in the 16th century. This is a gross simplification and is pretty much wrong in any respect that matters.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-235383", "score": 0.7338569164276123, "text": "The primary American accent has changed *less* over the past 400 years than the primary English accent. The main version of the English accent spoken at that time sounded very similar to the modern-day American accent - with flat vowels, and hard (\"rhotic\") r's. In fact, there's an island in Virginia where the locals are believed to be speaking English [very similar to the way the original colonists spoke](_URL_0_). What happened was that accents in *England* changed over the past few centuries. Not all accents, just the ones spoken in the south of England, including London (the ones that became Received Pronunciation). The vowels changed, the r's softened. This change did **not** happen in North America. Hence the difference.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-36713", "score": 0.7336342334747314, "text": "What's an America accent? Americans have different accents based on location with the US.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-102881", "score": 0.7325202226638794, "text": "America doesn't have a British accent because the British accent was developed after the revolutionary war. Everyone used to speak the way that America still speaks. After the war, poor Brits who became rich created the accent to differentiate themselves, then everyone started using it because the highest people of society were. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-18787", "score": 0.7319740056991577, "text": "Think of how culturally diverse Europe is. America, as a nation, is only slightly smaller than the entire continent of Europe. Given a few hundred years of cultural drift, it's not surprising that different accents arise.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-41137", "score": 0.7299101948738098, "text": "It's the other way around. The most noticeable difference between (most) English/Australian and (most) American accents is that most American accents (Boston being the noticeable exception) pronounce all of their \"r\"s while most English accents drop the \"r\" if it's not at the start of a syllable, so \"car\" sound sort of like \"cah\". At the time that America was being colonized by the British, most English speakers spoke in a rhotic accent- they pronounced the \"r\"s. It wasn't until later that the common accents in *England* changed. Australia was colonized much later- a few years after America had successfully won its independence- and by that time, most of England spoke a non-rhotic accent.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-36827", "score": 0.7290210723876953, "text": "I don't think the changes took a short period of time? Different regions of the United States were settled by different people, with different accents, at different times. Some of them were different at the outset because of that. Some of them diverged afterwards. Some of that change, in some regions, may have been to differentiate from the British. But the classic indications of a British accent (specifically, the [dropping of the 'r'](_URL_0_)) happened more recently. So, 300 years ago the British would have possibly sounded more American than they do now; not the other way around. Either way, 2-300 years of is hardly a 'short' period of time for an accent to change? Some [big changes have been happening](_URL_1_) to the American accent very recently.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-160862", "score": 0.7286713719367981, "text": "Same way the US is a British colony and developed many different accents. The British themselves have actually changed their accent from around 400 years ago. I actually don't know why accents change, but I'd just like to point out the above. I'd guess its a mix of accents from different languages as well as trends and fads.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1172488", "score": 0.7285977005958557, "text": "I know there are many accents across the United States, but none sound similar to the British accent. If the first settlers were British then wouldn’t the American accent sound similar? Even the accent found in Australia, another British colony sounds vaguely British.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-168112", "score": 0.7274797558784485, "text": "Linguists and historians believe that the traditional English accent sounded very similar to what we perceive as an American accent today. The British accent is thought to have come from the Industrial Revolution, which caused a lot of classism. Rich people did not want to be associated with the poorer classes, so they began to speak in a different accent (AKA British accent). They taught their kids, and then they taught THEIR kids, etc. My assumption is that poorer people began to teach themselves and their kids to speak with these accents so they'd appear richer, which led to everyone speaking in a British accent. I hope this makes sense!", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-71336", "score": 0.727446973323822, "text": "That accent never existed in the real world; it was called the Transatlantic accent, and was used mostly in movies. It was supposed to sound somewhere between American and British English.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1125129", "score": 0.7272407412528992, "text": "I've wondered this for years, specifically about the colonies that became the United States. Maybe it's from watching movies where colonists have modern day American accents and the English (I know they were all technically English) had typical/modern day English accents, but I'm extremely curious as to when the colonists' vernacular and accents started diverging from those that lived in England. How long would that have taken? Just a few generations, or longer? Did different colonies have different accents, just like different regions of the US have different accents today? If anyone can shed some light on this quandry of mine, or point me to the right subreddit I can x-post in, that'd be great! Thanks!", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-55461", "score": 0.7268988490104675, "text": "Some people did actually talk like that. Specifically the very rich of New England. It’s called the transatlantic or mid-Atlantic accent. It was specifically taught to kids in boarding schools. Not naturally occurring accent, but one developed to sound kind of British and kind of American.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-48", "score": 0.7274126410484314, "text": "Its just to put emphasis on the fact that *they will* use any and all evidence against you that they can, including anything you say or do." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-158112", "score": 0.6905609369277954, "text": "It works the same way as buying fake drugs or hiring a fake hitman or prostitute. Intent to commit and belief you were committing an illegal act is sufficient to be guilty, even if it would not be possible for you to actually commit it. Also, just because an excuse is technically possible doesn't mean it gets you out of the crime. It has to create reasonable doubt in a jury...even if something is possible doesn't mean it is reasonably likely to be true.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-151698", "score": 0.6905241012573242, "text": "Because if you're caught out in a lie, that has a legal consequence called perjury. Basically you can go to jail for lying under oath, a consequence that isn't present in everyday life. This means that the person under oath has less wiggle room when it comes to lying and can be used as a way to actually catch them out in a lie, enforcing a legal consequence for unethical behavior.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-95541", "score": 0.6903710961341858, "text": "It is to ensure defendants get a fair trial. If you were accused of committing a crime last week, there is a good chance you would remember where you were and who you were with at the time, and could find witnesses and produce evidence to support that. If that crime occurred ten years ago, not so much. You don't have that ATM receipt in your wallet, you can't find the waitress who served you, and even if you could, she isn't going to remember you. You aren't even going to remember where you were that day. All you will like have is, \"I don't remember what I did, but I remember it wasn't that crime.\" If the prosecution has evidence linking you to the crime (and they will, because why else would they be charging you?), you might not be able to fairly defend yourself.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1507658", "score": 0.6901415586471558, "text": "What are your opinions of this? Personally, I see in many depictions of cases though docs of such cases, where the detectives say such a phrase. I'm not entirely sure how to feel about this as that as many of you sleuths know a lot of these cops are not the brightest in the barrel. This typically becomes a factor in thinking the husband, or someone close to a victims of a crime is guilty, especially when they don't allow the cops to search their house/property/car/etc. I just think that docs tend to promote accepting the idea of allowing cops to search you property when they ask, and I don't know if its good or not?\n\nI'd love to know peoples thoughts!\n\n(Side note: I do know often times the ones closest to the victims have ended up to be guilty and searching their property has helped.)", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-127997", "score": 0.6900094747543335, "text": "i have nothing in my bedroom/house that i am ashamed of, that doesn't mean that i would be ok with strangers/cops coming into my house and going through my drawers. it negates the presumption of innocence which is a principle of justice.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-16006", "score": 0.6898388266563416, "text": "No, there are no consequences for remaining silent. people are just dumb. Most people think that they have the ability to talk their way out of their legal situation, which is wrong. If the police truly think you are guilty nothing you say will prevent the cops from moving on with their prosecution. All talking does is provide possible harmless facts that could aid the prosecutions case. If the cops ever arrest you should **NEVER** talk to the police with out a lawyer, even if you are guilty.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-49739", "score": 0.6897894144058228, "text": "[Here](_URL_0_) is part of the Illustrated Guide to Law that explains this with comics. Basically, it's to protect citizens from police investigators overstepping their boundaries. The Constitution, which states the fundamental rights belonging to Americans, makes it clear that the government is to protect people from \"unreasonable searches and seizures\". In theory, this would mean stopping investigators from collecting evidence illegally. In practice, there are times when investigators (intentionally or unknowingly) go too far. Dismissing illegally collected evidence protects the accused from being negatively impacted by an illegal act by police and provides an incentive for them to make sure they perform searches properly.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-129505", "score": 0.6896784901618958, "text": "They are supposed to do their best. It's like how they are supposed to do their best to not assume guilt when someone pleads the fifth. It can also give grounds for a retrial.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-54091", "score": 0.6894131898880005, "text": "If the evidence was obtained illegally, there's good cause to suspect that it's been tampered with otherwise, or processed incorrectly, or perhaps not even valid evidence to the crime in the first place. Another way to look at it is that if the officer was willing to break the law to get the evidence, who's to say they weren't willing to break the law and fake the evidence? This all follows from the idea that it's better to let a guilty person walk free than to put an innocent person in jail - and if you disagree with that, imagine if you're the innocent person. No, really, think it through, for a few hours.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-85084", "score": 0.689393162727356, "text": "Someone cannot be convicted for saying \"I stabbed a dude.\" Punishment isn't doled out for having committed behavior which is a crime, they must be charged with a *specific instance* in which the behavior occurred. It isn't \"This guy is a murderer,\" it is \"This guy murdered that person and we can prove it.\" Second, the documentary is hardly sworn testimony. If they bring it up as a confession in court the defense just has to claim it was played up for the camera. And the accused cannot be compelled to testify against themselves so they cannot be made to say if they were lying or not!", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1738", "score": 0.6893139481544495, "text": "You're a little mistaken on the burden of proof. Because it's a civil case the burden of proof is more balanced than in a criminal case but that doesn't mean the defendant is \"guilty until proven innocent\" it just means they have to present a case that is more likely to be true than the accuser. If you think of it in % terms, in a civil case you have to prove that there is a 51% chance that you're right, whether you're the accuser or the defendant. The difference is, in criminal cases you only need to prove that there is a 1% chance you're right as the defendant (obviously I'm oversimplifying).", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-126387", "score": 0.6889142394065857, "text": "Could you post the exact California law you claim to be citing? Once you are out in public, as either a regular citizen or a sworn peace officer, you can be recorded by anyone, anytime. As for the police having to wear body cameras, I cannot see how that would ever be a bad thing; either it records proof that the officer did their job as they should and a suspect did violate the law, or it could record a LEO behaving in a illegal or rude manner. Seems to be a no-brainer to me.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-32647", "score": 0.6887252926826477, "text": "Because whether or not you are actually guilty doesn't really matter -- your lawyer is going to tell you to keep your shit together and not act insane either way. If screaming got you out of jail, truly guilty people would do it too...", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-13302", "score": 0.6887016296386719, "text": "Generally, states and the federal government have laws criminalizing perjury, which is defined as knowingly making a false statement under oath as to a material issue. (There are also laws against \"false swearing\" which cover non-material sworn lies.) These laws can be felonies or misdemeanors, so you're potentially facing jail/prison or other penalties if you're convicted. How do investigators find anything out? They investigate; witnesses talk; evidence is uncovered. Same way they find out you broke any laws.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-80692", "score": 0.6885811686515808, "text": "Hearsay has a specific definition, which is saying that someone made a statement to you that can't be independently verified. So, if I say, \"John told me he raped Susan,\" that's hearsay because I'm claiming that he told me something that can't be independently proven. For such a confession, John would have to make it directly in order for it to be legal evidence. However, saying, \"I saw John rape Susan,\" is not hearsay because you're making a statement about your own memories. The information isn't \"secondhand\" so to speak. To answer your question more directly such a case would probably be heavily dependent on witness statements, photographic records, and police reports, although without physical evidence of any kind it would probably be quite difficult. EDIT: For a more detailed and accurate explanation of hearsay, please refer to the responses to this comment.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-117204", "score": 0.6885117888450623, "text": "The [Don't Talk to the Police](_URL_0_) video will give you some clues. There is never any way to know when something completely innocuous can be taken as an admission of guilt.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-17767", "score": 0.6883638501167297, "text": "Because the official record is different than what is said. For example, a judge might rule that fingerprints found by an illegal search cannot be entered into evidence. If a witness testified the defendant's fingerprints were at the scene, the judge would have that testimony stricken from the record, and order the jury to disregard. If during deliberations, the jury asked to review the records, that testimony would be absent.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-24617", "score": 0.6883341670036316, "text": "(US) You essentially do not have any rights to defend yourself against police. In 99 % of situations if you do anything to resist or fight back against a police officer you will only get in further legal trouble. And that 1%, you are going to have a very long legal battle in court to prove that you were defending yourself against illegal physical harm to you.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-2440960", "score": 0.6882604956626892, "text": "In a theoretical world, say I'm fulled over for \"x\" reason. Cop asks to search my car, I say no, cop does/says things that I'm feeling threatened by of some degree - is it illegal or could be held against in me in a court of law if I begin to film what's going on?\n\nEDIT: Thanks for all the answers, they've been superbly informative!", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-135219", "score": 0.6878327131271362, "text": "Nothing, but very often those plea deals are contingent on giving testimony of a specific type against another person. If they refuse to give testimony, then the deal is invalidated.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-49", "score": 0.8306116461753845, "text": "Since rewinding needs to be done for each playback, what makes you think it is the rewinding which causes quality loss? Tapes lose quality over time whether you play them or not due to breakdown of the binder and dry lubricant. Rewinding is no more damaging than playback if the VCR is functioning correctly. There is a phenomenon called [print-through](_URL_0_) which transfers signal from one layer to the next. Professional audio engineers often store reel to reel tapes \"tails out\". That means without rewinding. It doesn't stop print-through, but it does make it happen later rather than earlier, so on playback it will be heard after a track rather than before. Source: 40 years experience in broadcast VTR/VCR maintenance." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-492547", "score": 0.7861025929450989, "text": "I have a massive VHS collection , so massive that I don’t really have the time to watch all the movies I buy. It’s kind of sad to pop one in once in awhile and see the tape is deteriorated to all hell. I must have 4 tapes of one of my favorite movies (TMNT 1990) because every single one I buy ends up being degraded entirely. I know watching the tapes degrades them but I also know they degrade slowly over time. It’s sad to know a hobby I enjoy right now might be degraded entirely in the future. Is there any suggestions on how to slow this process ?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-689769", "score": 0.7730380892753601, "text": "I have been told that a VHS can lose audio/video quality and hasten its generation loss if it isn't kept in a controlled climate.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1062651", "score": 0.7679505348205566, "text": "I am ripping my family's old home videos for my mother for Christmas. So far two broke when rewinding them. The tape itself did not break, but it detached from the takeup reel.\n\nI opened one cassette and reattached the tape with scotch tape. It worked for about a minute, then nothing. No sound, no picture, no time code. In fact, even the initial minute, which I could view at first, no longer works.\n\nI am afraid to attempt to repair the second one until I know what went wrong. Can anyone help me fix it? I would appreciate it, and I'm sure my mother would too. All of her kids are grown and moved out, so I know she would like to watch her old home movies again.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-689210", "score": 0.7620198130607605, "text": "I want to surprise my parents by digitizing their box of VHS tapes (including their wedding video). I read that VHS tape quality degraded over time, so I’d wanna salvage as much as possible. Anyone know good methods (possibly inexpensive) of doing so?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-142484", "score": 0.7588276267051697, "text": "I'm going to assume you're talking about \"scanning\" backwards during playback, since \"rewinding\" means stopping playback to rewind the tape to the beginning. It actually has to do with how the signal is recorded onto the magnetic tape. It's referred to as helical scan method (both recording and playback). So you might imagine the signal is recorded this way on a tape: |||||||||||| but it's actually recorded this way //////////// there's a variety of reason for doing it this way, but how it pertains to your question is that the scan head also reads in a helical pattern, so when you're scanning forward or backwards it gets misaligned and results in the scan interference you're talking about. [Here's the Wikipedia page for VHS which explains perhaps more than you want to know about VHS.](_URL_0_) [Here's the page for Helical scan.](_URL_1_) [And finally here's a question on the Video Production StackExchange that's the same as yours.](_URL_2_)", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-108309", "score": 0.7561374306678772, "text": "I think it's because the tape stops, but the read-head is still spinning round. So it's really just reading the same 'frame', but since it's analog, it cant really stand still. ... A video tape is encoded like this: /////// ... which is different from an audio tape which is encoded like this: |||||| The reason being that a video needs a lot more info per second. also.. there are actually 2 read heads on that disk, not just one.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-4198", "score": 0.7538174986839294, "text": "It's not the the original recording that's messed up, it's the result of the tracking not being correct when the VCR recording is being played back. Tracking is what syncs the speed of playback with the speed of the recording. When the tracking isn't correct, you get distortion in the image displayed on the screen.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-21932", "score": 0.7530832290649414, "text": "If they were originally recorded on movie-quality film then the original resolution is actually extremely high. You can re-scan the original film at a much higher resolution for modern HD formats. The loss of image quality back in the 80s wasn't from the original film, but rather the conversion to lossy formats like VHS tape. If the original is in one of those low-fi formats, you're out of luck.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-94382", "score": 0.7522802352905273, "text": "When you fast forward, the tape is moving faster than necessary to play the picture. In your case it might be 3 times as fast. The VHS tape contains diagonal strips for each frame, with a band of audio and control information at the edge. When the video head scans over that edge control band, the information it sees doesn't have the relationships needed to make the picture. You're seeing the head track across one frame, the gap between them, the next frame, the gap between them, the third frame and then the control band.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-124366", "score": 0.7516176700592041, "text": "The original film quality doesn't change. If you filmed it on poor grade film, it'll be poor forever. If you filmed it on professional grade film (basically every movie with anything resembling a budget), the quality of the film exceeds the quality achieved by the scanning process to convert to VHS or DVD. If a new, better scanning technique or better media (like BluRay) is invented, then the original film (professional quality) can be rescanned to produce a higher quality copy than the old VHS or DVD.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-24440", "score": 0.7479450106620789, "text": "VHS players have read \"heads\" that had to sync up with the magnetic tape. Actual physical changes in the tape would mean that the read heads would have to be adjusted to get it to play correctly. [howstuffworks has a great explanation](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-120915", "score": 0.7473797798156738, "text": "Taking off the plastic really does nothing to the tape, and it is still recordable. What is actually happening is that the VHS player or recorder checks to see if the plastic is there or not and then internally disables recording if it needs to. You can just as easily undo this and enable recording again by putting a piece of cello tape where the plastic was.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-395908", "score": 0.7434393763542175, "text": "Is it possible that this wobbly distorted sound from a tape is just due to the tapes old age? It looks like the tension isn’t as tight as the other tapes I have and gets to the point where the tape won’t play any more.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-32194", "score": 0.7428249716758728, "text": "The quality was arguably very good, but there are not many good archives from that time so anything you see most likely comes from a VHS tape, or similar, which might be a recording of the transmission and not even an original/master. VHS tapes can degrade over time. Also the old, smaller image is being stretched to fit a much larger area, so artifacts will appear. The same thing happens to small images scaled up in photoshop for example, pixels become blocky as a little information has to cover a larger space.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1637525", "score": 0.7419626712799072, "text": "Literally every other streaming service has this. Should I just buy a VCR and watch’s VHS at this point? It’s 2020 why are we forced to rewind movies...?", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-102774", "score": 0.7391549944877625, "text": "Most movies in the past were recorded on film, which is a very high quality medium. However what was released on VHS and other forms had to be lower quality due to the nature of those mediums. By going back to the high quality film they can make a HD version for modern mediums.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-64444", "score": 0.7358749508857727, "text": "Essentially they're being replaced with slightly worse copies every time. So after a while the quality degrades to the point of no longer functioning. If you know the children's game called telephone, it's kind of like how that message gets distorted with each replication", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-688790", "score": 0.7341810464859009, "text": "Maybe I'm in the wrong place here but I purchased an old JVC at Goodwill and I have video conversion software to convert everything to digital. I like the look VHS creates. The glitching, grain, static, and poor frame rate is exactly the look I am attempting to achieve. I've played around with a few things here and there like filming in EP and physically distorting the tape by crinkling it and what not. I wanted to know if anyone had any tips or tricks to create more glitching and what not. Most of you guys might think I'm crazy.. But any help would be appreciated. Thanks!", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-60243", "score": 0.7318955063819885, "text": "A VHS tape is exactly like a cassette tape. The data is stored on it in electromagnetic form. [Here's an excellent website that explains the process.](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-20683", "score": 0.7288413047790527, "text": "Your blu-ray was probably a remastered version. The original physical film that the movie was recorded on is extremely high resolution so if they make the blu-ray from that, it's high quality. An older copy of the movie is low quality because you're watching it from a VHS tape, which is both low res and can degrade over time. The reason a lot of media that old looks bad is simply that they're copies made from a low quality medium instead of the original high-res physical film. Sometimes the original film is lost. EDIT: \"Remastering\" is when they make a new master copy of a movie from the physical film which is then duplicated for distribution.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-50", "score": 0.806092381477356, "text": "Librarian here. A lot of that stuff comes from stores and reserves from other libraries in the system. My library authority has been around since 1890 and has accumulated decades of stuff that due to archiving policies /librarian OCD hoarding we never throw out, For example we have 23 libraries in our group with over 750,000 items. Around a 1/6 of that stock is reserves and then rotated to other libraries so it appears new to the customers of that branch. Encyclopaedias are really common actually, especially older ones we have around 10 full sets of the most common things like Britannica and Oxford. Any book dealer will most likely have a few sets kicking around if you are short. In the UK the British Library has virtually every book and periodical ever published, I assume the Library of Congress is the same in US and we can get copies of stuff from them. TL:DR a combination of stuff hidden in basements and storage supplemented by specialist periodical providers" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1101931", "score": 0.7597236037254333, "text": "Hello, friends. I'm a new librarian in charge of ordering books for the collection. Recently, my bosses, in their infinite wisdom, decided to discontinue Publisher's Weekly, and now I feel a little lost.\n\nWhere's your favorite place to go for the latest and greatest in the book world? I'm new at this book ordering thing, so any info you have will be helpful. Thanks!", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-372236", "score": 0.7529451251029968, "text": "I don't really use the library as I have a bad habit of reading my books in a rough way that leaves some tear on them and I don't feel like that's fair for other library patrons so I'd rather own my own copies. I normally just buy on amazon new or used if available, but I'm looking for other places that you might know of to get cheaper copies or even a place to exchange used books with other readers for their copies so that both parties can read new books?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1292505", "score": 0.7524004578590393, "text": "Just curious - when you buy NEW books, especially through online ordering, do you expect that book to be relatively pristine? I've had a string of not-so-great shipments lately from various bookstores across the country. Bookstores who apparently don't value the importance of packaging the main f-ing product they are selling. Bookstores who sell NEW books (both hardcover AND paperback) and throw them in a shoddy padded envelope for a cross-country journey or a box with a single piece of bubble wrap (why even put one in there???), only to be dinged and dented and folded along the way.\n\nI can't even blame the USPS carrier, or the FedEx carrier, or the UPS carrier. Nope! This is 100% blame on the absolutely shitty packing job I see over and over and over again. I don't know. Maybe I'm being too picky, but when my hardcover books come with dinged/split corners and my paperbacks come with folded covers because they were haphazardly sent from state to state, bouncing all around, I get frustrated. When I spend my hard-earned money on NEW, well.... I want NEW, not WENT-THROUGH-A-PAPER-SHREDDER.\n\nTaking a deep breath.\n\nOkay, rant over. Sorry I blew up. What are your thoughts? Do you happily (or begrudgingly) accept those dings/splits/tears/etc., or do you stick to the ideals of NEW and send that crap back?\n\nOn a related note: Absolute SHOUT-OUT to instocktrades, Midtown Comics, and Conspiracy Comics in Sunnyvale, CA, all of which have ALWAYS done a PHENOMENAL job of packing the books I have ordered. May they never fail me. :D", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2647246", "score": 0.7460591197013855, "text": "I doubt the city libraries keep an archive of major magazines. Do they scrap them after a certain amount of time? I'm interested in some back issues of a few magazines. Would it be possible for them to give them out?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-809722", "score": 0.7458072900772095, "text": "I just moved apartments. My books had been in storage for about 4 years and now they're out and free and...on the floor. I'd say, it's about 2,000 books give or take. Wondering what you guys do with your massive collections? Just standard bookcases? Vintage Etsy/Craigslist finds? I had some from World Market but I want something new and vibrant and apartment-friendly. \n \nWhat do you use? Links to images please, no direct sales links, thanks!", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-95241", "score": 0.7446345686912537, "text": "To clarify something- libraries do not buy the same 20 $ hardback as you or me. They tend buy library bound editions (for most things). These have reinforced bindings, thicker pages, and stronger covers. These are really expensive. I just thought what was written might confuse some people.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2222005", "score": 0.7432643175125122, "text": "Sorry if this has been asked before.\n\nAre there any local bookstores that deliver? We really want to support local as much as possible, and we could stand some new reading material.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-1301340", "score": 0.7424626350402832, "text": "Not sure if this is the right place to post so let me know if theres a better sub.\n\nI don't know how the question came up but its been on my mind for a long time. Why don't we have \"libraries\" that loan things other than books? For example if you're doing a small construction project you could \"check out\" a tool that you need just once, so you don't have to buy something you'll never use again. Or maybe a really fancy dress for a one-time use.\n\nI understand certain things are easier to loan than other, like the dress might be a bit difficult because it would need to be washed between customers, but theres a lot more useful and plausible things these libraries could have!\n\nThe libraries near where I live have started making hotspots and chromebooks available for checkout, thanks to the pandemic, and I'm wondering if more things would start to be circulated in the near future. Do any places actually do this already? I think it would be interesting and useful.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-39783", "score": 0.7421560287475586, "text": "In the UK, they buy them from suppliers. A local government might typically purchase thousands of books in one contractual agreement and share them out between the library branches within its geography.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2188739", "score": 0.7409704327583313, "text": "From what I've seen so far, they have a decent amount of books that I haven't been able to find elsewhere online. I keep lists of things I want to look at when I make it to various libraries, and they have some of them. The one thing I don't like is I can't find a way to search by title or author - it seems you have just search by the person you're looking for inside the books. Still, worth checking out.\n\n", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-69215", "score": 0.7409284710884094, "text": "Libraries actually pay a levy to publishers. It's not as simple as \"buy a book for $20, lend it out a million times\". This leads to the weird situation when libraries lend e-books to people's iPads and other devices. Despite the fact that they could lend it an infinite number of times, they only have twenty \"copies\" and when they're all \"out\" you have to wait for one to be \"returned\".", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2127816", "score": 0.7341514229774475, "text": "I randomly stumbled upon this article about a library in South Korea, which made me wonder about the state of libraries around us. \n\nI live in a small town and google maps shows only library near me, I went to check it out but turns out its no more there. The nearby *chaiwala* tells me that the library used to have a decent collection of books and people visited, but gradually, people stopped coming in and they lacked funds to continue. The library then resorted to mostly keeping newspapers, pamphlets, etc. but that too didn't work after a while, and eventually it shut down.\n\nNow I know that metro cities have some really good libraries, but thats limited to the big cities. Most of the libraries that I see are in a very bad condition.\n\nWhat is the state of libraries where you live? \n\nDo you think there should be an active effort from the community to preserve the libraries?\n\nPS: I am not talking about academic libraries. I know a lot of institutions boast an amazing library, with wide range of academic books.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-704920", "score": 0.7339801788330078, "text": "This just came to my mind, i usually just get them from amazon but i was wondering how everyoen else gets their books?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-371965", "score": 0.7334312796592712, "text": "My friends and I recently had a discussion on where we keep our books. One friend said he locks it in a safe, and others say they just keep them in their desk. Thoughts?", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-810368", "score": 0.7334097027778625, "text": "I have a lot of old books that just take up space now. I don't have place for more books and my bookshelf is completely full with old books. I was wondering if there are any bookshops that will take old books (for free or money doesn't matter). So if you guys know some please tell me. \n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nNote: - Preferably a bookshop that takes your books and gives you replacements but if not its ok.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1302710", "score": 0.7329914569854736, "text": "So I'm starting to have a little library with me and it's starting to take its share in weight. \n\nMy question is: is it safe to sell books/notice board notes that you already read? Or will you need them in the future?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-373313", "score": 0.7321553826332092, "text": "Doing a purge of my hard copy books - fiction &amp; non-fiction. Anyone know a good place to donate books? Looks like library only accepts them if printed in last 5yrs.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-2290584", "score": 0.7320945858955383, "text": "I moved into a house that has 4 floor-to-ceiling built-in bookshelves filled with old books. Many of them don't have barcodes or ISBNs and I can't imagine how long it would take to painstakingly look up the title, publisher, and year for each book to find out its worth. Any suggestions?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-981336", "score": 0.7317115068435669, "text": "I was just going through the education options to help alleviate the uneducated workers issue, and I noticed a new building I haven’t seen before: The public library. Is this a new edition? Or is it something that has to be unlocked and I simply unlocked it?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1729673", "score": 0.7314531207084656, "text": "Will it become harder and harder to find new good books, especially for more advanced subjects, since there won't be enough gain for people who actually write them?\n\nEdit: how do you decide wheter to buy a book or simply download it?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-51", "score": 0.6673588752746582, "text": "> Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent, far stronger than O2. It is also **unstable at high concentrations**, decaying to ordinary diatomic oxygen. [...] In a sealed chamber, with fan moving the gas, ozone has a **half-life of approximately a day at room temperature**. _URL_0_ TL;DR: It is very unstable. It will decay fairly quickly; half of the ozone you make today will be gone tomorrow, turned into regular oxygen gas." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-275438", "score": 0.6339433789253235, "text": "Our planet has not always been the same as it was now. It took a very long time for photosynthetic life to store all of the carbon currently sequestered. (It's also worth noting that not all carbon in the world is either in plants or the atmosphere.) The problem is that when people burn wood for fuel, we have the capacity to burn wood far more quickly than plants can fix CO2 from the atmosphere. Though the net amount of carbon on Earth is pretty fixed, the percentage in the atmosphere is currently increasing.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-24134", "score": 0.6339078545570374, "text": "Because making destroying the earth atmosphere isn't illegal. There's no universal law that says you have to be good to mother nature.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-129686", "score": 0.6338691711425781, "text": "Despite what you often learn in your first chemistry class, bonding isn't just about the number of electrons in the outer shells. Sulfur and oxygen just don't have the same behavior. Now, sulfur *does* complete an octet, but it doesn't do so consistently. A ring of 8 sulfur atoms is the most common in pure sulfur, but 7 and 6 atom rings also occur, and by manipulating how it forms you can create all kinds of crazy things. So it doesn't make sense to describe pure sulfur as having any particular molecular structure. In contrast, oxygen will almost *always* form O2; when it forms O3 instead, we call that ozone.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-643593", "score": 0.6336534023284912, "text": "The lack of a magnetosphere on Mars presents what I think is the biggest challenge in terraforming the Red Planet, considering its why it has a very thin atmosphere. Not to mention the large amounts of radiation that the ozone layer protects us from here on earth. Have any futurists figured out a reasonable way we might get around this issue?\n\nEdit: Correction. Mars does have a magnetic field, its just a very weak one. Thanks, u/MessedUpAlien.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-296093", "score": 0.6336391568183899, "text": "Helium is produced as a byproduct of natural gas. During the Cold War, the US subsidized helium production and created a massive stockpile. Over the past decade, they have been selling it off, which has made helium very cheap...so cheap, it hasn't been profitable to capture it from natural gas wells, so it gets released into the atmosphere instead. This is the helium we are running out of, the cheap stuff. As helium becomes more expensive, it will once again become profitable to capture it from gas wells, and the price will stabilize at a higher level.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-47932", "score": 0.6335834264755249, "text": "The fish aren't exactly holding their breath. As long as their gills are wet, O2 is still dissolving into them. Out-of-waterness has evolved multiple times in multiple orders of fish. There are several gill/reservoir arrangements that recirculate the O2 into onboard water. Since we rely on dry air alone, we don't have a way to pull O2 from the water into a usable format. Some insects can hold a pocket of air on their abdomen, and if they are very still, the CO2 leaves the pocket into the water, and O2 enters, both via concentration gradient. My idea for an O2-replenishing tank would be to have massive surface area inside porous capillaries, and you squeeze a little rubber ball to force water through the capillaries to speed up the exchange.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-268910", "score": 0.6334218978881836, "text": "There are a few factors to consider. First, Earth is not really a closed system, but you are largely correct that at least in terms of the water cycle, water is not leaving our atmosphere at any significant rate. Regarding water waste, there are other factors, but here's a simple answer: For most important uses (drinking, agriculture, etc.) we need fresh water. The question becomes, how quickly is fresh water naturally regenerated, and how quickly are we using it - including wasted water. If the usage rate is faster than the production rate, then yes, it causes problems. We have to artificially increase fresh water production, which is non-trivial and expensive at large scales.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-82619", "score": 0.6334072947502136, "text": "Yes, once we know we can safely live in the planet's actual gravity, you are correct that we would have to terraform it first. The first part of the process would be to *scrub* the atmosphere by phasing out the current atmospheric makeup and then phasing in the right mixture of nitrogen, oxygen and the many other elements of our atmosphere. This process would be a phasing process and would take some time. Next, once we have atmosphere where we can safely breath we would have to plant a great number of trees to facilitate the natural effects trees have of turning carbon dioxide into oxygen, making the atmosphere self-sustaining. Then, we would have to bring in water to create rivers and oceans, which the atmosphere would also self-sustain through the evaporation/condensation cycle. Next, we plant crops in the most fertile areas. Then from there we can begin colonizing and fighting each other over control of it.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-274299", "score": 0.6332628726959229, "text": "It is not the ocean, but man is cleaning hydrocarbon pollution in the upper layers of Lake Meade with technology. About the first 30 feet of water in Lake Meade near Las Vegas is infused with hydrocarbons from 70 years of boat motors. There is little mobility between the upper and lower water layers. The US Government constructed a de-pollution plant where water is extracted from the upper layer of the lake, infused with ozone gas and returned to the deep water of the lake. They don't simply dump the water back on the surface because the clean water would dilute the pollution making the time to complete subject to Zeno's paradox. The water is returned to the deep lake via the largest stainless steel venturi tube ever built. It has to be stainless steel because the ozone would corrode ordinary iron or plastic piping. My uncle built it.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-51005", "score": 0.633217990398407, "text": "CFCs were banned in 1989 with the Montreal protocol, and the ozone is now getting much better. It is predicted to return to 1980 levels around 2050-70.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-82961", "score": 0.633150041103363, "text": "The main problem with that is that the moon is not massive enough to sustain an atmosphere. This leaves us in enclosures for air. From there, we might as well put the other parts of habitability (temperature, water, ecosystems) within those enclosures. TL;DR: the moon isn't worth terraforming. (I think I did the tldr right)", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-95110", "score": 0.6330816149711609, "text": "The overly simplistic answer is that different gases are present, and they all have different densities, which results in them layering both north/south and vertically within the atmosphere. While the winds do cause these layers to mix, its not enough to turn it into a well-mixed gas.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-312310", "score": 0.6328859329223633, "text": "You mean like carbon-14 in the atmosphere, for example? Because they're constantly being produced as well as decaying. Carbon-14 is being made all the time by spallation reactions in the atmosphere, where a very high energy cosmic ray spalls the nucleus of an air molecule into many pieces. Some fraction of the time, one of the pieces left over is a carbon-14 nucleus.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-22704", "score": 0.6328784227371216, "text": "There is most likely a rate limiting step. Meaning that photosynthesis can only convert so much CO2 to O2 at a time. Things like enough sunlight, water, and a place to store the excess glucose it creates are all things that can slow the process down", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-317135", "score": 0.6327595710754395, "text": "Well, helium shortage partly stems from the supply side: it exists nowhere other than trapped underground, where it was formed by natural nuclear reactions. In the atmosphere, it's too light and leaves the planet. It's often near oil and gas but isn't always worth enough to collect. Helium is very useful as a coolant. Helium, when compressed greatly, becomes a liquid, and liquid helium is, what, 2K? That's -271C. Our lab used it for cooling the nuclear magnetic resonance machine. I imagine other industries and fields of research would need it too.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-278283", "score": 0.6327369809150696, "text": "Because it's typically not Aluminum-to-Aluminum; on a microscopic level it's AluminumOxide-to-AluminumOxide. Aluminum oxidizes very rapidly under atmospheric conditions, and Al2O3 has very different properties from elemental Aluminum. Edit: Chemistry...", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-176491", "score": 0.6327266097068787, "text": "In short, that’s just the way it is. Earth’s “evolution” created this balance. Some belive there was more oxygen when dinosaurs were around (hence bigger creatures) some also now say there was less. What you have to remember is we evolved into this 21%. Your question is kinda like “why are there oceans.” Yes, there is absolutely a scientific explanation but in the end the answer is just that, ~21% O2, 78% N, then trace elements. Also almost all of our Oxygen comes from phytoplankton, tiny plants that live on the surface of the ocean, not trees.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-122488", "score": 0.6327064633369446, "text": "Yes their propulsion system is self contained and doesn't need oxygen in the air to function. This is a lot like how space crafts bring their own oxidizer along with the fuel.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-247527", "score": 0.6324506998062134, "text": "[THIS IMAGE FINALLY HAS A PURPOSE!](_URL_0_) Basically, you have to supply not only the energy to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen, but also the energy to push the water out of the way for the gases to exist.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-303623", "score": 0.6324195265769958, "text": "It has to do with the timescale and magnitude of change. We’ve been pumping CO2 in the atmosphere so fast that it can’t be taken up by the ocean fast enough for it to be at equilibrium. The ocean is indeed losing some CO2 from warming but it’s gaining much more just because it’s so undersatured in CO2 with respect to the atmosphere. The warming is so slow during Milankovitch cycle that the ocean is effectively always in equilibrium with the atmosphere, so temperature becomes the strongest control (though ocean circulation and biology are probably equally important).", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-52", "score": 0.7433199286460876, "text": "It is entirely possible to be such a person, it's called statelessness. At one point, Einstein was stateless. However, renouncing your citizenship means you have no protection by any state. This is very bad, as we are as a species very largely reliant on our respective corporate states of the world. I personally identify as a citizen of no country, if you wish to go stateless, I suggest you study the subject further and figure out how to survive without a state." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-141888", "score": 0.7040231823921204, "text": "My grandfather was a man with no country. He fled persecution from two different countries. The first one, where he was born, essentially revoked his citizenship - he could never return there or expect any sort of service. It would be impossible for him to get a passport there. The second one arrested him, falsely accused him, sentenced him to death, but influential friends helped him escape. Being a fugitive and out of the country after a few years, he lost his right to legal residency there. He ended up in Brazil, where he was granted asylum. He was issued a UN passport which he could use to travel internationally, and he was granted permanent residency in Brazil after a while.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-26773", "score": 0.7036394476890564, "text": "Most countries will not let you give up your citizenship if you aren't a citizen of any other country. That said, some people do end up stateless. Being stateless does not give you any special ability to cross borders without a visa or ID. Quite the opposite, it would make crossing national borders very difficult. No one would want to take you. You're right, states are social constructs. Ultimately you have to live under them because people working for the state will make you follow their rules by force.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-159656", "score": 0.6981768608093262, "text": "> How would I go about doing this? The hardest part is going to be getting other countries to recognize you. There's not some sort of paperwork you can fill out that makes you sovereign. You'd have to have some amazing political clout, or one heck of an arsenal, or you'll always just be 'some guy who wants to play pretend.' Countries are countries inasmuch as they recognize one another to be where it counts.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-129685", "score": 0.6870869398117065, "text": "It's called statelessness, and it's possible. More often it happens at birth or involuntarily. Several UN conventions have aimed to reduce it. However, the U.S. hasn't signed them, and unlike many countries, will allow citizens to renounce their citizenship with nothing to replace it. This has happened at least a few times. Renouncing U.S. citizenship as an adult is irreversible. You don't want to be stateless. No country is obligated to give you a passport or legal documents, provide protection or services, nor even to take you in. You can be in limbo indefinitely. There's not an obvious limit on multiple citizenships, though it's hard to get more than a few. Some countries won't allow their citizenship to be held in combination with others.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-103131", "score": 0.6867668628692627, "text": "\"Statelessness\" is a \"Fast and Dirty\" way to arrange to live abroad. If you are in a country, you can go to your Consulate in that country and renounce your citizenship. Once you have done that, the country in which you currently reside really has nowhere to send you. No other country will accept you, so your current country of residence really has no choice other than to keep you or kill you.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-34717", "score": 0.6786540746688843, "text": "The main requirement is to get other countries to recognise your country. The only place I know of that's attempted it (other than when a country splits up due to some kind of political revolution) is the [Principality of Sealand](_URL_0_). One of their princes did an AMA a while ago, if you care to search for it.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-58122", "score": 0.6778650283813477, "text": "Stateless people are refugees. If the country is genociding your people and you flee, the government has on some level revoked your citizenship and you are now stateless. Some other country could grant you citizenship or you could be stateless (unclaimed and unprotected by any state) for the rest of your life. Edit: Some people claim to be \"sovereign citizens\" and claim to not be bound by American law, but they haven't in fact renounced their citizenship and are very much governed by the laws of the land. It's generally not possible to renounce your own citizenship to the degree that you are stateless. Usually it's a transfer from one state to another. Far more common is that a country rejects a portion of the population making them stateless or that a country is conquered and suddenly the citizens are left with citizenship and documentation to a country that no longer exists, making them stateless.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-113558", "score": 0.677423357963562, "text": "Typically, obtaining citizenship in another country, traveling outside the country you intend to renounce, and submitting whatever documents and payment your former country requires at their embassy. The US is one of the very few countries that allows you to renounce US citizenship without having another, but not being a citizen of any country is an extremely undesirable situation to be in.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-20524", "score": 0.6724875569343567, "text": "Sure, Liberland \"Can\" be recognized, but its unlikely any of the neighboring countries will do so. Which neatly ties in to the second question. One founds a country by convincing the other countries that you found a country. A countries laws, passports, and borders mean nothing if no one respects them, or acknowledges them.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-151094", "score": 0.6720806360244751, "text": "They can't... or at least... not on a scale that we would recognize as a country. A country without a government would just be a bunch of people living in a geographic area... with none of the connections, services, or bonds that would give them any real semblance of identity on an international scale. As soon as you start creating institutions, to provide things like roads or police... you've created a government.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-95382", "score": 0.6707096695899963, "text": "They are considered \"stateless.\" Countries will likely grant him certain residency statuses or asylum after they consider what exactly caused his citizenship to be revoked. Statelessness due to political conflict and ethnic discrimination, particularly in central Africa, is actually a significant issue that burdens surrounding countries with refugees and illegal migrants.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2431663", "score": 0.670436441898346, "text": "Like just went for it, no job lined up, no citizenship, just some money and a passport, how did you do it and how did it work out?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-7046", "score": 0.669106125831604, "text": "[This image goes into some detail about it](_URL_0_) Essentially if you don't have family here, and you're not skilled it's essentially impossible to become a citizen, barring something like being granted refugee status.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-948276", "score": 0.6676069498062134, "text": "Hypothetically, Is it a good idea to emigrate to another country? How do you make money? How do you avail services without an ID? Where do you live? How much capital would you need to have beforehand in order to execute such escape plans?", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-948878", "score": 0.6639742255210876, "text": "I have recently been wondering how possible is it to setup your own country on a piece of privatly owned land or Island - what are the international laws or regulations regarding currency, passports, copyright or just plain old being allowed to do so", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-135073", "score": 0.6636475324630737, "text": "Entities are only a \"country\" if your particular government recognizes them as such, which isn't going to happen unless you have a valuable resource or some other kind of influence to convince other governments to recognize you. You are free to go and build your island and declare it anything you want, but nobody is going to go along with it unless the US, or the UK, or some other major government says \"Yup, he's legit, and anyone who disagrees can lodge a complaint with the aircraft carrier we just sent to protect him.\"", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-948312", "score": 0.6625651121139526, "text": "For those of us who were unlucky to not have a first world country citizenship, is it possible to \n\na) immigrate and \n\nb) get a permanent residency, and subsequently a citizenship, \n\nin a first world country as a self-employed person?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-947613", "score": 0.6621912717819214, "text": "There is no country I'm currently in, does my nationality define the country in which i get accused?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-643716", "score": 0.6613737344741821, "text": "I mean, it isn't earth and nations can't really own land so is it everyman for themselves when we eventually go to Mars?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-171468", "score": 0.6611478924751282, "text": "\"Stateless citizen\" is a misnomer because, being stateless, they aren't a citizen. The limitations include not being allowed entry into any country (leading to things like confinement within airports), the inability to be employed, to own property, to vote, access to healthcare, education, marriage, travel rights, etc. > Furthermore, how detrimental would it be to someone's upbringing if they were brought up stateless? That is difficult to calculate or express. Words such as \"crippling\" or \"devastating\" seem too mild.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-54", "score": 0.7485661506652832, "text": "The beef wasn't with Cuba, the beef was with the USSR. The Soviets were trying to use their communist ally in The West as a beachhead for terror. (Not the modern definition of terror, the old-fashioned one). By placing ICBMs in Cuba (aimed at the United States) they wanted to cast a cloak of fear over the U.S. Cold War tactics at its finest." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-36545", "score": 0.7095939517021179, "text": "Basically, because Cuba wouldn't bow to the US's demands (read about the Cuban missile crisis), so the US stopped all relations with them and banned good to and from Cuba.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-83980", "score": 0.7022536993026733, "text": "The US does not \"hate\" Cuba. There have, historically, been some bad incidents between the US and Cuba. Then Cuba went communist, and were going to let the Soviet Union put nukes there which almost lead to World War 3. That was pretty much the low-point, and that was in the '60s. Ever since then (and until fairly recently) it's basically been a grudge. But this grudge has some political roots. Namely, Florida is a very important state for US elections, and has a huge ex-Cuban population, and *they* tend to hate the Cuban regime (though, again, not Cuba), and specifically Fidel Castro, who lead Cuba for decades. Now tat he's nominally out of power, it looks like relations between the two countries might begin to normalise. As you can tell, none of this has anything to do with China - and that's really the point here. How the US deals with one country has little to do with how it deals with another.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-13132", "score": 0.7019327282905579, "text": "One of the major rifts between western capitalists and Cuba was not about capitalism vs communism directly (Cuba is not actually by definition communist). But more about alliances with the USSR, and the Cuban missile crisis (Cuba Agreeing to accept nuclear ICBM's from Russia to aim at the US). Then Russia struck a deal with the US and removed the nukes from Cuba (against Castro's wishes) further straining US, Cuba relations. Have a great day! :-)", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-164766", "score": 0.6882246136665344, "text": "- The Soviets wanted to put nukes in Cuba. - The US was like, \"Fuck no.\" - The US sent a bunch of ships to blockade Cuba. - People thought war would break out. - The Soviets backed down.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-214780", "score": 0.6860155463218689, "text": "The Cuban revolutionaries believed that the industrial apparatus and especially agricultural land should belong to the Cuban people rather than foreigners. Later in his rule, Batista sided strongly with rich landowner (often American), American multinationals and the American mafia. In the anti-Batista backlash after the revolution, these groups took a lot of the flak. All this led to popular support for nationalization and land reform. After nationalization had begun, the US turned down an offer for repayment in the form of 20 year bonds and launched a failed invasion in 1961. This naturally led to an increase in tensions and a tightening of the embargo. The embargo continues today partly because Cuba was seen as a Communist enemy during the Cold War and partly because Cuban-Americans strongly support it and form a crucial block in Florida, a notorious swing state.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-166895", "score": 0.6835064888000488, "text": "The US was unhappy about Fidel's rise to power in Cuba because he was communist. Fidel's rise led to some people being exiled due to their capitalist views. The CIA tracked down as many of these exiled Cubans as possible, gave them training and arms, and shipped them to the Bay of Pigs to invade Cuba under the assumption that the people would rise in revolt and support them. It turned out the Cubans actually despised many of the invaders, since many were plantation owners and other upper class folks. The result was that the invaders were easily defeated and Fidel used it to show that the US was aggressive towards Cuba even though the people of Cuba supported its government. The embarrassing defeat reflected on the president, who was Kennedy.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-225639", "score": 0.68248051404953, "text": "Can you elaborate on your question a bit? I'm assuming by local you mean Cubans in Cuba, but it's unclear. Clearly some of Cuba's problems are a result of the decades long trade embargo the US has had in place. The United States has the largest market, industry, and financial influence in the region and it is one of Cuba's primary natural trade partners and former colonial master. Even for a large and more economically powerful country like Mexico or Canada, an American embargo would be catastrophic at least in the short term. I don't think this is in dispute anywhere so it would seem on the surface you must be asking a more specific question... Is there *any* point to this argument? Yes. The question is to what degree Cuba's problems are a result of American action vs. the Castro government's actions or pre-existing economic problems prior to the revolution.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-70683", "score": 0.6813351511955261, "text": "At this point, the problem is that many Americans of Cuban ancestry despise Castro, and normalizing relations with Cuba would bother them. They tend to vote based upon this issue. They tend to live in Florida, which is a battleground state.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-31055", "score": 0.6808180212974548, "text": "Most of the people who cared are now dead. Fidel Castro overthrew a dictator friendly to the US, and invited the USSR to put missiles there. The US tried to assassinate Castro about a million times. This lead to some hard feelings. On top of that, a lot of Cuban exiles fled to Florida, an important swing state in US elections. Long after the Cold War ended and most people stopped caring, Cuba remained a big deal to them, and without a lot of upside of normalizing relations, politicians would pander to them. Now with the Cold War long over and most of the Cuban exiles dead or in retirement homes, normalization is more feasible. Especially now that Castro is dead and we can move past the personal animosity surrounding him.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-88293", "score": 0.6807517409324646, "text": "The Cuban embargo was imposed as an economic sanction to starve the Communist government of Cuba of trade resources. It essentially removes the world's largest economy and Cuba's nearest first-world neighbor from the country's trade network. That makes it very, very difficult for Cuba to get American goods, and makes it impossible for Cuba to do business with American businesses or sell its exports into America. That, in turn, makes Cuba's exports less valuable because the world's largest buyer simply isn't available to it. > This didn't really make sense to me as FL is the wang of America anyway. I didn't really understand this. > what good does it do if no other nations are following it? See the above. America has enough buying power to snap up all of Cuba's exports many times over. The fact that that purchasing power is off the table has a palpable effect on the country's economy. The embargo would be more powerful if other nations signed on, but it's a potent sanction nonetheless.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-165494", "score": 0.680341899394989, "text": "There was a coup in Cuba in 1959. In it, a small group of people led by Fidel Castro took power. The new government of Cuba took over some American businesses. The American government refused to buy anything from Cuba after that. The US embargo against Cuba began February 7, 1962. In 1962, the American government was worried that the USSR would attack America from Cuba, because Cuba is near enough that the missiles could reach almost any city in America. Cuba was then a Communist country, like the Soviet Union. In October 1962, American ships blocked Soviet ships carrying missiles from going into Cuba. The Soviets and Cubans agreed to take away the missiles if America promised not to attack Cuba. America later removed some missiles from the country of Turkey, near the Soviet Union", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-167301", "score": 0.6773175001144409, "text": "The US has had an embargo against Cuba since the 60s as a punishment for Castro throwing in with the Soviets. Any commerce with Cuba is illegal.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-47689", "score": 0.6750406622886658, "text": "The Americans hate Communism and Cuba is a Communist state - Mexico is a Democracy. Therefore in order to weaken a Communist state they instituted the 'wet feet dry feet' policy. Just another way America tries to weaken their enemy", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-161195", "score": 0.673771321773529, "text": "* Because all those Cuban migrants in Florida *really* hate the regime and vote in a key US state. Not to mention that there's no real shortage of communist haters all over the US. * Because why admit the embargo was a mistake and has failed. Better to wait for the Castro era to end and hope that Cuba moderates. Then you can say: see, the embargo worked, and lift it. That way you have less egg on your face than from the Bay of Pigs.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-628061", "score": 0.6709281802177429, "text": "Hello historians,\n\nI am in high school and we are studying several 'thing' related with Cuba (such as the Cuban Revolution, Bay of Pigs, Missile Crisis...). I am very interested in the subject but the other day the teacher gave us a question I just can't answer.\n\nIt is the following question : \"In which way did the geopolitical context help Castro and Guevara 'deploy' their program?\"\n\nDon't get me wrong, I don't want you to answer it for me but it would be great if someone could give me tips on what to talk about. I think I should talk about what soviets and americans were doing at the time but I don't really know where to start...\n\nThanks in advance!\n\n(and please forgive me if I made any spelling mistakes, I'm Swiss)", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-203514", "score": 0.6699848175048828, "text": "[I've answered this before](_URL_0_), but mainly the reason was out of a gesture of solidarity. That Cuba would be a defender of the poor people of the world and to be considered an ally to depend on. Very much like all the other proxy wars of the Cold War, just a Cuban variation of it.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1106889", "score": 0.6687741875648499, "text": "For my history essya, I decided on determining if the Cuban Missile Crisis can be attributed to the foreign policy of the Kennedy Administration. Can anyone help me with finding events/policies that could support or deny this? Any help is appreciated!", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-40469", "score": 0.6670829653739929, "text": "I'll *try.* The Soviet Union had befriended Cuba, and America started to worry about the spread of communism so close to the US. President Kennedy authorized an invasion. The CIA secretly trained exiled Cubans to invade Cuba, believing that the communist regime hadn't really gained a strong foothold yet. The US overestimated any communist resistance, thinking many Cubans would be glad to overthrow Castro. Flopped almost immediately, many soldiers died, and this event was seen as a disastrous foreign relations effort. Not too sure where the name came from. Possibly an English translation of the region?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-41149", "score": 0.6667470932006836, "text": "Miamian here. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but a lot of Cuban-Americans find this to be a pretty hard pill to swallow. A lot of people I work with have very clear (and not terribly old) memories of the party taking their home, locking up friends and family, exiling them, etc. etc. They hate Castro with a passion, and anything that the U.S. can do to injure the party or its interests is great by them. I mean, I think we can all sympathize to a degree. That said, there are also a lot of Cubans who are just happy they'll be able to visit Cuba and their families again. They see hope and progress. And good for them. All depends on your perspective, I guess. As for why we're getting all torn up about Cuba (and not China or Venezuela), well, we don't have embargoes with those countries. You're always going to make waves when you change the status quo, even if that change is justified (or not) or objectively reasonable (or not).", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-125505", "score": 0.6666635870933533, "text": "1. Cuba was absolutely NOT the biggest concern in the cold war. 2. You can't be friends with a country ruled by a corrupt, expansionist dictator. Especially not one who has meddled in our country's election.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-55", "score": 0.7919143438339233, "text": "When water evaporates, it gets heated to an extent that the water particles move faster and spread apart, which causes them to become \"lighter\" than the air around them, turning into water vapor, a gas. Due to this, they rise up into the atmosphere. Then, they start to cool down, and become liquid again. When they become cool enough that they're heavier than the air, it rains back down. This is the basic water cycle. The salt which makes it salt water requires a much higher temperature to turn into gas, one which doesn't normally happen during this cycle. Because of this, it does not follow the water, and thus, it doesn't rain salt water." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-248053", "score": 0.749781608581543, "text": "Normally, no, since the process of evaporation will distill fairly pure water, and leave all solubles like salt behind. I can imagine a scenario, though. If we start with a salt lake, which has not seen rain in quite a while. Very dry conditions. A windstorm would pick up a lot of dust, which would include salt, and disperse it in the air. Then if it rained immediately after, the water droplets would pick up some salt on the way down. Kind of like if it's just been dry and dusty for a few days, and then a light rain comes along, it just makes everything dirty. That's water droplets picking up dust out of the air and just depositing it back on the ground.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-114257", "score": 0.7458468675613403, "text": "Rain falling on the land is fresh water, it's actually distilled. Over billions of years, the fresh water rain dissolved the salt from the land and carried it into the oceans. However, there are inland seas that are highly saline because they are land locked. Check out the Great Salt Lake, in Utah, and the Red Sea.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-27206", "score": 0.7413733005523682, "text": "The salt comes from dissolved rock salt, that's why it's there. So perhaps the question is, why aren't lakes and rivers generally salty? The answer is the water cycle. Everything drains into the oceans, where water evaporates and then falls as rain. Salt, however, does not evaporate with water. So the salt collects in the oceans, and other low-lying lakes that don't have external drainage (for example, the dead sea, or the great salt lake).", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-124895", "score": 0.7379021644592285, "text": "> Why are the oceans salty, when salt deposits don’t seem abundant on dry land? It rains and salt dissolves into the runoff. That water goes down through rivers and lakes, eventually making its way to the ocean. When water evaporates into clouds it doesn't take the salt with it, and fresh water again rains down on rocks which contain small amounts of salt. It has been raining on Earth for a *very* long time.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-147614", "score": 0.7373751997947693, "text": "Salt doesn't go up stream. All fresh water pools flow to the ocean at some point.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2314", "score": 0.7373560667037964, "text": "There is salt naturally in the environment. Salt dissolves easily in water so any rain falling will wash it into the oceans via rivers. (Rivers are slightly salty.) The sun evaporates water from the ocean but salt does not evaporate and so it's left behind. In other words, the water cycle of evaporation and rain acts to concentrate salt in the oceans.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-95272", "score": 0.7336059808731079, "text": "Because salt dissolves in water and salty water runs downhill. Rain on a bunch of rocks with salt deposits and wait, and you will end up with a big puddle of salty water. Those are oceans.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-144397", "score": 0.7305248975753784, "text": "Ocean water is not 'fresh'. Rain water is not salty, but as it runs off through lakes, streams and rivers to the sea it accumulates small amounts of salt from the rocks that it flows over. It is a very small amount and you don't notice it when it is flowing (river water may get muddy, but won't seem salty). But when the water reaches the ocean, there is nowhere else for it to flow, so the salt concentration just accumulates over long periods of time. The same thing can happen with inland lakes that do not have an outlet. Salt will accumulate over time. This is what happens in the Caspian Sea, the Great Salt Lake, the Dead Sea, and even the dry Death Valley basin is very salty. The water flows into the depression and because there is no outlet the salt simply accumulates over time.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-172660", "score": 0.7275540232658386, "text": "The sun heats the water. Water vaporizes into the air. The salt doesn’t vaporize but stays in the sea. The water damp forms clouds and from the cloud it rains down again.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-108657", "score": 0.7213771343231201, "text": "Rain is fresh water, so the salt is left behind in the ocean when water evaporates. The rain flows into rivers lakes and streams, so they are fresh water. When a river runs into the ocean, perhaps in a bay, it mixes and becomes salt water.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-251451", "score": 0.7197479009628296, "text": "Environmental engineering here. They can yes, but not because of what you think. The amount of rainfall that is produced even by a very severe storm is not a significant proportion of a regional volume on the coast in most cases. The bigger issue is the volume of rain that falls on nearby land and is then channeled in a catchment area (area over which rain falls) into rivers. The flow rate their can actually have a dilution effect where it is discharged, increasing the area of brackish water as opposed to a purely saline environment. Species that are particularly sensitive to salt or other mineral concentrations can be impacted. Though, by-and-large most species have a certain amount of tolerance especially in coastal areas to fluctuations in salinity.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-247948", "score": 0.7196130156517029, "text": "There is so much salt water in the ocean that rain doesnt even begin to dilute it to harmful levels. In estuaries where rivers meet the ocean there is whole environment that is a different biome from the rivers and oceans with brackish plants and fish and everything.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-86385", "score": 0.7195920348167419, "text": "It doesn't. The ocean is not uniformly saline. Some parts are more or less salty than others.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-14229", "score": 0.7178795337677002, "text": "The biggest reason is that salt water doesn't keep its salt when it evaporates. Only the fresh water part turns to vapour and it leaves the salt behind. So you have only fresh water in clouds. Those clouds produce the snow that falls on mountains and the poles where it's colder, and forms glaciers and ice caps respectively. Second, salt water freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water. In order to freeze salt water you have to get the temperature further down, which is why a lot of places scatter salt on roads and sidewalks in the winter. Spray, like on a fishing boat, will freeze because it can get cold enough in the frigid blowing air. But icebergs and stuff won't generally freeze as well as fresh water does, and the ocean's freezing process drives out the salt into the water that's left underneath, so the majority of \"pack ice\" around the poles in winter is fresh.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-173047", "score": 0.7171608805656433, "text": "Salt does not evaporate. Water in the ocean evaporates turning into its gaseous form and going into the sky. There it cools and collects into clouds as it returns to its liquid form. Eventually the droplets get heavy enough to fall as rain. When this happens over land that water is fresh water. As it flows over the land on its way to the sea it will dissolve extremely minute amounts of salts from the soil. This is not a high enough concentration of salt for the water to be considered salt water at this point, but over millions of years these minute amounts of salt will be concentrated in the ocean, and thus we have salt water.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-257875", "score": 0.7166889309883118, "text": "When water evaporates it does not bring the salt with it into the atmosphere in any significant way. This means that the water in the clouds that is precipitating is going to generally be pure water (disregarding pollutants in the atmosphere). The salt does not evaporate because it has a very *very* low vapor pressure and does not easily become gaseous. Water, on the other hand, has a relatively high vapor pressure and evaporates readily. & #x200B; This is is why salt water is ends up being in the ocean to begin with. The rivers and streams take the runoff with the minerals and bring them into the ocean. The water in the oceans will evaporate and start the cycle again.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-74647", "score": 0.7156757116317749, "text": "Because it would require an entirely separate water supply network which we don't have. Additionally, salt water is much more corrosive than drinking water, so it will be harder to maintain.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-273686", "score": 0.7149681448936462, "text": "The salt gets in the way. However, the surrounding mountains and hills might get enough new precipitation from the evaporation to green up and maybe even be forested. If the surrounding mountains are high enough you could even get freshwater streams running back to the salt lake. For more on this sort of effect, check how tropical islands with hills/mountains create their own rain on the leeward side. Edit: read Thor Heyerdahl's first book about living on a Pacific Island.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-324649", "score": 0.7097616791725159, "text": "All natural water has some salt content, but in fresh water it's just too little to notice. Lakes have rivers/streams that take water out to keep salt from building up. In the ocean, there's no flow of water out, just evaporation, so the any salt dumped in there from the rivers stays there and doesn't go it. It just keeps building up. Some lakes that have no water flow out are also salty, (Great Salt Lake, Dead Sea, etc.)", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-311090", "score": 0.7094380855560303, "text": "Most land animals spend their entire lives miles and miles away from salt water and never encounter any, so there's not much reason to be able to drink it. Even in areas where salt-water is present, there is usually fresh water available, often closer at hand than salt except for regions right on the seashore.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-56", "score": 0.8462396860122681, "text": "A centrifuge is typically used to separate a heterogeneous mixture of solid and liquid by spinning it. Salt water is a solution, so if it is even possible, I am sure the energy, time and expense are enormous." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-7308", "score": 0.7208671569824219, "text": "It's very expensive currently, and you have the problem of brine left over. The process is not perfect so you don't end up with pure water on one side and salt on the other, you get about half salt-free water and the other half is doubly-salty water, or brine. Disposing of brine is a problem. It is usually put back into the ocean but it needs to be done slowly or it sinks to the bottom and raises the salinity at the ocean floor to dangerous levels for the creatures that live there.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-269872", "score": 0.7150061130523682, "text": "Only in places with no other viable sources of water. The problem with ocean water desalination (un-salting) is that it takes a ton of energy and energy isn't free. It is far, *far* more cost effective to start with fresh water and perform relatively minor treatments to sanitize it and remove particulates.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-44256", "score": 0.710598349571228, "text": "Klarok's answer is currently correct, but at Google's Solve for X conference, someone presented a [new idea](_URL_0_!) that could desalinate seawater water with much less energy. The reason they call it \"reverse osmosis\" is that water wants to move to where the salt is. It takes a lot of energy to force it to move in reverse, away from the salt. The idea from the presentation: use a chemical that makes water even saltier than regular salt water, and the water will naturally move from the regular salt to where the chemical is. But the chemical they use is very easily removed from the water afterwards and recycled, leaving nice fresh water.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-176100", "score": 0.7060657739639282, "text": "We can. It's a process called [Desalination](_URL_0_). The problem is that it is laborious, expensive, and/or time consuming to do.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1212537", "score": 0.7045671343803406, "text": "I haven't learned much about centrifuges until I was assigned to work with them at one of my previous occupations. I know that some rotors for centrifuges can spin around 60,000 rpm to separate chemicals. I was wondering how effective this can be if used for water purification and built at a larger scale.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-6739", "score": 0.7041272521018982, "text": "There are only a few ways to desalinate water. One way is to boil and condense the water, a process called distillation. The problem with this is that it takes a relatively enormous amount of energy to boil water so it isn't practical. If we had limitless energy available to us then it would definitely be on the table, but we can't just pull huge quantities of heat out of nowhere. The other way is to force the salty water through special filters which are fine enough to filter out the molecules of salt while letting the water molecules through. This also requires a fairly large amount of energy (pushing the water through requires a lot of pressure) and it also has the added trouble of fouling up the filters which need to be cleaned regularly. Overall the process of removing salt from water is very difficult and usually not cost effective, compared to the natural water cycle where the enormous fusion generator evaporates water over hundreds of thousands of miles for free.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-41529", "score": 0.7035982012748718, "text": "Two reasons: 1) It costs a lot of money to desalinate water, it's a very energy intensive process. 2) There's no good way to get rid of the leftover salt. Desalination plants generate millions of gallons of toxic brine that can't be discharged back into the ocean.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-308608", "score": 0.7029185891151428, "text": "The salt ions (Na+ and Cl-) in sea water have a larger mass than the water molecules that surround them. So if your method worked, we should be able to just wait a bit and all the salt would sink to the bottom of the ocean. Oxygen molecules are heavier than nitrogen molecules, so if your method worked, eventually the atmosphere would sort itself out with oxygen on the bottom and nitrogen on top. But that's not what happens. The reason is that the atoms and molecules are moving randomly at high speed, and colliding with each other constantly. If a heavy molecule starts to move downward, it will almost instantly collide with another molecule, changing the direction of motion of both. For gravity to sort out molecules by weight, it must pull them a significant distance before they collide with something. That requires either a very thin gas (such as happens in Earth's uppermost atmosphere, which *is* sorted by molecule), or very *very* high \"gravity\" (as happens in a uranium centrifuge).", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-299934", "score": 0.7018080949783325, "text": "It is definitely possible, and [it has been proposed in the past](_URL_1_). However, it is not even close to financially viable: it will cost way more to extract it than it is worth (there are only [a few billionths of a gram per liter of sea water](_URL_0_)). That's why people don't do it.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-24824", "score": 0.7011450529098511, "text": "When salt dissolves in water, it doesn't want to leave. It takes a lot of energy to separate it out and get fresh water. Desalinating water is a thing, but it's very energy intensive, and as a result it's very expensive. Doing it on the sort of scale required to replace all of the water shortages in a place like California would require an insane amount of money and infrastructure.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-277048", "score": 0.6980794072151184, "text": "Well, it's that the salt is...*dissolved*. It's not like there are little chunks of salt floating around in the water. The water has chemically broken the Na-Cl bond and all of the salt is floating around as Na+ and Cl- ions in the water. That means you can't just filter it out with a normal gravity-fed mechanical filter. You need to either boil off the water and condense it, or push the water *really hard* through a special filter that lets only H*_2_*O through. Both of those require a lot of energy.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-152689", "score": 0.6940262913703918, "text": "It's hard to do because the molecules that make up salt are extremely tiny and can slip through all but the most extreme filters. That leaves you with two options: 1) boil the water into vapor to leave the salt behind. 2) force the water through an extremely fine membrane to filter the salt out. Option #1 requires a massive heat input, option #2 requires a massive pressure input. Both are very energy intensive and therefore expensive. Both also have issues with the salt residue fouling equipment. As technology improves and freshwater sources dry up it will become more economically feasible to desalinate on a large scale. Some nations have already built plants.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-129338", "score": 0.693966805934906, "text": "We can - look up desalination plants. There are processes that can be used to remove the salt from salt water. The problem is that they are expensive, in terms of the infrastructure required to do it, and power required to run the infrastructure. It is generally not as cost effective to create a desalination plant at this time. [This article has a bit more info](_URL_0_), but until technology creates a way to effectively and cheaply strip salt from water, its still cheaper to get water from spring/fresh water sources, or to reclaim it.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-273516", "score": 0.6935727000236511, "text": "In theory an infinite amount, assuming there is no contamination in the water. In practice you will be limited by either the capacity of your centrifuge ( > 4 liters is tough to spin on most centrifuges) or the DNA isolation column (which could probably be made larger, but are designed generally for < 10 mL).", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-115329", "score": 0.6932476758956909, "text": "Because sea water may not have [the right properties](_URL_0_) to break the rock in the way needed, and hold it open as required. Also, many fracking sites are inland - the salt water would find its way into inland aquifers, poisoning the ground water for many miles around - even more so than fracking is said to do already.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-274299", "score": 0.6923677325248718, "text": "It is not the ocean, but man is cleaning hydrocarbon pollution in the upper layers of Lake Meade with technology. About the first 30 feet of water in Lake Meade near Las Vegas is infused with hydrocarbons from 70 years of boat motors. There is little mobility between the upper and lower water layers. The US Government constructed a de-pollution plant where water is extracted from the upper layer of the lake, infused with ozone gas and returned to the deep water of the lake. They don't simply dump the water back on the surface because the clean water would dilute the pollution making the time to complete subject to Zeno's paradox. The water is returned to the deep lake via the largest stainless steel venturi tube ever built. It has to be stainless steel because the ozone would corrode ordinary iron or plastic piping. My uncle built it.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-125842", "score": 0.6916957497596741, "text": "Desalination is extremely energy intensive. That is pretty much the main reason not to.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-269152", "score": 0.6912835836410522, "text": "I'm an operator at a facility that uses centrifuges to separate isotopes. We mainly use it for uranium but we have a sister facility that does medical isotopes on a smaller scale. Spin a fluid fast enough and even the difference of 1 amu can be separated out.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-300140", "score": 0.689781904220581, "text": "Chemistry major. Nope, the ocean's temperature is generally warm and really hard to change, so the cost would be enormous! Also, you can't just drop it from a chopper, because it would evaporate into the air.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-243631", "score": 0.6857991814613342, "text": "Centrifugal columns aren't terribly good at washing things. They're OK, but dialysis would be better. Look up Slide-a-lyzers.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-57", "score": 0.8252691030502319, "text": "It's a unique device address given to each piece of network connected hardware. It's different from an IP address because it's permanent: every device has one and only one MAC address, but it is given a new IP address every time it connects. Edit: You can think of the MAC address as a device's permanent name, and the IP address as an instruction for other devices to find it. Your device *is* MAC number X, and it *can be found at* IP address Y." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-117157", "score": 0.773469865322113, "text": "The MAC address is just an identifier for your computer (well, your network device, to be exact), but it can't be used to locate it. If I take my computer and fly halfway around the world, I'll still have the same MAC address but I'll be in an entirely different location, so how would packets know where to find me? IP addresses however are dynamic and structured. They are assigned by whatever network I am currently connected to and determine where I am, so that routers will know where to deliver packets that are addressed to my specific IP address. For example if my IP address starts with '9' then the routers will know to deliver the packets to IBM's routers (who own the 9.0.0.0 IP block). IBM's routers will look into the rest of the IP address and decide how to route the packet internally. For an analogy, a MAC address is like your name, while an IP address is your home address.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1741", "score": 0.7620550990104675, "text": "Mac address is an identifying number hard coded onto the hardware by the manufacturer. Dynamic addresses are IP addresses automatically assigned and re-assigned by a DHCP server. Static addresses are IP addresses assigned by the person installing the system in the IP configuration options and do not change unless some one changes them.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-18703", "score": 0.7550093531608582, "text": "How do you mean? Manufacturers give MAC addresses out to hardware they make, and unless told otherwise somehow the hardware identifies itself as such for the purposes of moving data over physical wires or through wireless signals between two devices. It's how you know a machine is one machine and not another. Do you have more context for the question?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-180987", "score": 0.7537375092506409, "text": "The first six characters of a MAC address are assigned to a manufacturer. Allocation is controlled by IEEE. After that it's up to the manufacturer to make sure they don't make duplicate devices. In case you are curious: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2377344", "score": 0.7517073154449463, "text": "Hello,\n\nTo improve our security a little bit I want to see if we can create some kind of central database which holds the MAC adresses of the device we want to allow to our networks.\n\nThis is because we have users that are visiting several locations where we manage the networks, and if we want to allow them per location we have to list the MAC address per user device per location, which is just way too much work.\n\nWould there be a way to do this? We're using Cisco routers and Netgear switches. I would guess that if it's possible it should be done on the Cisco routers.\n\nThanks a lot in advance!\n\nCheap_sk8", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-739687", "score": 0.7480389475822449, "text": "For those who don't know, the MAC adress on a device like a phone, a computer, a tablet, etc, is a 12-characters (digits and letters) long code in hexadecimal (0, 1, 2, ..., 9, A, B, ..., F). This code represent their physical identity for network connections.\n\nWhile there's 16^12 different combinations, how is it possible that my roomates and I have 3 phones and one laptop with the same adress ???", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-4390", "score": 0.7407129406929016, "text": "A MAC address is unique identifier, but it doesn't tell you anything about *where* a device is. IP addresses are structured, routers can infer from the address which way it needs to send the message to get it towards its destination, without needing a giant database of individual addresses. Think of it like something sent in the mail. The name identifies who the recipient is, but it doesn't help the sorting office get the mail to where it needs to go. They don't know that person, but they do know where their city is, so they send it there. And when it gets to that city, their sorting office knows where the street is.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-150077", "score": 0.7400425672531128, "text": "Let's say you have a car. The address of the location of the car's parking spot is equivalent to IP address. The plate number of the car is equivalent to MAC address", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-9509", "score": 0.731169581413269, "text": "There is a standards body that allocates MAC addresses similar to IP's. So Cisco will have a range or ranges of MAC addresses it can call upon. I do seem to recall hearing that they are not completely globally unique and may get reused from time to time.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-27989", "score": 0.7297602891921997, "text": "MAC adresses are hard-coded into physical hardware devices (and cannot be changed) - sort of like the street address for your house. IP address are set in software and can be moved/changed - sort of like your phone number. When you call 911, the operator can tell what your address is because your physical address has been mapped to a particular phone number. You can change your phone number or move it to another house, but the street address for your house will never change (realistically).", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-2375745", "score": 0.7281488180160522, "text": "Hey guys,\n\nTrying to write a script in python where I need to find remote MAC addresses from devices in the local area. All I have seen on the web so far is just looking at arp table however, I would prefer for it to not be on the same network as devices that I am trying to get the MAC address of. Anyone got any suggestions?\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nThanks\n\nDark\\_Llama", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-157363", "score": 0.7235170602798462, "text": "Each wireless access point has a unique MAC address -- just like every computer and wireless device. It's accurate because databases are built around the location of these access points (which generally don't move). Unlike SSIDs, the MAC addresses don't (generally) exist twice.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1494564", "score": 0.7223849296569824, "text": "This may be a stupid question, but I'm looking to mass product some PCBs with bluetooth capabilities, and am wondering how/if at all a manufacturer can write down the mac address of the individual device. I'm pretty sure this can be done, for example, when you buy a router, there is a sticker on the side that says the mac address, login, password, etc. How does, say, Verizon, know the mac address of the router, and when do they put the sticker on? Is this something that can be done during device testing at a fabrication plant, or am I completely off the mark? Any insight is appreciated, Thanks!\n\nEDIT: thank you all for your responses, I now have a much better of sense of the process. Cheers!", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1736339", "score": 0.7197750806808472, "text": "hey guys I just had a quick question. when using tools like wifite do i need to change my network card's mac address? when the card is in monitor mode i can still see the default mac address, which kinda defeats the purpose of staying anonymous. any way of getting around this or is this something i shouldn't even worry about?", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-175393", "score": 0.7196967601776123, "text": "Every network device have a unique MAC address designated to it. Each transmission includes the MAC address of the sending device and the receiving device. If the receiving MAC address does not match the MAC address of the device it is ignored. You can get software that can, depending on the network interface, sniff all data and display it to you. If you are using encryption the data is also encrypted with a unique key for each device so that anyone else would just get encrypted traffic.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-179067", "score": 0.7193803191184998, "text": "Mac is who you are. IP is where you are. It’s same reason you have both a social security number and an address.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-71667", "score": 0.7150487899780273, "text": "The first three octets of a MAC address are assigned to a manufacturer. The last three they can pick whatever they want as long as it's unique, so they usually just count up.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-2583562", "score": 0.7148097157478333, "text": "On my home network, I am trying to read the MAC address of my phone to detect when it is on the network. But it doesn't seem to return a MAC address or it changes each time?\n\nIs there a better way I can tell which device is my phone when it connects to my wifi network?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-92966", "score": 0.7147493362426758, "text": "Your name is your MAC address. It identifies you personally and always stays with you. Your name tag at work is your IP address. It helps identify you to others, and you can have different ones at different times.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-116114", "score": 0.7142501473426819, "text": "Each individual device has an address called a MAC address (different to an IP address). When a wireless hub (your WiFi access point) broadcasts a 'frame', which is the digital information containing a packet of data for a computer, the frame has the MAC address of the intended client included in there. Because wireless technology broadcasts, any wireless device nearby can actually receive that frame - much like any radio near a radio tower will receive the radio signal. When a computer/device receives the frame, it checks if the frame was intended for it by comparing it's own MAC to that embedded in the frame. If the MAC matches, then it processes the data as usual. If the MAC doesn't match, then the data is dropped. This is the reason why we need super strong encryption for wireless networks - because with the right software, anyone can capture those frames/data packets and 'snoop' on what you're doing. Reference: CCNA training :P", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-58", "score": 0.6828529834747314, "text": "Experience, mostly. If you know the key something is played in and it's rythem, you can throw just about anything in and sound good." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-492033", "score": 0.6486517786979675, "text": "I mean everyone of us struggle every single time with our masters. We check them on our monitors, car speakers, smartphone, headphones, mono speakers, refrigerator etc.\n\n**We absolutely need that master sounding good everywhere.**\n\nBut as far as we try, even if we're professionals, we never reach what we really want on each type of speaker . That's because it's literally impossible. We always reduce our mix &amp; masters to compromises.\n\nA really good mixer once said: \" Mixing is really finding the right compromises\".\n\nBut what if we just want not to? I absolutely need that my master sounds exactly how I want everywhere. So, we actually need to make a master for each type of speaker.\n\nThat means, we need to release our music to a platform that allows distributing various masters of a track. But how?\n\n**I thought about a platform which recognise the device you're using to reproduce the track and let you listen to the master that the artist released and related to that particular device.**\n\nHow? Recognising the operating system, or the chipset, or the speaker through the operating system.\n\nAnd to those cases where it's actually needed to manually select it, just a click needed.\n\nYes you (or whoever master the track) literally have a lot of extra work, but you can surely listen to high quality music in every single speaker you reproduce on and increase the overall level of music listening.\n\nLot of people think average listeners only need music and do not mind about quality, but I surely think they'll notice something better than another one, that's the way progress works at least.\n\nWhat do you guys think about it?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-491651", "score": 0.6486356854438782, "text": "I’m trying to compare two mixes of the same song. Right now the “break” in sound throws me off when attempting to either solo/mute one track or the other. \n\nAre there any ways to seamlessly switch to a new track without interrupting playback?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-493404", "score": 0.6485868096351624, "text": "Hello all,\nI've been making EDM for quite a while but never really had a complete understanding of mixing and mastering. I've learned to use my ears to find the sound I like, but lately I have noticed some music out there that, from a mastering standpoint, appears so perfect and in tune that it really has me stumped.\nI'm thinking there has got to be a process that I'm missing here, and i want to figure this out. \n\nHere's my best example of what I'm talking about, from Mr. Jon Gooch as 'Spor':\n\n\nLISTEN to how the drums, bassline and all the background elements just meld together but still have this ability to keep distant from one another.\n\n Please, /edmproduction, help me.\n\ntl/dr - looking for really good tips or tutorials on mastering for that 'new' sound, and if there's any keywords associated with this I should be checking out.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2540900", "score": 0.6484182476997375, "text": "I'm thinking of something like cross-platform listening. The obvious reason is because the sound quality on spotify is much better than of youtube's. Currently, I have to manually adjust each and every video so that when I simultaneously hit \"play\" on both, spotify's music will be in sync with youtube's video. And yes, I'm the type of person who enjoys watching music videos while listening to its music.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-547334", "score": 0.64834064245224, "text": "I've heard horror stories from major artists regarding being sued for having a note sequence that matches a well-known song. I hear music in my head that I want to make a song from, but I don't know if any of the sequences are already in some song somewhere. Is there any tool that can determine if parts of the music are being used by some major song? If so, I could modify it so I won't get in legal trouble accidentally.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1322615", "score": 0.6481339335441589, "text": "I see a lot of posts complaining about discovery algorithms lately. Or maybe they’ve always been there. I’m still relatively new here. Spotify has a few back door tricks to discovering new music that I think a lot of us would absolutely love. \n\nFirst and foremost is a little information. Spotify sorts its music into a lot of hyper specific genres based on a lot of information. This is one of the methods that it uses to determine what to recommend to you. \n\nSo the first step is to go to Skiley.com. Go to playlists, select your favorite playlist, and select filter by genre. This will tell you what the genres in your playlist are by order of most tracks to least tracks. \n\nGreat! Now go to Spotify’s search function and type in, “The Sound Of [your preferred genre]”. \n\nA playlist will pop up with that genre called exactly what you searched for. The Sound Of is a collection of songs that represent that genre from an assortment of popularities. \n\nIn the description of that playlist, there are typically three suggested playlists in that genre, then links to several related genres. \n\nThe first is Intro. If you’re using this function, you probably don’t need an intro. But, nonetheless there’s an introduction to the genre. \n\nThe second is the sound of. It’s an assortment of songs that have some popularity and exemplify the genre. \n\nThen there’s The Edge Of. It’s tracks that are deeper cuts of said genre. \n\nThen you have the Pulse Of. Which is new tracks that are gaining plays in said genre. \n\nOften you will be able to select tracks made by either gender. \n\nMany playlists also have a link to a genre playlist of a previous year. \n\nThen, it lists several closely related genres that you can check out. \n\nAs an example, I’m a huge fan of Wonky. \n\nIntro To Wonky. \n\nThe Sound Of Wonky. \n\nThe Edge of Wonky. \n\nThe Pulse of Wonky. \n\nThe Women of Wonky. \n\nWonky 2019. The sounds that may have defined the year in the genre. \n\nThen there are links to genres such as Abstract Beats, Bass Music, and Future Garage as well as others. \n\nI hope this helps some!", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2510053", "score": 0.6478357315063477, "text": "What are you usual goto pieces to play when a friend or family member asks you to play something for them?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-779421", "score": 0.6477345824241638, "text": "Is it possible to play two different sequences with different presets at the same time? Or some way of layering a sequence with different presets?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2563363", "score": 0.6477291584014893, "text": "Sometimes I like to test these tracks or give a pair of headphones to a friend. They start listening and are like: The hell is this shit? And suddenly: OOOH! ༼ʘ̚ل͜ʘ̚༽ \nJust a small example: (it's just an example, don't bash)", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-3321", "score": 0.6475406885147095, "text": "First off, iPods don't produce the songs out of no where and it doesn't 'remember' to play them. You put the songs on there yourself and then later on you tell it which one to play. The main part of an iPod is the hard drive which works just like your computer's does in the sense that you choose what you want to play/open and it will do it. Each individual song that you see inside of iTunes on your computer is it's own unique file located somewhere on your computer and when you sync all of that music to your iPod, it is actually moving each individual file over. Each of these files contains its own 'metadata' so that you can see the name/artist/album on your iPod and recognise and choose the right song to play. I think that should pretty much answer what you asked. If what you really meant was how do hard drives work (as in how do they store so much data on such a small device) then I'll leave that open to someone else!", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1959584", "score": 0.6473085284233093, "text": "Does anyone know how to reproduce this improv ?\nSong starting at 1:30\n\n", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2540343", "score": 0.647124707698822, "text": "Like, For example: If you click on a song in an artist’s profile then go to your playlist with that song in there you should be able to continue the song there, instead of clicking on it and having the song restart.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2358894", "score": 0.6471012830734253, "text": "Doesn't have to be choreographed or something like that, just obvious that the music is influencing what they're doing.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-79198", "score": 0.647098183631897, "text": "There's another person responsible for syncing it, often some sort of lighting technician that has practiced with the band and can successfully hit the lights/add the effect at the right time. Some bands hire VJs, or video DJs for this specific purpose.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-176245", "score": 0.6470112800598145, "text": "Every company has a slightly different recipe, AKA algorithm, but in most cases, it comes down what other people like. Let's say you have one song that you listen to a lot. Well, the algorithm knows that thousands of people who like that song also like this song. Or, perhaps those two songs have appeared on hundreds of playlists together. Then, it takes into account genres you like/don't like to make sure that the song it wants to recommend is an actual fit. Once it's passed the checks, it says, \"Hey! We think you'll like this song.\"", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-858883", "score": 0.6468461751937866, "text": "If you give Spotify a song title can it play songs that are similar in style to that song? What streaming services can do this?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-23781", "score": 0.6468091011047363, "text": "Musical style, of course. But also the selection of instruments and how they are played. I work as a sound engineer, and there are a few of my friends i can recognize when are playing. And I guess in the same way you might recognize an author through the writing style, you might also recognize the way the music is composed.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-89596", "score": 0.646710991859436, "text": "The best way to explain this is to say that they take shortcuts. Most pop songs revolve around a fundamental \"cadence\" or \"flow of one chord to another\" these cadences are founded in music theory, so if you have a good understanding of music theory you can play the backbone structure of a song in no time. You ever heard the 4 chord song by axis of awesome? Go to YouTube and type in \"4 chord song axis of awesome\" you'll see how it works.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-310319", "score": 0.6465288400650024, "text": "It depends on how the programmer implements it. Some will do a simple shuffling logic: pick a number between 1-*{PLAYLIST_LENGTH}* and play that song. They can also have additional logic to exclude the past *x* number of songs from being included in the randomization in order to prevent repetitiveness. Others will allow you to \"pre-shuffle\" songs, effectively creating an ad-hoc, randomized playlist you can go back and forth between.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-125873", "score": 0.64642333984375, "text": "Say for simplicity that you have two types of songs on your Itunes account: heavy metal and country. Now, when you use the shuffle function, what you *expect* is to have those songs be roughly alternated. It's random of course, so you don't expect a perfect country-metal-country-metal-... rotation. But if it weren't pretty close, you'd start to complain that it's broken. The problem is, that's not actually how random sequences work. A truly random sequence of songs is unlikely to get anywhere close to alternating like that; it'll have a lot of streaks of one type of music in it.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-59", "score": 0.6973253488540649, "text": "Armies thrive on the discipline of individual soldiers. One soldier not doing his/her job can be responsible for getting the entire unit killed in battle. Having a drill sargeant yell at you to run faster or do more pushups is a lot less frightening than being shot at, but if you can't handle being yelled at then how can anybody trust you to have their back when you're in real danger?" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1477057", "score": 0.6614546775817871, "text": "I live in a series of apartments in upstate NY. The apartments are separated from a shopping strip by twenty or so feet. In the shopping strip is a Army recruiting office. Several mornings at 6AM they have had recruits (or some sort of training), which involves yelling and loud noises, specifically the flipping of a large tire back and forth down the path that separates our strip and the apartments.\n\nThey have done this several times in the last month. What do I do next time this happens? Is this aloud? Who do I call?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-737264", "score": 0.6492494940757751, "text": "Throwaway account here because of OPSEC and me not wanting my platoon sergeant to hate me even more.\n\nBut I'm in the Army Reserves where about a third of my platoon just decides they don't want to show up to drill. It's not just junior enlisted soldiers; some of them are even SGTs and CDTs. Every drill, it's the same people who fail to show up and ignore our attempts to call them.\n\nNothing ever comes of it. We call their emergency contact numbers, fill out unexcused absence forms, and their names are still on the roster. If they're a SGT or SPC, they never get demoted. They don't get paid, but they're somehow still on the list.\n\nThe platoon sergeant claims they can't do anything to soldiers who aren't here, so they never get their ranks taken away. Meanwhile, he threatens to demote me (I'm a SGT) for trivial and understandable mistakes. At least I show up to work on time; why should the soldiers who've disappeared off the face of the Earth deserve better?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-738931", "score": 0.6462727785110474, "text": "I am an ROTC cadet, and some of the things that come out of our Prof of Mil Sci's (LTC) mouth should get him fired. He talks to us AND his subordinate AD cadre like shit. I understand people swear in the Army, but its one thing to swear around people and another to swear AT people and call them degrading names. He loves to talk down to his XO in front of us cadets like some sort of dominance display. \n\nHe sent out unprofessional emails to cadets and real soldiers involved in recruiting for our local NG, as cadets often enlist during college to help pay for school. From what other cadets told me, using his position as an officer to tell recruiting soldiers not to recruit cadets is illegal. \n\nHe also told the entire battalion about a SHARP incident involving a few cadets without even asking the victims first. \n\nThere is so much more that would take forever to write out, and I don't want to give too many details. \n\nCan someone please tell me what it would take to get him fired? Emails you can't get rid of, so that's easy. In federal law and in the state I am in it is legal to secretly record a conversation with someone as long as you are a participant and in a public place. But I do not know if it is the same in military law. \n\nIs this even something worth complaining about? Is it even illegal? I just don't know.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-738917", "score": 0.6446435451507568, "text": "I always believed in philosophy of soldiers first and treating them with respect. In my 20 years, I only ever yelled at someone once. However, the number of times I've had soldiers just be flat out jackwagons is astounding. And it seems to be happening more often. And before people roll thier eyes and say \"mellanials.\" On every single occasion it was an E6 or higher with warrants being the worst.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-737652", "score": 0.6409793496131897, "text": "I’m trying to get it. I truly am. I’m trying to understand why it’s necessary for the chief to come scream and put on a show to make a point. But I just don’t get it. \n\nIt’s laughable. It’s pathetic. I have no respect for you as my leader when you lose control of your emotions( leave your feelings at the door though right?). \n\nIs there some sort of psychological purpose to this? Because it’s just laughable, childish and does nothing to show what you actually know what you’re talking about. \n\nOh and btw when you can identify the individual that did something wrong group punishment then becomes unnecessary. You can only be a good wingman to an extent before individuals really just need to figure out how to wipe their own asses. \n\nNow to your credit random MTLs and whoever else utilizes this “training technique” I get that airman are pretty dumb. They do questionable things. They are young and immature and I’m sure it feels really good to just unleash your emotions but just stop please. Disciplinary action and the truth speak way louder than the volume of your voice. I don’t need your theatrics. It’s embarrassing. \n\nTeach these young airman interpersonal/professional communication skills through your example maybe? You can be more effective through tactful communication and use of disciplinary tools than you ever will be yelling and kicking chairs to make a point. My X gf did that. That sort of behavior doesn’t glean much respect and the ropes that you lead will just emulate the bullshit and cause morale to be on a steady decline. \n\nAnyways. Rant over. There has got to be some MTLs here. Haven’t made it operational yet but so far that sort of thing has been nothing short of a good source of second hand embarrassment for you all that have allowed yourselves to embrace that behavior. Stop please.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-752388", "score": 0.6392180919647217, "text": "Drill Instructors that are still active/just got off the Drill Field, how was life doing the whole circuit after incidents like the Laundry Incident? What rules and regulations were added to the SOP? What were you no longer allowed to do or what would be considered hazing from your days as a nasty recruit?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-352827", "score": 0.6390858888626099, "text": "Since I enlisted as 13B, we did OSUT training at Fort Sill. This was essentially Basic and AIT rolled into one and you had the same drills the whole time. \n\nSince this was about 20 weeks long, the drills would begin to get really \"weird\" (and crazy) near the end of it. You would be tired of seeing them and they would be REALLY tired of seeing you. \n\nHowever we had this one drill that we called \"Spiderman\" and his name was well earned. This was a little guy (barely met height requirements) who seemed to be able to show up in places you would not expect him and do stuff you would have no idea how he did it. \n\nHe liked to mess with the recruits and took every opportunity to freak them out. You did not want to be doing fire-watch when he was on. \n\nJust a few of the things he did: \n\n1. For those familiar with the training barracks at Sill, you had two ways in/out. You could put guards on both the doors to the barracks and he would just \"appear\" in the bathroom. A bathroom with no doors and no windows. Never figured out how he did that since he was too wide for the laundry chute. \n\n2. I actually watched him one night climbing the outside wall of the barracks to get up to 4th platoon (3rd floor). He climbed up to an open window and got into the barracks. He had no gear. \n\n3. I think his favorite thing to do was, after a good rain, get everyone in shorts rolling around in the grass. This would go on for at least an hour. \n\n4. Every night he was on, he would visit each of the barracks with the sole intention of trying to give heart attacks (at least that is what we thought he was trying to do).\n\n5. Final field exercise:\n\nFor this one he REALLY had fun as he was finding ways to screw with everyone. \n\nThis basically involved having up stay us all night in foxholes waiting for an \"attack\" from another platoon, with strict orders to not fall asleep. Where he was having fun was sneaking up on guys and stealing their rifles if they happened to fall asleep. \n\nBeing a natural night owl, I have always had a very hard time falling asleep at night (20yrs later still do) and if someone touches me I tend to \"wake up fighting\" (did that before the military), so figured I was safe but \"just in case\" I decided to be \"smart\" however and tie a string between my rifle and my wrist. Over 20 years later and I still wonder if they drugged us.\n\nGood idea? \n\nNot when \"Spiderman\" was around. \n\nI fell asleep (d'oh) and woke up to my wrists tied together and him standing there with my rifle in his hands. \n\nEvery so often I wonder if he is still running around somewhere climbing walls and freaking people out.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-71267", "score": 0.6386786103248596, "text": "The military has something called a teeth-to-tail ratio, which is the ratio of guys who normally pull triggers (infantry, artillery, armor) to those who support them (truck drivers, mechanics, cooks, supply folks and the like.) The majority of most military forces are in the \"tail\" and they aren't dealing with loud noises most of the time. Even the the troops in the \"teeth\" aren't in combat all the time, and when they do, they usually are wearing ear protection, or popping it in when things are going to get loud. (that is, if the NCOs are doing a proper job disciplining their troops.)", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2474", "score": 0.6365869641304016, "text": "Im a former US Marine ... all I can say is Thank you to my battalion commander/regiment/division/etc. for never having me do any bullshit like that. Fuck drill.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-202548", "score": 0.635768711566925, "text": "The 'sergeant screaming in your face' type of basic training largely emerged after the Second World War. S.L.A. Marshall's research during and after the Second World War found that 75 to 80 percent of riflemen *did not* fire their weapons at an exposed enemy. \"When [he] was sent to the Korean War to make the same kind of investigation [...] he found that (as a result of new training techniques initiated in response to his earlier findings) 55 percent of infantrymen were firing their weapons - and in some perimeter-defense crises, almost everyone was. These training techniques were further perfected, and in Vietnam the firing rate appears to have been around 90 to 95 percent.\" A lot of these new training techniques involved the desensitization and conditioning that come with variations on the 'screaming in your face' style of training. If you are interested in this kind of thing, I would highly recommend Lt. Col Dave Grossman's *On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society*.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-858616", "score": 0.6348201632499695, "text": "I was in basic training about 2 months ago and when we went out to the field to train, we used blank rounds to simulate all the battle drills. But when we went through the drills and fired the blanks, my ears would ring whenever I shot them. But I asked everyone else that was with me if their ears rang whenever they shot but they all said no. It seemed like it was literally only me that had that problem. Is it because I have sensitive ears or are blanks louder than what people say?", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2598595", "score": 0.6331413388252258, "text": "My brother has been in the army for close to 3 years, and a master sergeant called him a horrible influence and supposedly trying to get him dishonorably discharged. The current thing is making medical checkups (like hearing and dental) for him and not notifying him until 10 minutes before the appointment.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-737002", "score": 0.6329483985900879, "text": "I'm curious about the dynamics and behaviour of military personnel, with respect to the rank structure and culture.\n\nIn terms of basic training or boot camp, you always have NCO's screaming their faces off and officers being aloof. They seem to have an air of superiority about them. It's like the alleged contrast between Steve Jobs and Tim Cook. The loud shouty type and the silent rage that speaks volumes. Does this sort of think carry on past initial training? How is normal day-to-day behaviour? \n\nHow does behaviour change the further up the rank structure you go? For example, are 2nd Lieutenants, 1st Lieutenants and Captains expected to behave differently? How about towards each other, since those three ranks are considered \"junior officers\"? How about towards field grade officers? Officers towards soldiers and NCOs and vice versa. \n\nYou always hear about NCOs reprimanding subordinates. That seems to be part of their job. Do officers ever have to do the same? If so, how does their manner of doing so differ?\n\nPerhaps I'm being too wordy, but you get the picture. How does it all work?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-937634", "score": 0.628757119178772, "text": "Have you ever been verbally abused in the Marine Corps? I know I have... I’ve been called stupid, a piece of shit, a fat fuck, dumbass, a boot, etc. Marines talk to each other with no respect. We literally degrade each other all day.. when a higher rank does it to you you’re supposed to just sit there and take it but the minute you try to defend yourself and say I’m not stupid or that’s not how it happened you’re “disrespectful”. Negative paperwork will follow, it’s crazy because you’re not the one calling others fuckers or dumbasses or yelling to show your dominance. Respect is a one way street. You’re expected to show it to everyone above you but they don’t have to give you the same courtesy. Verbal abuse is pretty much overlooked in the Marine Corps. The same answer you will hear it over and over “that’s just how the Marine Corps is”. But we all know it doesn’t have to be that way, most of the problems that we face i would guarantee has to do with the way we communicate with each other, we could be so much better if we didn’t belittle or make others live in a constant state of fear for being “blasted”. Which leads to my next point. Yelling is normalized in the Marine Corps.. we have emotionally unstable individuals as our leaders (not all of them). Yelling does mental harm and I would say it too is overlooked with the same mantra “that’s just how it is in the Marine Corps”. We recruit people from bad home lives and bring them in just to create the same abusive environment they probably came from. It’s wild to me... if you look at the verbal abuse most of us endure day by day not only from superiors but by peers as well. No wonder we have suicides at a decade high. 75 last year and most if not all never saw combat or a deployment. Which tells me it’s something that is happening within our bays and offices... you ever been yelled at in a SNCO’s office? That’s pretty interesting isn’t it? They bring you into the office cuz it’s “private” and then begin to yell so loudly within the 4 walls that EVERYONE can hear and they just listen to each word being yelled out at extremely loud volume... you just wanna get away but you can’t because they have you in their office with the door shut. What a traumatic experience it can be and let’s say it happens like every 3 months or so to a Marine. How do you think his mental health is doing? Probably pretty poorly... Bullying and Verbal abuse is leading to deteriorating mental health of Marines. We talk about fortitude and how to endure in hard situations in briefings but that sounds like throwing a band aid on an infected and ugly wound that keeps on opening back up. We need to rinse disinfect and clean out our toxic communication like an ugly wound and slowly try to help the Marine Corps heal.. it is the only way we will achieve our ultimate potential. I worry for the Marines and sailors who endure this.. the evidence is many studies show that it’s not good news for those who face this. It is absolutely detrimental to the development of children when they are yelled at constantly at a young age and those who are bullied for prolonged periods of time. At the ages of 18-22 your brain is just as easily impressionable as well. I think what I’m getting at is we have a problem, it’s hurting Marines and it’s hurting our organization.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-50632", "score": 0.6273902058601379, "text": "They do. During drills there is hearing protection, but not during combat. If you have your ears covered, you can't hear anybody talking to you. Hearing loss is a huge problem.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1020639", "score": 0.6259801983833313, "text": "I was starting a Terrorist Hunt mission and you know how the operators usually have some sort of voice line at the beginning? Well my recruit said **\"I'm ready!\"** and my teammate's operator, Zofia, literally said **\"Do you think I care?\"**\n\nI don't know if it's because I was recruit or because Zofia likes being a biotch but either way recruit is mentally abused.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-51777", "score": 0.6258769035339355, "text": "A) You're probably not going into battle with that guy. He's going to train the next group of recruits after you move on. B) You're more likely to go to battle with the people you went through training. This can give you a sense of bonding with them, as you all went through a similar harsh experience. C) It's not to build mental toughness--it's to enforce discipline. You will do what you're told when you're told because I told you to do it. This may be the smallest of the factors, but it's the one I've heard the most often.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-738690", "score": 0.6256568431854248, "text": "Having a hard time trying to get AS100s to learn drill. We teach it to them every LLAB and Flight time and they still have a hard time performing with basic drill. Does anyone have any advice or suggestions on what to do in this type of situation? All POC at my Det has told them multiple times that they are constantly being evaluated and they take it like a joke.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-11814", "score": 0.6247053146362305, "text": "I was told by a martial artist that it is the same reason they scream when they throw a punch or kick. It tightens up your core and gives you \"extra strength\". Why your body would do this instinctually is, when you hit the ground you are not a flimsy noodle that gets squashed. Not sure how true, just what I was told.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-29445", "score": 0.6236432194709778, "text": "It teaches team work, obedience to orders, and instant acton to orders. It's like the uniform and wall locker inspections, seems like picky little crap just to waste time but in reality it teaches perfection to detail, getting things right the first time and being so ingrained into motorskills that thinking is not required. In dangerous areas, using dangerous machines and being ready at all times for dangerous duties attention to detail and being able to instantly do the (militarily) correct action to rectify the situation requires training. Marching soldiers do not have to think \"turn right turn left turn around\" those orders are now ingrained into muscle memory. Much like saluting, coming to attention or pulling the trigger when confronted by a deadly adversary.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-60", "score": 0.7044910788536072, "text": "You eat shaved iron every time you have breakfast cereal. If you take total cereal, crush it up, add a little milk to make a broth consistancy, and stir it with a strong magnet, you will see actual iron shavings sticking to your magnet. _URL_0_" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-190604", "score": 0.6692414879798889, "text": "Different parts of your digestive tract break down the food into simpler nutrients, and then absorb them. Once absorbed those nutrients go into the blood stream and are then taken in by the cells that require them (for use or storage). Anything that isn’t absorbed (stuff your body can’t break down or use) comes out as poop. Poop is just ‘filler’ and whatever nutrients there were too much of in that batch to be absorbed by the time they pass through the relevant area of the tract.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-2642280", "score": 0.6691097021102905, "text": "I have a very tough time taking pills. I have gotten used to chewing them, but now just the thought of chewing my prenatal makes me feel sick. I know there are gummies, but they usually aren't as vitamin-rich as pills. Does anyone have a recommendation for a really good chewable Prenatal vitamin? Preferably one with iron?\nThank you!!", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-270685", "score": 0.6690161228179932, "text": "No. When you're thinking about consuming protein, you're really talking about consuming amino acids. The cooking makes the protein in the meat nonfunctional, but the amino acids are all there and your body has no problem digesting and absorbing them.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-38206", "score": 0.6688107848167419, "text": "Your body absorbs different molecules at different rates. So you may absorb some molecules through the stomach and they can filter into the kidneys rather quickly. Digesting the entirety of food is different though as proteins, starches, and fiber all have different rates of digestion.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-138536", "score": 0.6687669157981873, "text": "Digestion starts with saliva. In the same way chewing tobacco starts working in your mouth, some other chemicals can immediately enter the body through the skin, lungs, lips or mouth x_x", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-325170", "score": 0.6686770915985107, "text": "Because red blood cells in plasma contain high levels of haemogoblin which is mixed with oxygen to form oxyhaemogoblin haemogoblin has high levels of iron(as well as other elemntshttp://_URL_0_) so thats why if u taste blood, the flavour will be iron like. ps: sorry for my english, im natively spanish and i study english as a third lenguage.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2421201", "score": 0.6685760617256165, "text": "Anyone else skipped cereal and used the iron drops? When i talked to the dr about not doing cereal, her main concern was not getting enough iron. She said we could do infant iron drops instead. Just wondering if baby is going to hate it. If i put it in her food i dont want to mess up the taste of her food...just trying to figure out what im going to do.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-2702607", "score": 0.6682711243629456, "text": "Hey guys, unlike other compounds I find one can eat as they normally do on speed. But what results does it have on trip. \n\nDoes it reduce it or not ?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-173581", "score": 0.6682103872299194, "text": "Plain old water is \"enhanced with minerals for a pure, fresh taste\". It turns out that almost all natural water has minerals, so to humans \"good tasting water\" is water with minerals. Actual pure water, like distilled water, might be good for your iron but it tastes bad because you're expecting it to taste like plain old water.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-188857", "score": 0.6681721210479736, "text": "Because they are not simply iron ions dissolved in water, but they are bound to the enzyme [Haemoglobin]( _URL_0_). Basically, they're part of a much larger molecule and shielded by the enzyme.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-838221", "score": 0.6680698394775391, "text": "My 7 year old's pediatrician recommended that we put her on a multivitamin with iron after a blood test showed low iron levels. We are also trying to get her to eat more iron-rich foods such as meat and beans and leafy greens, but it's an uphill battle. She hates the taste of brand of vitamins that we're currently using (rhymes with Mintbones). Does anyone have a recommendation of a multivitamin that kids will actually take? I have yet to convince her to try swallowing a pill whole- so it needs to be chewable.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-7085", "score": 0.6676491498947144, "text": "No. Food you ingest is broken down to components way before it comes into contact with your bloodstream. Even then, blood (the liquid part of it - blood plasma) only carries it to target cells and the antibodies on the red blood cells (that are responsible for blood types) have nothing to do with food components such as glucose molecules (sugars that your body uses to generate energy). Those molecules are in your blood just for the ride - to be caught by cells that need energy. This is the case with all those components. So as long as you eat a normal sized dish of balanced diet and aren't full vegan (even vegans can live off of 100% plant-substance for a few years before the diminishing supply of B12, iron and some other minerals/vitamins starts causing problems) you WILL be healthy regardless of your blood type. Source: 1,3 years of med school (in Estonia)", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-138988", "score": 0.6676374673843384, "text": "not a ELI5 answer, but it's a start... _URL_0_ TLDR; The smell of iron upon contact with skin is ironically a type of human body odor. Humans can 'smell' iron is interpreted as a sense for the smell of blood.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-281622", "score": 0.6675251126289368, "text": "To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence whatsoever of any of these effects. The element is a required micronutrient, and copper deficiency is a known problem (in both genetically linked and nongenetic forms), but the people selling you bracelets and copper-infused shirts are not adding it to your diet. They're selling you mystic hoo-hah. If you press them, they talk about magnetic force lines and \"energy fields\" and other hand-waving explanations, but there's nothing there.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-5954", "score": 0.6674267649650574, "text": "They'll have different effects. When you ingest something, the amount in your blood increases fairly quickly as it gets digested, then begins falling off as your liver/kidneys filter it out. But that filtering is sort of a proportional thing. Like, your liver will remove 15% of whats in your system every hour, say. So 15% in the first hour, 15% of the remaining 85% the second, etc. So when you ingest more often in smaller doses, it means the amount in your system stays in a narrower range. Doubling up once a day means a lot right after you drink it, and almost none by the time you're due for more.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-294461", "score": 0.6673936247825623, "text": "Yes all the carbon that you are made of comes from what you eat. The fats and sugars in your food are broken down and absorbed into your blood where there are delivered to every part of your body. Cells all over your body will take up the sugars and fats and convert them to energy or building blocks of the more complicated molecules that make up the structure of the cells or perform the functions of the cells.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1643597", "score": 0.6673607230186462, "text": "I have mostly all symptoms of anemia mostly the fingernails and pale eyelids.\nI took galfer tablets which contain 100mg elemental Iron. After a week I stopped over fears of toxcicity.\n3 days passed and on the third day I felt so sick and weak I could barely function. I went to the doctors who tested my heart and blood pressure all checking out okay and decided to give me a blood test which in awaiting the results.\nI took many paracetamol which helped me feel better.\n\nI asked if I could be anemic and he didnt say but told me I could stay taking the iron as it is fine and wont cause me any harm.\n\nAlthough he said it was fine, iron toxicity seems to occur with fairly small doses compared to the 100mg in the Galfer tablets.\n\nHe said it was fine but im still very unsure of this, I took one today about 30 minutes I feel okay and better.\n\nAm I stressing for nothing or should I go against the doctor and be more cautious of taking these tablets.\n\nIf I went a week or two taking between 100 and 200mgs feeling fine and only started to feel bad on the third day of not taking them at all, is this an indication I probably do need em?\n\nMy main concern stems from my last blood test months ago when I was told I seem to be absorbing iron fine.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-261913", "score": 0.6672574877738953, "text": "Almost everything is extracted from food in your intestine and directly transferred to blood. There are lots of blood vessels right next to your intestine that make that work. (The only exception is fat, which is extracted from food in your intestine and transferred to your lymphatic vessels and *then* transferred to blood.) From there everything goes to the liver, which removes a bunch of things that are toxic, dumps them into bile, which is then dumped back into your intestine and eventually excreted. After filtering, the liver transfers everything that's worth keeping into your main circulation. (Fat is again an exception; it bypasses filtering in the liver and goes directly to your main circulation) Once in main circulation, the nutrients are spread all over, and cells that need them pick them up as they go by. (There are lots of simple and complicated ways for cells to pick up nutrients, so there's a whole another complicated story buried in there, but that's the gist of it.)", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-930788", "score": 0.667216420173645, "text": "I know you can absorb acid by touching it but im getting it today from my guy and he said hes got it in tin foil in a mint metal tin if i touch the tin will i be ok or would the metal absorb the acid?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-130930", "score": 0.6667824387550354, "text": "The inside of your intestines is made of a semi-permeable membrane - only certain molecules can pass through. Think of it like an air filter, but with molecule-sized holes. Water, being a pretty small molecule, can fit through, and the lining is designed to absorb water. On the other side of the membrane are capillaries - tiny blood vessels that weave throughout your tissues to pick up waste and deliver oxygen and resources. The water dissolves through the membrane more or less directly into your blood. The other resources in what you're digesting gets absorbed by different parts of the membranes designed with channels that will grab those particles, or actively absorbed by cells along the lining that grab food bits, wrap a cell membrane around it like a box, and send it along. Or there are active channels in the cells that use certain kinds of chemical bonds to manipulate and move molecules around. At the same time, waste molecules are being dissolved across the membrane the other direction.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-62", "score": 0.7697337865829468, "text": "As the kernel is heated, the moisture and oils are being heated inside. Since the outer shell of popping corn is strong and mostly impenetrable, there is no place for the heat and pressure to go and the insides are superheated. The starches inside, which are normally hard, begin to soften in a process called gelatinization. Interior pressure continues to rise until the kernel's shell ruptures. Steam rapidly expands causing the innards to expand in a foamy substance, which afterwards quickly cools into a crispy puff." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1253129", "score": 0.7310933470726013, "text": "I made popcorn last night on the stove and after snacking through it all I was left with all the unpopped kernels. I've previously always thrown them to the trash but I was wondering could I (re)pop the leftover unpopped popcorn in either a microwave or on the stove (or something else idk)?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-80017", "score": 0.7303853034973145, "text": "There is a specific material on one side of the popcorn bag that concentrates the heat from the microwaves to allow the kernels to heat and pop faster, so that the ones that pop first don't burn while you wait for the stragglers to pop at the end of a cycle.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-14601", "score": 0.7272746562957764, "text": "It's popped \"the old-fashioned way\". Popcorn popped over external heat with lots of oil is always better than the kind popped with naturally uneven microwave power.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2498141", "score": 0.7268112301826477, "text": "I used to work at a cinema and they use pretty expensive machines that can do both, but even then, every once in a while someone would burn popcorn and you would literally have to put the burnt popcorn in a trash bag and walk it out of the building. It's not ridiculous either - burnt popcorn is not appetizing and adversely affected concession sales that a movie theater depends on.\n\nAll of this is to say, my wife will complain that I take the popcorn out too early (8 seconds left on the popcorn function on a microwave we tested for making popcorn) and she doesn't like sifting through kernels, but my opinion on this is:\n\n1. You're probably not going to take the trash bag you throw the burnt popcorn into out of the house so the smell lingers.\n2. The kernels filter to the bottom, so you don't really have a problem separating them while eating.\n3. There's more butter for less popcorn which is better anyway.\n\nThe absolute worse outcome is that 98% of the popcorn is properly cooked and 2% is burnt and she'll eat around the burnt popcorn, so you can't escape the smell because it wasn't even thrown away. It's like playing Russian roulette with disgusting food that sometimes isn't disgusting.\n\nFor these reasons, I think the most important part of popping popcorn is not burning the popcorn while my wife disagrees. If there are some arguments I haven't thought of I'd love to hear them because I'm at a complete loss for this rationality. Please change my view.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-299513", "score": 0.7253557443618774, "text": "If you look closely at the puffed rice you can see that the puffing process leaves tiny bubbles inside each kernel and a very thin layer of rice over them. When you add liquid the thin membrane dissolves in the liquid and the bubbles pop. That is what you hear: thousands of tiny bubbles popping.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2062113", "score": 0.7179597020149231, "text": "is each popped kernel unique?\nis there an infinite number of potential shapes?\nwhat determines the shape?\ncan two kernels ever pop in the same configuration? \ncan the kernel be engineered to produce a predetermined result, whether it be by genetics or the controlling the popping environment?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-158461", "score": 0.7177625298500061, "text": "Ever see a slow motion of a popcorn kennel exploding? Imagine the steering wheel as the kernel. The expanding bag pushes it backwards and out of the way so all you're getting is the bag itself. The steering wheel never (hopefully) has any pieces flying off of it, it just swings back towards the dashboard.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-313352", "score": 0.7169327735900879, "text": "The reason is, when you microwave pop corn kernels they heat up from the inside, but the shell prevents steam from escaping, until the pressure finally builds to the point where they break through the shell and pop. If the shell has a hole in them already, then the pressure never builds up, so it doesn't pop.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-1427014", "score": 0.7152973413467407, "text": "You all know what I’m talking about, those kernels that just barely pop and give that satisfying crunch. There’s a company called Half Popped that specifically sells this. I’m wondering if there is a good way to do it at home. Any help is appreciated.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-162240", "score": 0.7141228914260864, "text": "Imagine that you have a water-soaked log that you throw onto a campfire. You'll notice that the log has to first dry out before it chars and catches fire. This is the same case with kernels in the microwave. The water in the kernels first absorbs the microwaves and expands into vapor to \"pop\" the corn. When there is not enough liquid water to absorb the microwaves (the water is mostly vapor), then the kernel shells themselves start absorbing the microwaves, causing them all to turn brown and eventually burn.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-601690", "score": 0.7134381532669067, "text": "I'm making some popcorn in a saucepan with butter and I'd like to know what produces optimum popcorn. Low or high heat, and what's the difference?\n\n\nThanks in advance everyone!", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-91559", "score": 0.711173415184021, "text": "Corn pops because the water inside it becomes vapor from the heat and needs to be released, thus it breaks the seed. The ones that do not pop potentially have small holes that the vapors of the water can escape and thus the seed does not pop.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-324520", "score": 0.708908200263977, "text": "I don't know the answer, but you might be interested to look into [chinese popcorn making](_URL_0_). basically, they heat a tightly sealed iron cylinder with the popcorn in it, for an unbearable time, then they let it explosively decompress into a bag. Instead of the ordinary shape of popcorn as kind of an exploded flower, this process produces near-identical puffs of corn. In this context, the answers to most of your questions are simple: they're all pretty much identical spheres.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-67593", "score": 0.7088624238967896, "text": "Amount of time differs for popcorn buttons. And I don't think I've ever owned or used a microwave that had a popcorn button that popped my popcorn to the standards I look for in a popped/unpopped kernel ratio.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-138270", "score": 0.7085502743721008, "text": "Moisture. There is a tiny bit of moisture in the center of the kernel, when you heat it up to the right temperature it causes expansion and a mini explosion. This temp also makes the corns texture change.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-12336", "score": 0.7082499861717224, "text": "It doesn't. Only the outer shell does. The \"skin\" on a corn kernel is made of cellulose, which cannot be digested by humans. The inside is made of starches and proteins, and they are properly broken down. So, you're not actually seeing whole kernels on \"the other side\", you're just seeing the shells.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-68641", "score": 0.7040162086486816, "text": "The popcorn button uses a preset power and time stored in your microwave, usually the microwave manufacturer's best guess as to when the popcorn should be perfectly popped. You'll get consistent results, but the popcorn might be under/over done. Popcorn manufacturers tell you to listen because that's the most accurate method (when it comes to microwave popcorn.)", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-100586", "score": 0.703947901725769, "text": "Even though the wood may be mostly dry, there are pockets of moisture, resin, or oil locked in the wood. When heated with fire, the liquids turn to vapor which produces a great deal of pressure. The crackling occurs when the pressure bursts its wooden surroundings, similar to the \"pop\" of popcorn kernels. The crackling has some fire danger as it may shoot flaming wooden shards away from the fire.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-301731", "score": 0.7033324837684631, "text": "Highly pressurised carbon dioxide gas is injected into the candy which traps them as small bubbles after cooling. When the candy dissolves in your saliva the gas escapes which causes the popping.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-256450", "score": 0.702055811882019, "text": "There's actually a pretty neat process going on here. You might expect it to be a gas producing chemical reaction that makes Pop Rocks fizzy, but this actually isn't the case. My understanding is that they make the candy in a high pressure CO2 atmosphere which results in the formation of little bubbles of pressurized gas inside the candy. When you put them in your mouth your saliva dissolves the sugar encasing the bubbles which releases pressurized CO2 and this is what causes the popping sensation.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-63", "score": 0.7296549081802368, "text": "There are two kinds of spacing out. There is background processing - thinking about stuff that isn't apparent to you consciously, and basically resting your mind. For most of evolutionary history, energy was the limiting factor for most species. Sleeping is not only helpful for repairing your body, but also for reducing your calorie burden. Spacing out is a kind of low energy state that is more alert than sleeping but less energy consuming than active thinking." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-268791", "score": 0.6925012469291687, "text": "When you are sitting down you are a bit compressed and when you stand up quickly, your blood suddenly has to fill the parts that didn't have so much blood due to the compression. This causes a drop in blood pressure resulting in the brain not getting enough blood, so it starts shutting down, which you feel as a head rush.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-89848", "score": 0.6924944519996643, "text": "i dont remember for 100% sure but i believe it is micro sleep, where your brain literally falls asleep for a few seconds and when you \"wake up\" you have no idea what you were staring at or why because you were asleep", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-317145", "score": 0.6922776699066162, "text": "We don't know exactly what is happening but here is the best guess. Anytime someone is unconscious (that is not medically induced) they have either sustained a traumatic head injury or are seizing. We know that the brain stem is usually spared because they are breathing and the heart continues to contract. The exception to this of course is when a seizure affects the midbrain and thus the occulomotor control goes out the window. We also know that the \"working memory\" which is in the prefrontal cortex, is damaged, as well as the hippocampus. This accounts for the memory loss of up to a minute before the incident. Other than that there is cell death.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-47685", "score": 0.6920126676559448, "text": "Your brain does a lot of stuff in background, which takes a lot of resources (e.g. energy.) Your brain 'spazes' out either when you are so tired/out of energy that other more important functions are given more priority (breathing > > stability) or when it tries to find ways to save energy. That last point could be what happens: your brain has a long history of you being good at not chewing your tongue that, some times, it thinks it can be turned off and at in those times you bite your tongue (not all the times, of course.) Also, if you are eating a lot of stuff quickly, it's harder to keep track of your tongue and you bite it.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-41352", "score": 0.6918059587478638, "text": "Well, I know the cognitive and brain consequences. Anything requiring attention and conscious processing gets degraded. You're less smart, less creative, less attentive, more distracted. Probably more irritable too (mood/emotion regulation sometimes requires conscious attention). You miss out on consolidation (long-term memory storage) and are more likely to forget things that were important the day before and not be able to remember new things you learn the next day. Sleep deprivation increases your blood pressure and can mess with your immune system long-term. We are cyclical animals. Lots of internal cycles depend on the sleep-wake cycle. And when they're messed up, our bodies become unhappy campers haha.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-95455", "score": 0.6915860176086426, "text": "If you're not asleep, then you're not getting the same quality rest as if you were sleeping. Your brain may appreciate the decrease in stimulation, and your muscles the rest, but if you're not asleep, then you're not... sleeping.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-91455", "score": 0.6913275718688965, "text": "I had this problem a lot as a teenager, and had to see a neurologist and cardiologist about it. Here's the basic idea: When you're lying or sitting down, your heart is in a \"rested\" state. Your pulse slows down and your muscles relax, and your brain needs less blood to function as your nerves and body become calmer and calmer. When you suddenly stand up, your muscles and heart start to quickly \"wake up\" and work harder, and your brain all of a sudden needs a lot more blood to send messages throughout your nervous system. You black out briefly because your brain isn't getting enough blood from your heart in the short period of time in which it needs it. This is usually because the message isn't getting to your heart fast enough via your nervous system, and conversely, the blood isn't reaching your brain by the time you're on your feet. Eat more salt, drink more water, or Gatorade. Electrolytes help your nerves work more efficiently.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-307140", "score": 0.6911808252334595, "text": "Yes. This is from a novice, so it will lack any technical details. Deep sleep is a mode that the brain enters into normally, it regulates many bodily functions and is essential to the body. Eg most of our repair systems only function during sleep. Being knocked out is a result of damage. It's a mode that is entered into not by choice or through the bodies normal processes. Being knocked out is a kind of panic mode that is mostly used to prevent further damage, or is a result of massive damage it's self. One releases hormones and triggers normal functions. Its still a functioning brain. The other is a state of non function.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-67988", "score": 0.691165030002594, "text": "Lack of other stimulus. During the rest of the day your brain is constantly interpreting the sights, sounds, smells, etc of the world around you. It's processing your body's movements. It's doing numerous things that keep you going without you really realizing it. When you lay down to sleep you consciously shut all that out. Close your eyes, be in a quiet area, etc. There's really not much else for your brain to do, but it's still active and awake at the moment so it fills it's (for lack of a better word) RAM with thoughts. This is also why you might feel itches or other sensations, or notice sounds you'd have otherwise ignored, more when you lay down to sleep. The lack of other stimuli makes your brain kind of search around for something to do.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-129274", "score": 0.6911178827285767, "text": "Sleep is for your brain; it's not needed for the rest of your body and has nothing to do with physical energy When you sleep, you brain clears itself out harmful toxins. The flow of cerebrospinal fluid in the brain increases dramatically, washing away harmful waste proteins that build up between brain cells during waking hours. People who don't get enough sleep run an increased risk of getting Alzheimer's disease.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-164825", "score": 0.6910603046417236, "text": "Blood pressure and oxygen levels. I used to get them when I stood up quickly and walked across a room after having sat very still (watching TV or playing a game) for a while. Essentially, you don't have enough new oxygenated blood making it to your brain so parts of it stop working correctly.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-26945", "score": 0.6910503506660461, "text": "This is what happens to me every night! My dad has sleep apnea, and he said this happened to him until he got that figured out. Essentially: your body shuts down, but the brain maintains wakefulness (in my dads case: through breathing problems) enough to not dream or notice the passage of time. I’ve just been way too lazy to do a sleep study for myself.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-130014", "score": 0.6910023093223572, "text": "What makes you think the body is shut down? Your body does all kinds of stuff while you sleep. Repair, cleanup, mental processing, basically biological maintenance.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-55840", "score": 0.6909140944480896, "text": "As part of the sleep process, your brain shuts down a large portion of your motor functions. Occasionally, something may cause enough stimulation to wake you up so you can perform those actions, and then you'll go back to sleep. Often, you fall back to sleep fast enough that you don't form a memory of waking up at all.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-48660", "score": 0.6905122399330139, "text": "When you sleep, your body releases certain chemicals to cause anaesthesia (loss of sensation) and loss of consciousness. This enters the body into a \"restful state\", which includes the slowing of the general metabolism and other processes that can only happen while the body is asleep. When you pass out, generally it's from lack of oxygen, lack of blood, or sudden trauma. This is called syncope, and since it was induced not through internal mechanisms but through loss of homeostasis (maintenance of the internal equilibrium of he body) you do not experience the same restful effects. When you pass out from drinking, your body's metabolism is strained so thoroughly by the physiological effects of alcohol that it basically says \"enough is enough!\" and sends you to bed without supper. Unfortunately, it still has to process all that alcohol, so your metabolism doesn't slow and, ultimately, your body doesn't rest.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1993338", "score": 0.6899353265762329, "text": "I don't know much about neuroscience or psychology but I remember reading that if we don't use particular brain functions for a long time it will start to decay. Like if someone doesn't play piano for 3 years they won't play as well as if they had been continuing to practice. \n\nSo I had a thought, if someone slept for a long time without previous brain trauma would they lose brain function?\n\nFor example if someone was in a coma or cryogenically frozen(I know this is fictional) for several years would they still be the same functioning person as they were before?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-73739", "score": 0.6899028420448303, "text": "your brain shuts down to protect itself from the trama", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-14148", "score": 0.6897115111351013, "text": "The brain is like a group of people talking to each other. When you're watching TV, the part of your brain that watches TV says \"Shut up guys, I'm watching TV,\" so you can focus without thinking about cake or math. As a result, the others sit silent, grow bored, and fall asleep, until only the TV watcher part of the brain is left. Left by himself, he too gets bored and falls asleep. When you're in bed, assuming you aren't counting sheep or something, the entire brain is kind of in free time mode, and any part of the brain can speak up if it wants to. They start talking to each other, and even if one of them starts to drift to sleep, the others wake it up either by deliberately talking to the sleepyheads or just being noisy. Eventually more and more of the parts of the brain fall asleep from sheer exhaustion no matter how loud the others are, and eventually the last one passes out and you are asleep.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-91821", "score": 0.6889877915382385, "text": "Sleep is the period of time where the brain converts short-term memories to long-term memories, and synthesizes the new experiences of the day. Without sleep, people can function physically for quite some time, but begin to deteriorate mentally rather quickly.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-189669", "score": 0.6880679130554199, "text": "Let's turn the question around: What happens if you don't sleep. There have been some interesting /r/AskReddit posts on it what people who didn't go to sleep for a long time experienced. Most of it was related to hallucinations, incoherency, unable to concentrate and do simple tasks. So, the brains have evolved to do a lot of housekeeping and cleaning up during the sleep periods: See it as cleaning the rubbish bins, mopping the floors, doing the dishes etc, all the things which gets done in a building when the people working in it are gone.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-64", "score": 0.6943939328193665, "text": "The general idea is that by offering a discount card, you will shop more frequently at that specific chain than others (although in reality, this isn't often the case). They may also collect your email to send you regular marketing ads, in hopes of bringing you in. If the extra profit generated from you buying items at that store vs another store exceeds the discounts given on that trip, then the store benefits." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-406939", "score": 0.6594480276107788, "text": "Hi Frugal buddies,\r\n\r\nI am often the butt of my non-frugal minded friends' jokes when we are shopping and I pull out my huge keyring of discount cards from my purse. I was at Big Lots the other day, and the cashier noticed it (I keep it separate form my keys) and suggested a few more places that have discount cards. Even though I have many for stores I don't shop at often, they are great to have while traveling, as it sucks to get \"caught\" without a member card and have to pay a higher price (as is the case at most grocery stores). Many accumulate points or a percentage back, and if your'e going to shop, you might as well get it. I've even had friends ask to borrow my \"key ring o' savings\" when heading out shopping. \r\n\r\nLong story short, I wanted to make a list of these incentive/savings programs so that I can add to my collection, and also see what types of deals everyone is getting with these cards. I know it's not usually a ton of savings, but it's something, so there's no harm in signing up. If you've got discount cards on your keyring, post them here, as I'll be putting together a goodgle doc spreadsheet of them.\r\n\r\nThanks!\r\n\r\nEdit: I understand that many stores that have these programs aren't the most \"frugal\" of places to get whatever they sell, but I think this would be a good way to determine which discount/incentives are considered \"worth it\" and which aren't. I'm trying to include a description of the benefits of each on my spreadsheet too.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1856537", "score": 0.6589680910110474, "text": "Again, not having been approved yet as a Shipt Shopper I have been reading blogs and viewing videos.\n\nIt seems some Shoppers have many 'regular' customers? Does the app allow customers to request a certain Shopper? If not how do these Shoppers 'hack' the system to get repeat customers?\n\nCheers!\n\nC", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-176830", "score": 0.6566528081893921, "text": "Point of sale system (POS) scans a barcode on the gift card. This barcode is specific to the gift card, and allows the card to be identified without the card number or pin. The retailer accepts cash, the POS records a transaction on the retailers ledger. Then, the POS sends the transaction information to the gift card company, this activates the card. Source: worked in retail.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-146505", "score": 0.6562029123306274, "text": "The cost to the store is not the same as the face value of the card - they make a small profit. And Apple makes money, too, even selling the card at a discount, because some percentage of card value is never used, and even if it is used, it gets people to shop there, and they may spend a few extra bucks. And even beyond that, it makes Walgreens a desirable place to shop. People will pop in to pick up a gift card, then also buy toothpaste and some M & Ms.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1452171", "score": 0.6561757922172546, "text": "After browsing this sub I’m almost terrified to use my card now. \n\n\nI got this to replace my second checking account that I had with my bank since they changed the way to avoid fees. This is solely for grocery shopping to keep funds separate from my personal. Nobody but my bf will know this card exists.\n\n\nDo scammers seek out people through the app? I have like a million questions but I’m more concerned with keeping maybe like $100+ no more than $150 on the card each week. Thanks for the response in advance.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-87192", "score": 0.6558473110198975, "text": "Precisely. Gift cards have no real value until activated. Also, stores will have there own security in place to prevent theft.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1658946", "score": 0.6546757817268372, "text": "Many grocery stores nowadays like Giant have gas stations attached to them and offer discounts on gas to reward card members for shopping there. \n\nIf you buy $200 worth of gift cards you'll get gas points for that purchase. \n\nThen you can use the $200 in gift cards to buy your groceries and you'll get gas points again for that purchase. \n\nSimple way to double your rewards.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-183117", "score": 0.6542680859565735, "text": "Depending on the card, you can get rewards like cash back or credit towards travel. Also allows people to buy something they may not be able to afford immediately, by essentially financing the purchase and creating a payment plan (for better or worse).", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-663491", "score": 0.6541084051132202, "text": "If you can add whatever credit or debit card to your Wallet as you like, what purpose is there in getting an Apple Card? I don’t see the appeal or know the purpose.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-107534", "score": 0.6538694500923157, "text": "alpha1028 has answered this question quite nicely, but I'd just like to add that there is another huge advantage for stores that sell gift cards - people lose them! Or, they do not fully use them. In both these cases, the store receives money and provides absolutely nothing.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-663356", "score": 0.6534795165061951, "text": "I just signed up last night and just waiting for my card. I was looking at the hours page but it shows “none available” for the next two weeks. Now is that because I don’t have my card or is my area that shopper heavy?", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-662706", "score": 0.6527478098869324, "text": "Is there any reason for me not to sign up for the **Amazon.com Rewards Visa Card from Chase** with my next purchase?\n\nA bit about me:\n\n* I already have the Chase Freedom CC (which I would otherwise use for this purchase) with a current limit of $1000. Would this cause any issues?\n\n* I pay off my credit card every month (automatically) without trouble. I have rather large savings relative to the meager amounts I spend each month.\n\n* I purchase things on Amazon only once in a blue moon and this card would only be used for those purchases. I might consider using it for other non-internet purchases if the rewards are greater than those of my current card.\n\nReasons to get it:\n\n* I could save a nice amount on a purchase for signing up.\n\n* It has pretty nice rewards.\n\n* It would increase my overall credit limit.\n\n* As far as I can tell, if I pay off the full balance each payment period, I would incur no fees.\n\nThis question can be extended to all store cards: why shouldn't I get their credit card if I can easily pay it off the few times I use it as long as utilizing the rewards isn't a hassle? i.e. I wouldn't get a Kohl's card because the $0.25 reward I get for my purchase can't be redeemed for anything without spending even more money (except maybe a stick of gum?), while a gas station card (those are a thing, right?) would have easy redemption. I don't plan on going out today and getting as many as I can, but the one time a month I go non-grocery shopping, what's to keep me from signing up for the store's credit card?\n\nConversely, would my credit score be hurt by not utilizing my new collection of cards?\n\nLink to card info", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-469656", "score": 0.6525583267211914, "text": "I just discovered a Costco has been built 30 minutes from me. I've never been to a Costco or a Sams so I don't know how good that is. Around me the only stores I have are Krogers, Bi-Lo, Food Lion, and Walmart. \n\nMy shopping habits are I shop once a month at Kroger and I also use the Kroger fuel discount (usually ten cents off, upward to thirty). I spend about $200 a month there.\n\nSo to the Costco shoppers here, is it worth it for me to invest in a Costco membership? Kroger is five minutes from me, so a ten minute travel. Costco is thirty minutes from me, so a total travel time of an hour. I would be losing the Kroger fuel discount, but I don't imagine it'd be more than $10 a month added to the fuel bill. \n\nWhat is your verdict?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1421964", "score": 0.6524744629859924, "text": "If I get called one more time for something I know has a BOH of 0 yet displays \"Balance unavailable\" on a harvester, I'm going to flip on our DM next time we meet.\n\nSystem doesnt work, yet stores are expected to be perfect. Gg Kroger, yet again.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1695903", "score": 0.6516385078430176, "text": "I thought about getting a membership but ran some numbers.\n\nI've only calculated it for about 10 items or so but many of the things I buy most are cheaper elsewhere. Toilet paper, Peanut butter, etc. Sure the name brands are cheaper at costco but when comparing off brands Kroger/Meijer is still less and I don't have to buy in semi bulk. \n\nAm I doing it wrong?", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-68267", "score": 0.6515296697616577, "text": "Simple. You give them money in exchange for a gift card. The store now has more money. The person who receives the gift card uses it and gets a product from the store. If you ignore the middle part... you give them money, they give someone else the product. It's basically a straight-forward sale with a card in the middle Of course, the cards themselves and the system to make them work costs money but they make more money in the first place by attracting more customers with their gift cards. Also, some people never use the full balance of the card or any of it at all. In that case, you gave the store money in exchange for a small piece of plastic.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2185696", "score": 0.6510002613067627, "text": "The wife and I have conflicting thoughts on it. She says she read somewhere (but can’t find it now) that you had to make use of a singular item to complete the goal, while I believe that the text on the card means you can use any number of items as long as you use them the requisite amount of times. Who’s right?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-50343", "score": 0.6509597897529602, "text": "Whenever you swipe a card with a magnetic stripe on a computer system that is designed to deal with such cards, the card is identifying itself to that system. In a way, it's like typing in a unique User Name on a computer that hopefully is so complex that it cannot be duplicated. When the cashier swipes the gift card (or types in the number) when you purchase it, the gift card tells the system, \"Hi, I am gift card number 388309809827348760827634\" and I would like to be activated. The system then says, \"OK, that's a valid number for a $100 gift card. Your wish is granted. the card is activated and can now be used for $100 credit at this store (or chain of stores).\"", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1300895", "score": 0.650845468044281, "text": "As I've not really owned one of these before I am wondering. Since a giver can re-load these on some kind of regular basis doesn't that mean too purchases and movements could also be tracked by the giver of the card? Don't mean to be an alarmist but that might be a concern? I mean, some people (not me) get weird, flip out, and something like this could be used to track someone's movement about a city, state, the country?\n\nI assume so since the purchases would be itemized along with the vendor information. \n\n*Oh look, my SB was out shopping in the city Friday. Didn't she say she was busy that day and couldn't see me? WTF?*", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-2624675", "score": 0.6501926779747009, "text": "When you accept a batch from Costco or a similar membership type store, does a membership card appear on the app during checkout, or how does that work? New at this, so just want to not look like an idiot at the register, thanks!", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-65", "score": 0.732343852519989, "text": "So the only way that the process of childbirth would change is through evolution of some kind. The only way evolution happens is if the genetically superior reproduce and those who aren’t die. Theoretically if there was a woman who could go through childbirth totally painlessly and she passed that trait on to her child, the child could pass the trait on and on until it made up the mass populous. This would take millions of years and to guarantee that all women experienced it, all who felt pain during childbirth would have to not reproduce. Think about it like this. Apples were high on the tree. All the long necked giraffes reached the apples, lived and eventually reproduced. All the shortnecked giraffes died and that’s why we only today see long necked giraffes." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-132746", "score": 0.6951253414154053, "text": "It definitely isn't related to how we were in our mother's womb, but many factors can influence how people are comfortable. For example many women find a pillow between their legs is more comfortable as their hips are wider than men's and the spacing keeps their legs comfortable on their side. Why their side? Larger breasts can put weight on their chest so offloading it by turning to the side makes breathing easier. Men tend to have wider shoulders which can make laying on their side less comfortable as it bends the spine more. All these are just examples though as it comes down to personal preference.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-73058", "score": 0.6932828426361084, "text": "Two reasons: First, we walk upright. This means that we put a lot of strain on our pelvises that animals that go on all fours don't have to deal with. To compensate, the pelvis is narrowed compared to other animals, including the birth canal. Second, we have large heads in proportion to our bodies, due to having large brains. Big heads+narrow birth canal=painful birth. Now, human babies are born earlier in development than other animals, which helps reduce the damage they do when they're born, but the end result is still quite painful. Painful birth persists because it doesn't interfere enough with reproduction to outweigh the obvious benefits of walking upright and having large brains, so we're stuck with it.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-133173", "score": 0.6905463933944702, "text": "We humans have huge craniums, so huge that childbirth is very dangerous for the mother as it is (thanks to modern medicine, not so much anymore), if it were allowed to develop any more in the womb, it would be physically impossible to have a vaginal birth. Roughly, human babies are about halfway done when hey're born, and are pretty much completely helpless for 9 more months after birth. Since humans are social animals, it wasn't a deal-killer even 100 000 years ago to be born helpless, even if mum died in childbirth, because there was a whole society to take care of babies around it.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-113256", "score": 0.690197765827179, "text": "This is only partially true - many animals die in the process of childbirth, and could use a lot of help during it. But the reason it is harder for humans is because we evolved to have bigger brains and larger heads.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-117077", "score": 0.6882802248001099, "text": "The body is imperfect and so too is the sense of pain. It's an evolved trait, not a designed one.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-7479", "score": 0.6867230534553528, "text": "Absolutly. The fact, that a lot of women today are not capable of giving natural birth is an outcome of this. In earlier times, if a womens pelvis was too small to give birth, she and her child would (probably) have died. Today, she can get a C-section and she and her kid will live happily ever after. Some smart people, however, have suggested that modern medicine and technology *itself* is a new stage of evolution, because it allows us to adapt to so much more than just our \"natural\" human nature.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-264518", "score": 0.6813299655914307, "text": "In humans, it's the result of an evolutionary compromise between walking upright (requiring a narrow pelvis) and having a big brain (requiring a big skull). This makes childbirth challenging, as the infant's cranium is forced through the opening in the pelvis. Here's a nice article from National Geographic Magazine called [\"The Downside of Upright\"](_URL_0_). It's fairly long, but the section on childbirth is right at the beginning. They quote an anthropologist talking about the human female pelvis: \"It works, but only marginally. It's definitely not the type of system you would invent if you were designing it. But evolution is clearly a tinkerer, not an engineer; it has to work with yesterday's model.\"", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-85733", "score": 0.6807201504707336, "text": "It's likely that at one point in time, long ago, our ancestors had a much easier time giving birth to little proto-human babies. Modern humans, that's us, have evolved to have a very large brain compared to the size of our body. Over time, our babies' brains came to be much larger than our women's birth canals. This ended up with women being required to push an oversized head through their birth canal while giving birth. Since we have the biggest(?) brain-to-body size ratio of any animal, we have the biggest trouble with giving birth as well.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-126359", "score": 0.6803723573684692, "text": "To some extent, yes every species has trouble with childbirth. Some species always die after childbirth. However, Humans are pretty bad at child birth. Standing upright and having big heads puts extra strain on the whole process. If those traits didn't provide a lot of benefit, we would have some issues from an evolutionary standpoint.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-314410", "score": 0.676387369632721, "text": "Evolution through natural selection does not make life easier for individuals. The evolutionary advantages of large headed babies and not-so-wide hipped mothers, as another poster pointed out, likely offsets any disadvantage for the species re: painful child birth. Edit to remove implied correlation of mortality and pain. Edit to change must to likely, (foolfromhell)", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-100098", "score": 0.6756342053413391, "text": "Because childbirth is an extremely traumatic event for the human body. Complications can and do arise regularly. While we are pretty good at performing them nowadays a caesarean section is major abdominal surgery.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-130722", "score": 0.6744517087936401, "text": "Most of them are TENS units. So while they could simulate the muscle tensing pain via electrical shock, they wouldn't compare to actual childbirth. The pain, the intense pressure, the pain of tearing or episiotomy, or cesarean, and in some cases, dislocation of pelvis or hip joints... like in my case where my son literally shoved my left hip out of joint. I never felt that, until after the unbalanced epidural wore off. It's also impossible to put an electrode where the cervix would be, where the vast majority of pain would come from. Some women only have pain in the lower abdomen, others their lower back, and some will have pain into their legs while in labor.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-110139", "score": 0.6729649901390076, "text": "Human reproduction is limited by two of humanity's most useful advantages: We stand upright and are very intelligent. Standing upright requires a relatively narrow pelvis. Being very intelligent requires a relatively large brain, and therefore skull. Yet the skull must fit through the pelvis at birth! So a middle ground is found and we are adapted to have babies born relatively undeveloped, so their skull bone plates are not fused yet and their brain is smaller. It hurts, but pain isn't a limiting factor on reproductive success. A consequence of being born undeveloped is that human children are vulnerable and delicate. They need constant care and protection to survive, and so have frequent cries that their parents are biologically wired to respond to. So we have covered why childbirth is painful and babies are annoying little shits.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1579961", "score": 0.6729061603546143, "text": "I'm not pregnant and not intending to get pregnant for a long time but I feel like I know hardly anything about childbirth. I feel like it's not something that's spoken about or portrayed in the media that often and I really don't know what to expect. \n\nI recently read an article about induced labour. Women in my country (Ireland) are not being asked their consent before labour is induced and often the reason is lack of resources and a midwife shortage. From reading up on induced labour, I'm shocked that women are being subjected to increased pain and distress during childbirth when its not necessary. \n\nIs there anything else women should know about before pregnancy/childbirth? Should we be teaching more about these types of things in schools? I mean, given that the amount of women who have children is quite high, should we not educate women and empower them so that they are aware of what will happen during childbirth? In the case of induced labour for no other reason that cost-saving/lack of resources, if women were aware of the effects and reasons why it happens, they could stand up for themselves against this abuse.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-144777", "score": 0.6726776361465454, "text": "There is no reason for it not to. If you are ever in a situation where the pain is so great that it is debilitating, odds are you are going to die anyway (this is in nature as a primitive animal, not a modern human). If you are going to die regardless, there is no evolutionary benefit to reduce your pain.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-5707", "score": 0.67235267162323, "text": "Sex drive is something all animals share. It's a basic, instinctual thing. Being able to even *understand* that there's a link between sex and childbirth is a uniquely human thing. Millions of years of evolution aren't going to change just because childbirth becomes unpleasant. ...and the main reason childbirth is hard for humans is because we've evolved these ridiculously oversized heads to hold our oversized brains.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-29368", "score": 0.6719653606414795, "text": "Because having a baby is hard on your body. In your 40s, your body starts to ache and creak enough without carrying the extra weight of a human + fluid, and having all your organs pushed into weird places. Not to mention childbirth and recovery.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-28883", "score": 0.6715154051780701, "text": "There's no particular advantage beyond your personal comfort, and a lot of potential disadvantage, like the ability to ignore injuries. You being comfortable isn't especially important to your survival or reproductive fitness. But being aware of injury, as well as restrained from continuing to aggravate injuries, is incredibly important. So there's no particular selective pressure to let you 'reduce the feeling of pain' and probably a fair amount of pressure to *not* let you do so.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-974845", "score": 0.669114351272583, "text": "I have vaginismus, in other words, it's impossibly painful to get something the size of a penis into my vagina. Sex is full of screams, tears, and pillow biting.\n\nI've given birth once, but complications arose and I had to have a C-section. I know for a fact that I wouldn't have been able to give birth if it weren't for the C-section, even with the Epidural.\n\nSince I ALREADY have a scar there, I don't give a dang anymore about future scars around the area. I plan to have more kids in the future. Can I Opt for a C-section from now on? I know it probably costs the hospital more time/money/resources and all that, but I'm pretty positive that that's the only way it'll happen for me without the child or I dying or something.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-304779", "score": 0.6672646999359131, "text": "It's old but I found a paper from 1997 on the topic. _URL_0_ Essentially, yes it is painful because 1) a fetus' spinal sensory nerve cells are more excitable than an adult's 2) sensory nerve cells form greater patches of the fetus' body 3) newborns respond to even light touch whereas adults only respond to harmful stimuli And this _URL_1_ from last year has good comments Edit: formatting, blah", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-67", "score": 0.8044278025627136, "text": "It's basically painting a transparent picture on top of the black-and-white, and the B/W image provides much of the shading. In the days before photoshop, you had actual transparent inks with limited tints to choose from, and that's why old hand-colorized photos often look more cartoony. Now, you can pick from a vast range of colors until it more or less matches what you would expect: a white person with fair hair will probably have skin in X color range, unpainted wood furniture is going to be a shade of brown, jeans are almost certainly blue, a military uniform from that era is going to be this particular color, etc. Plus if you have experience with B/W photography you might have a sense for how some colors will translate to film; they often have a particular range of grey due to the characteristics of a given film. So accurate colorizing mostly comes down to digital painting skill and having a sense for how things would look." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-372060", "score": 0.7588173151016235, "text": "I’m sure it’s through software like Photoshop, but what would be the steps to color in some black and white manga panels?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1126450", "score": 0.7544417977333069, "text": "For example World War 2 in colour; the original footage was shot in black and white, how did they add the colour back in again: \n\na) with the correct colours \nb) the actual process of adding in the colours", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-76475", "score": 0.7540134191513062, "text": "They used to manually add color to each frame of a black and white film in order to \"colorize\" it. Today, computers can be used to automate much of the process, though it is still hard to get the colors so right that they look perfect 100% of the time. edit: the original film was in black and white.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-779419", "score": 0.7522931694984436, "text": "I know how to properly convert images to black and white but somehow this \"silverness\" is unachieved by me :(\n\nAny hints on how to do this? ", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-135359", "score": 0.7516993284225464, "text": "You paint over the photo with a transparent brush/layer. Basically, using a program like Photoshop, you first select a particular area to colorize and then apply a brush of the color (of your choice) while reducing the opacity of the brush layer so that you can see through to the photo behind it. There is no way to guarantee the accuracy of the colors. Since there is no color information in the original image, it's entirely up to the artist's intuition and preference when it comes down to choosing which color to use. For recognizable items like signs/logos, the artist may attempt to do further research to find out what the original colors would have been to maximize accuracy.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-113955", "score": 0.7509849667549133, "text": "A long time ago they used to hand paint every single slide on the film strips. This is why the colors sometimes look blotchy or weird. They also used to dye entire segments of the film one color so a whole scene would be tinted red or purple or something to evoke a certain mood. As far as adding color to black and white films now, there are various computer methods that take a lot of painstaking work. Im sure there will soon be some deep machine learning algorithms that add color to old pictures at least, if not film.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1124665", "score": 0.7502369284629822, "text": "and what about the process of taking a photograph determines if it will be a black&amp;white or color photo?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-780818", "score": 0.7502270340919495, "text": "I've been trying to make design a magazine and I want to include pictures edited in this style]( or [this]( or [this]( Compared to standard b/w [photo.\n\nI've been trying to play around in photoshop. Can't get it to work to the effect seen here. I notice a few things: One the whites are not white. more a flat gray. So I tried to put a gray layer in overlay mode but it doesnt achieve same effect. Also noticed blacks are still saturated and sharp in detail, but when I try to use levels with an output level of (40, 255) or using exposure +0.04 I can achieve the flatness I want of the tonal range in picture, but the blacks become faded. \n\nI have this horrible feeling its so easy to achieve. Any help is appreciated!", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-151631", "score": 0.749941349029541, "text": "With color you have the full spectrum to cover every detail in a photo. With black and white you have just a lighter and darker shade to work with. Similar colors will fall to close shades effectively masking most minor blemishes, uneven shadows, skin discoloration, etc.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2741646", "score": 0.7491903901100159, "text": "I'm trying to practice some black and white photography and i'm having a hard time getting really black blacks, and really white whites in the same photo. It's more like dark grey for black and light grey for white. Yet, when i google some sample images i see striking blacks and whites and it looks awesome. I've set custom white balance and that helped, but still not like what i've seen online. \n\n\nI'm currently trying to shoot a section of a chessboard with a couple of white pieces on it and a black background. Is it possible to eliminate the black background and use the \"darkness\" of the room as the black backdrop with only light on the board? Or something like that?\n\nPost processing tips??\n\nThanks", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-8043", "score": 0.7484045624732971, "text": "\"Black\" and \"white\" are actually a ton of different shades of grey. If you know the method the picture was taken with and how it converts visible light into something that can be put onto film in greyscale, you can tell with a pretty high degree of accuracy which shade of grey corresponds to which visible light color.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-10283", "score": 0.7470022439956665, "text": "Very talented Photoshop users. There is no color in black and white, so you have to add it yourself.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-131004", "score": 0.74693763256073, "text": "The way I have done it is by essentially coloring it in by hand in Photoshop. Which means of course that the colors just guesses. There are probably more advanced methods, especially if you have the original film at hand.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-283467", "score": 0.745442807674408, "text": "A lot of the time you have specialists spending hours, days or potentially weeks adapting them. They take clues from the time period, the weather conditions and the shadows to do their best at giving the photos as true a colour as is possible to do retroactively. I believe there’s a really interesting video on YouTube about it, I’m pretty sure Vox did it", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-59591", "score": 0.7449315190315247, "text": "They used a filter on photos that broke the image into tiny dots, called [halftone](_URL_0_). You aren't actually seeing grey or varying shades of black, but dots getting smaller and further apart to create the illusion of grey tones. The image was then transferred to a plate, right along with the type, that was then inked and the image transferred to the paper by pressing the inked plate against it.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-35600", "score": 0.7398787140846252, "text": "A black and white photograph captures the shading of pictures objects but does not retain any color information. The color chosen therefore is arbitrary, a guess based on what makes the most sense. People should be some kind of flesh tone, leaves should be green, the sky should be blue, but what color are their clothes? That is purely up to the imagination of whoever is adding the color. Some research can be done to determine what color such things are likely to be of course, but it is a later addition to the photograph rather than something which is extracted from it.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2741983", "score": 0.7387934327125549, "text": "\n\nSo basically they shot in white set and added color to just the white background in post. I want to do this for my personal project - please help!", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-188834", "score": 0.7377240061759949, "text": "1. Take a colourfully vibrant picture. 2. Turn it to grayscale 3. note which colour turns to which shade of grey 4. apply it in reverse to an originally grayscale picture 5. profit", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-52440", "score": 0.7366042137145996, "text": "You can set color layers so that they don't effect the luminosity (brightness) of the original image. The result of this is that grays turn into your chosen color but blacks and whites stay black and white.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-781063", "score": 0.7365458607673645, "text": "I'm trying to do some very simple image editing on a simple black and white image I got off the internet. The problem is that the image isn't perfectly black and white and many of the pixels are juuust off enough to make things like the bucket tool not work great. Is there some sort of tool or website I can use that will make all of the near-white pixels completely white / transparent and the near-blacks completely black?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-68", "score": 0.8342980146408081, "text": "Multiple ways, and by the way it's not just autistic *children* who can benefit from service animals. Among other things: * service animals can detect the early signs of a meltdown or shutdown, which are things often (but not exclusively) triggered by sensory overstimulation, and can provide a prompt to leave the situation causing that overstim * they can provide active stimulation to aid with grounding * they can help reinforce ritual, which is frequently important for autistic people" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-2490686", "score": 0.7157147526741028, "text": "My daughter is almost 7 and has \"mild\" autism. She has trouble with knowing strangers from friends, sleeping alone, sudden loud noises, transitions, etc. She desperately wants a companion animal to sleep with her and keep her company; basically be her friend. From a parents' perspective it would be great if we could also get a dog that might be able to help keep her safe, or calm her when she has a meltdown. And a dog that wants to sleep with her and keep her company at night would also be wonderful for her poor sleep deprived parents as well.\n\nCan anyone talk to me about ASD service dogs for kids? I would like to hear about your experience with them, how you found one, how long it took to get a dog from the time you applied, if there is an alternative to a full-fledged service dog, how you handled the price, what sort of continued training is necessary, etc.\n\nThe reason I ask about price and alternatives - the only place I have seen so far that specializes in ASD service dogs for kids wanted $17,000 USD. This cost is prohibitive, and I do not want to do fund raising as I am sure there are kids out there in greater need that could use the charity more.\n\nTraining a puppy ourselves is not an option. We tried adopting a puppy a few months ago, and we are all still heartbroken that we had to give her back to the rescue group. The puppy played very roughly, responding to the high energy kids in kind. My daughter ended up scared of the puppy, even though she still loved it dearly. We had to draw the line when the dog started dragging our toddler around the floor while playing.\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nedit to add: sorry for the typo in the title\n\nedit again to add:\n\nShe would not be tethered. If the dog is trained to follow her when working, that would be all that was needed. She isn't a runner, the only danger the dog would hopefully help with would be keeping people from inviting her into their van for some candy just by being present. Not sure that one is even possible really, but it would at least make us feel better if she had the dog with her when she went out to play in the neighborhood. (not that she has done that more than three times in the past two years, and was only one to two houses away while we were outside working in the yard)\n\nHer meltdowns are infrequent. She is the sort that would seek the dog out for hugs if she was melting down. From what I have read, the majority of the responsibility for handling the dog would be on the parents rather than on the child in the case of an ASD service dog for kids.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-90043", "score": 0.6793279647827148, "text": "Because animals aren't able to speak, the majority of communication between us and them is done through facial expressions and body language. This also explains how psychiatric service dogs do their jobs so well - they're trained to notice small changes in body language and act upon it!", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-2019651", "score": 0.6773788928985596, "text": "Background: I was diagnosed with ADHD sometime in middle school and given medication for it until high school when I stopped because I was hyper focusing when I would have too much caffeine. \n\nI am now in college and thinking about how when I had pets, any kind of pet, I was more on top of my schedule and would stick to it better. I am thinking of getting a dog to help me keep on top of school work and help me have a schedule, but I don’t want to just slap an ESA title on it. My friend is currently training her service dog herself for mobility, and I’m wondering if I could do the same.\n\nProblem is, the only real task that I would think of that the dog would really need is medication reminders and fetch meds because I’m lazy. Does anyone out there have a service dog for ADHD that could tell me what their dog helps them with?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1882974", "score": 0.6744778156280518, "text": "\n\n\nFRANKLIN, Wis. (CBS 58)- A 9-year-old Franklin boy with autism has been approved for a service dog that would help him do better in school and at home, but before he’s able to get one, he’ll need the community’s help.\n\nMatthew Viglione is your typical happy 9-year-old boy, but he was diagnosed with autism, ADHD, obsessive behaviors and developmental delay at the age of three. At times he’s had to do 40 hours of therapy a week. \n\n\nIf you’d like to help Matthew reach his goal of earning a service dog, click ", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2489003", "score": 0.672189474105835, "text": "I’ve searched the thread, but I’m specifically wondering what tasks your psychiatric service dogs perform to help you? Particularly anyone with PTSD. What tasks does your dog do to help you, how does it help, and what made you decide that a service dog would be able to help you in those areas?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1297310", "score": 0.668677568435669, "text": "I'm a paraeducator for a kinder special needs class with half the kids on the high end of the spectrum. I am having great difficulty reigning the autistic kids in. For example, during circle time, one of the kids will stand up. I will tap on his shoulder and point to the chair signaling him to sit down. Nothing. I will then continue to point to the chair and say \"Danny sit down please!\" Nothing. As a last resort, I'll grab under his armpits and pull him down onto the chair. The most disheartening thing is that whenever the lead teacher gives them a direction, she rarely has to ask more than twice so I try replicating her techniques to no avail.\n\nI've been reading up on ABA, autism and different teaching techniques, but most books I find just define concepts and give vague examples. Does anyone know of any resources that write out specific scenarios and how to handle them so I can get a better idea of how to approach certain behaviors and determine the appropriate consequences?\n\nI really want to be a special ed teacher, but I feel my inability to help the lead teacher control problem behaviors so she can effectively teach will kill my chances.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-842774", "score": 0.6662497520446777, "text": "I'm 20f with an invisible disability and an alert/response dog. I work with a youth organization and come in contact with a lot of kids and adults at events ranging from a few hours to week long camps. \n\nThe kids are usually pretty good when I explain that my dog helps me stay safe (I use the superhero analogy with younger kids) and they're cool with the no petting while she's vested rule. It probably helps that I let them pet if they ask and she's 'naked'.\n\nThe problem I have is with adults. Most completely disregard the no pet rule and even try to call her over while she's working. I've told them that I could get seriously hurt and end up in the hospital if she misses an alert, but they don't seem to care. The adults also ask about why I have her becuse they know service dog = disability but I \"look fine\". I tell them she does med alert/response and that I don't talk about it with people, and they go off about \"you can trust me, I won't tell anyone\". I feel like they only do it because I'm young, and I'm sick of it. \n\nTL;DR What works for keeping adults from petting/distracting your SD? How do you respond to rude/invasive questions? What is the most effective, youth organization friendly way to tell people to buzz off?\n\nEDIT: Thank you everyone for your suggestions! I had a couple of patches with small stop signs and have recently swapped them for larger stop signs that work better. I'm getting better about being firm with people and telling them that their questions are rude. Thanks again for the help!", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-2490362", "score": 0.6656107902526855, "text": "I am epileptic and am training my own dog since I don't have frequent enough seizures to qualify for dogs from most organizations. She is doing pretty well in training but is only 11 months old and has puppy energy. How do most service dogs get their energy out, since they are supposed to be cool and collected in most circumstances?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2489095", "score": 0.6648491024971008, "text": "My lawyer has asked for a letter outlining my disabilities and the use of my service dog to help me with those. I have no idea how to give her a guideline of what I need or how the letter should be structured. I have autism ptsd bipolar borderline personally disorder and other anxiety/panic disorders. My dogs tasks are to give deep pressure therapy when I'm in an episode to block people from coming up to me to alert me to an oncoming episode to interrupt harmful behavior and to find and guide me to a family member if I need help. Every time I have tried to work I have ended up in the mental hospital and even with my service dog helping me my panic attacks are still frequent even if they don't last as long or force me to stop everything and go home i feel me stopping and letting my dog task would still be a lot to also add a job on top of", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-115079", "score": 0.6622713804244995, "text": "Therapy dogs do not qualify under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). _URL_0_ page 4: \"Social/Therapy Animals Social/therapy animals provide emotional support in places such as elder care facilities and hospitals. These animals do not have the same legal status as assistance/service animals and are not mentioned in the ADA. Many visiting therapy dogs help physically stimulate people in nursing homes or assisted living facilities by playing ball, being brushed or petted, and going for walks. Although many therapy animals are dogs, any type of animal that is good natured can be used to provide these services. Some animals, including horses, help in reaching people that were once thought unreachable.\" If you're not an American citizen, different laws may, of course, apply.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-2808520", "score": 0.6613485813140869, "text": "For those with service dogs what tasks do they help you with? And what size are they? What is too small? Is a dog a little over knee high a proper size for light mobility tasks such as picking things up?", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2491090", "score": 0.6591764688491821, "text": "Backstory,\n\nI’m a guy in my 20s and I have MS. At one time, my hands were completely paralyzed and my legs were numb from my knees to my waist. Since treatment, I have completely recovered, but there’s no guarantees that this will last forever.\n\nI have a 5 month old wheaten terrier and he is extremely bright. I’d love to train him to be my SD, but I don’t exactly know what to do.\n\nWe are in a puppy class now and he will be attending day school classes twice a week. This will get us to work towards basic canine good citizenship manners. \n\n\nThat said, how do I specifically make him my service animal? I’d like to future proof it and have him assist me in some ways that could help with MS in the future, even if I don’t need them *right now*.\n\nUnder these conditions, am i allowed to start bringing him places as a service animal in training? Please help!", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2809043", "score": 0.6553012132644653, "text": "Service animals]( have long been used by persons to assist with disabilities, both physical and mental. In the United States, there is no official registry of service animals. Per [ADA rules, companies are limited to questions they may ask regarding service animals:\n\n&gt; When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.\n\nA recent situation is when emotional support animals are being claimed as being applicable under the ADA. These emotional support animals are not required to be trained, which has led to several incidents, most notably with regards to air travel where emotional support animals are exempted from pet travel fees and storage restrictions.\n\n\nEmotional support dog attacks man on plane.\n\n\nEmotional support animal bites child\n\nThese laws have even been used to bring non-traditional ADA animals on air travel, such as a live turkey.\n\n\nAccommodating service animals is also an issue for landlords]( who are required by the ADA to accommodate service animals despite the landlord having an otherwise no-pet policy, which can include emotional support animals. However, it is [incredibly easy to get an animal certified as an emotional support animal, to the extent that you can get a certificate over the internet for less than a hundred dollars.\n\n\nThose opposed to increased regulations of service-animals present the argument that creating such a system would be detrimental to the disabled.\n\n&gt; Not all individuals with a disability have easy access to a medical doctor, and some cannot afford a visit to a medical doctor. A person with a diagnosed seizure disorder, for example, might not see a doctor regularly and making a doctor’s appointment just to get an official letter could be expensive.\n\n&gt; The requirement to get this license and equipment to identify an animal as a service dog. What costs fall upon the individual with the disability (a fee to apply, the cost of a vest or harness that is specially made)? What costs are required of the taxpayer to fund someone to test dogs and hand out licenses? Cost and confidentiality for the person with the disability is a huge concern – and one the ADA intended to avoid as it does not require medical documentation or vests for dogs.\n\n&gt; The obedience and skills required are too subjective\n\nThe costs of owning a service animal are significant]( and roughly seventy percent percent of disabled persons are unemployed, so even small increases in cost can put a service animal out of reach of many disabled persons who could benefit from them. There are also [many different roles and types of service animals, and it would be hard to encapsulate all the useful benefits of service animals in a standardized certification process.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2436880", "score": 0.6547523736953735, "text": "Ok, so It's a bit of a long story, apologies but stick with me. My wife and I have been together for about three years, and married for the last five months. We are 23 and 25 respectively. About a year after we started dating she got diagnosed with autism, her health has always been up and down and we knew something was going on, so it was nice to finally have an answer. She is considered high functioning, which is why it went undiagnosed for so long, but she does have moments throughout her days where she just can't function because of it. So as life goes on for the next year or so we decided it would be best if she could get a service dog as her health makes it difficult for her to get out of the house or even function most days, and we believe a service dog would help her significantly. She's been on disability for the last couple of years to help out with paying for her appointments and medications, but it's never enough to cover the whole cost of it all, leaving us to pay about $200 in addition every month. Myself, I barely bring in enough to pay for all of our living expenses, but we make it work and live comfortably. I'm currently trying to find a better paying career, but that's another topic. Anyways, we are looking into getting a service dog for her but all of the licensed companies we talk to want to charge us $15,000 and up for a professionally trained hypoallergenic(which is what we need). How are we supposed to afford that? Insurance won't help and if disability sees us with more than $2k in the bank account (which is how we have to pay the transaction, no cash) or sees us asking to raise money, they will stop supporting her (which we can't afford). So what it all comes down to is, how do people get service dogs? I see a lot of people worse off than us walking around with these animals. How do they do it? And what can we do to make it work financially as disability and insurance seem to be working against us?\n\nTLDR: How can people on disability afford to get the service dogs they need?\n\nEdit: Thanks for all of the responses, to clarify as you've requested... The service dog needs to be a large breed as it needs provide what she calls \"deep pressure therapy\", be able to help support her weight when she starts to fall when she feels weak, keep strangers from approaching her from behind, be able to detect stress induced seizures and provide comfort, and retrieve items for her when she can't move. It also has to be hypoallergenic as to not get fur everywhere and trigger her. There are a few other things but this is what comes to mind immediately and what I think are the most important.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-2807939", "score": 0.6533673405647278, "text": "I am a bit naive with the idea of a service dog, but I've seen posts on reddit where users get very upset about petting service dogs. Whats the deal?", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1245404", "score": 0.6533269882202148, "text": "Hi [England],\nmy son is on the spectrum. Recently the situation has been so bad that he attacked and hurt a few teachers at a specialist school. It is a school for children with behaviour problems so we would expect them to be able to handle it. He has attempted suicide afterwards and I took him to A&amp;E where he finally got some medication that seems to help with his anger. However we have also been referred to social services (which we tried to get a referral for a while too). I was expecting them to be able to help more with support, for example respite care, but when I talked to the worker on the phone she said there is not much she can do, she can refer to special needs unit for respite, but otherwise not offered anything else. I am not sure what else we can ask, possibly housing as we live on 4th floor and my son has attempted to kill himself by jumping and he has to share a room with sibling which is hard for him and our private landlord limits us with adaptations, but what else could we ask from social services to help us manage better? CAMHS and Family help have already been involved, but don't seem to do much else either.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2491115", "score": 0.6505261063575745, "text": "I’ve decided that a service dog would help me with my issues. Currently i have a dog who is a two year old rescue mutt. He’s very smart, and loves people and being around them. I was wondering if it would be a good idea for me to train him vs get a new puppy and train it. Anyone have any advice?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1885475", "score": 0.6498279571533203, "text": "Hi everyone, \nI don’t know if this is the proper sub to post this but my family is sort of struggling.\nMy older sister(21F) was diagnosed with autism when she was 2 years old. She is considered low functioning but can say her basic wants and needs like “Potty, I want eat, I want books, etc...” she also has epilepsy. She runs, jumps, and even knows how to use an iPad. \nA lot of the ways we can tell how my sister is feeling is by her attitude and body language since there is a huge language barrier. Mood swings aren’t anything new to us, since she started having a period her emotions do go haywire every once in a while. Recently though self harm has been part of her cycle. She becomes extremely agitated and if she a not going after my mom, dad or me, she goes after herself. Digging her nails and biting into her face, hands, arms, and legs. This only lasts for about a day or two and then she goes back to her normal happy self. I was wondering if anyone has any advice or knowledge on how I can help my sister. We’ve tried a lot of things and a lot of the Facebook groups are not any help.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-842268", "score": 0.6469759345054626, "text": "Hi everybody! This is my first ever reddit post so bear with me! My name is Em (18f) and I have a dog named Maverick (1M). Maverick is a rescue and we think he is a shepherd mix. I was recently found to be hypoglycemic which for context means that my blood sugar has a tendency to drop extremely low without warning which can be a major safety concern. On top of this I have a variety of mental illnesses including depression and anxiety which leads to sometimes debilitating panic attacks. All of this could be solved without a service dog but in my specific case my family and I think it would be life changing for me to own a service animal. Maverick is a wonderful dog with excellent temperament, very intelligent and I believe fully capable of learning and performing tasks to help me, and he has already exhibited some natural alerts for both my blood sugar and panic attacks. Now comes the reason I am struggling to determine the morality of training him to be my service animal. When Maverick was rescued, the rescue found him with a previously broken leg that had been healing incorrectly. He's been seen by several veterinarians including an orthopedic specialist. All of the veterinarians he has seen have advised that we keep the leg unless it begins to clearly bother him and impede on his mood. Currently it is not amputated but we plan on getting him looked at by another vet we highly respect to get a second opinion. I want to have comments and discussions on whether it would be morally right for me to start to train him for part time work. I personally leaning towards not putting him into work unless he becomes an amputee. Please stay kind but I'm looking for any advice I can get.\n\nQuick Edit: I'm not looking to putting him into any out of home work unless he becomes a tripod. I don't personally believe it would be right to work him outside the home with a broken leg and am hoping the next vet he sees will be able to give us an honest opinion. Based on spending every day with him I feel it would be best to amputate.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-638620", "score": 0.6463871002197266, "text": "When was it time to consider a service dog for epilepsy? How many seizures in consistence does the neuro consider a service dog? I'm not too sure what kind of questions to ask, so I'm taking it to Reddit! Tell me about your pals :)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-69", "score": 0.7790570855140686, "text": "> This makes no sense because downloads are not limited like physical copies of books are. Downloads are limited in the sense that the library has to pay for every copy of a book that they own, including digital copies. So they pay the publisher $X for permission to lend some fixed number of digital copies. And the reader software is set up to that the borrower isn't able to retain possess of that copy forever. If that weren't the case, then book sales would drop essentially to nothing, since everyone could just get a free copy of any book whenever they wanted for as long as they wanted." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-748537", "score": 0.7368586659431458, "text": "I doubt that I'll ever come to that point...but it's good to have options. Also, I don't wanna delete the books I downloaded. Is there a way around this one?\n\nThanks!", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-557839", "score": 0.7330824136734009, "text": "Title. I want to grab my books before they sell out of the bookstore or give some time to amazon to deliver them. Especially since my program expects you to have read a sizable chunk on the first day.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-141901", "score": 0.7325968146324158, "text": "Wow there is a lot wrong in this thread. Libraries do not need a license to rent out books or movies. They purchase every copy (usually from wholesalers), which means they now have the right of first sale, which essentially says that they can do whatever they want with that copy, including loaning it out or reselling it. Meanwhile, torrents create copies of the content. On a DVD, the content stays on there, no copy is made. If you wanted, you could do the same thing. Do you need anyone's permission to loan a DVD to a friend? Well neither do libraries. All goes back to what copyright actually is: the right for a content owner to determine when copies can be made. If no copy is made, no copyrights have been violated.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-108100", "score": 0.73244309425354, "text": "The library has to pay for each copy of the book that they own. If a particular book is checked out frequently enough, the library system will purchase more copies of the book so people don't have to wait as long for it to become available for them to read, which means more money goes to the author/publisher.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-556741", "score": 0.7284528613090515, "text": "Why YSK: Some stores such as Barnes and Noble have a 30 day return policy. If you bring something back with a gift receipt, you have 60 days to return it. I’ve used this before with other stores as well, they’re more lenient on policy and accepting a return when they think it was gifted to you. If you don’t need to return it, okay you got a gift receipt. If you need to, there’s an extended window.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-613012", "score": 0.7254630923271179, "text": "I am sorry if this is not the sub to post this but, today I downloaded a book in Bavaria and I was wondering if I should expect a fine. I was trying to see if there was any legal way to get the book (game of thrones) and clicked on one of those automatic download sites by mistake. I deleted the book right away but I don't know if that really makes a difference.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-99309", "score": 0.7235792875289917, "text": "There is a small metal strip placed in the spine of the books. This strip is demagnetized by the librarian when you check it out (you’ll see them run the spine of te book across the machine). If the book hasn’t been demagnetized it is detected by the gates at the door.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-72593", "score": 0.7221308350563049, "text": "The person who sells the book gave the library permission to distribute the book. The person who sells the book did not give the website where you downloaded the book the permission to distribute the book.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-371888", "score": 0.7209599018096924, "text": "I'm a college student and we are required to purchase book licenses from cengage website. The issue here is that once the term is finished it's not possible to access that book again even though I paid the full price of the book.\nSomeone help me please.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-825126", "score": 0.7177256345748901, "text": "When I click to add, it just doesn't. Is there a limit or something? I did remove some books from my list, but no luck.\n\nEdit: Actually it turns out I can't remove any of the books. I refresh and its still in my library.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1913311", "score": 0.7172135710716248, "text": "Tapped on a book I downloaded but haven’t started to read yet, but it’s at like 1% progress now. Just wondering. Already tried deleting and downloading again.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-5779", "score": 0.7169505953788757, "text": "I work at a library and do AP for bills like overdrive & similar. Each time the ebook is \"checked out\" we get charged. What we do is prepay the account for the year for the fees accrued from what's borrowed and also prepay a contract for the content on over drive and another for the use of the database. Basically it's how overdrive, publishers & writers etc make their money. Now it's doesn't cost as much as if you were to buy the regular book, or even an ebook on Amazon or B & N. I guess you can say it's like a renters fee like what you'd use to pay to rent movies from blockbuster. But it's the library's expense and you the patron get it free.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-558230", "score": 0.7154402136802673, "text": "Do Audible ever add more books or is it the same throughout the week?\nHow do returns work when you still want one of the books?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1241836", "score": 0.715391218662262, "text": "I've been using Audible happily for about 3 years, I could easily exchange books online. But now all the items are \"Not eligible for return (why?)\" so I need to call or chat them each them. \n\nWhy did they change this - it's super annoying.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-114631", "score": 0.7152385711669922, "text": "Publishing companies don't like the idea of anyone being able to read their books anytime for free. So when they let libraries use their ebooks, they make the library put a limit on how many people can use it at once.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-95282", "score": 0.7150605320930481, "text": "When things are being downloaded, they're stored in temporary download caches (temp files, browser caches, etc). If you cancel/stop the download, it **should** be deleted from your temporary cache as part of the canceling process. Sometimes it fails to happen, so it's recommended that you manually delete your temp caches from time to time.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2368533", "score": 0.7148101329803467, "text": "Technically they are open, but by appointment to browse? I used to love sitting in the library quietly reading books. Why is this not returning?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-2356290", "score": 0.7146295309066772, "text": "You know your local library has a certain book. \n\nYou start a project based on the parts you remember from that book. You say ‘this isn’t that complicated, I don’t need the book.’\n\nYou start the project. You need the book. \n\nYou go to your library’s website and look up the book you need. Someone has it checked out, it won’t be back for weeks. (How dare some jerk check out books on making things when YOU need to make things?!)\n\nYou look at your library account.\n\nYou checked this book out last week. \n\nYou are that jerk.\n\nHow dare you.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1730837", "score": 0.7140767574310303, "text": "As a society (at least in the U.S.), we tend to hold up libraries as one of the great equalizing institutions. We spend taxpayer money to make books, computers, movies and music available for anyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Everyone is encouraged to register, borrow, and consume as much media as they like, free of charge, and we generally think of that as not only a public good, but one of the great institutions of a civilized society.\n\nIt seems odd to me, then, that society looks at the illegal copying of copyrighted content in such a different lens. If I borrow a movie from the library, I'm doing a \"good\" thing. If I download a copy from a torrent, I'm doing a \"bad\" thing. If I borrow a friend's copy, that's fine. If I copy a friend's copy, I'm doing something illegal.\n\nI realize this topic has been debated endlessly in the courts, but I am curious if anyone can help me better understand -- from an ethics-based point of view -- why we treat the origin of a piece of consumed content so differently. Why is it any more ethical to borrow an ebook book from a library via Overdrive than it is to download a scan to my Kindle?\n\n(I understand that the library actually does purchase a copy, but when you amortize the library's purchased price of a given book over the number of people who borrow it, the amount the copyright holder makes per-borrower has to be incredibly small, approaching zero for all intents and purposes).", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1301279", "score": 0.7137795686721802, "text": "I have a few books that aren't selling or being read, like, at all. I want to remove them and try on another site, but I still have two months enrolled in KU. Is there a penalty for unpublishing books from the service? I have another book that has been read on KU, if I remove it, will I lose the page reads?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-70", "score": 0.6577190160751343, "text": "He has a small sensor in his mouth and uses his cheek muscle to type with it. His computer also has the ability to predict and correct words for him." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-44191", "score": 0.6248111724853516, "text": "If Sastrabitrals explanation is too detailed, here's the gist. It's going to change how the computer functions at its most basic level. They might add them on to current designs to boost up a standard computer's performance. Or they might build something new from the ground up. But either way, the folks who put it together will create programming languages that shouldn't be much different (or much more complicated) than what is used currently. Now, making new programming languages for them may be very different because a quantum computer doesn't use the on/off transistors that the entire digital age has been built on.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-3574", "score": 0.624772846698761, "text": "Google took hundreds of hours of accurately subtitled video and fed it to a machine learning program that linked sound snippets to written words statistically. Then they had it run through YouTube matching sounds in videos to words, creating subtitles. They then flagged incorrect subtitles and fed that information back into the program. They continue to do this, refining and improving the program over time. I didn't actually look any of this up. But I'm familiar with the technology, and it's kind of what Google does.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-416525", "score": 0.6245759129524231, "text": "So, I\"ve just constructed something so genius.\n\n1) Open 2 tabs with cleverbot\n2) Start the first conversation with \"Think for me\"\n3) Copy the reply from tab#1 to tab#2\n4) Alternate replies from each tab, resulting in clever bot talking with itself.\n5) 5 minutes later, be shocked at the result!\n\nShocking!\n", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-237925", "score": 0.62448650598526, "text": "Congratulations, you just found the theory behind most \"spy\" listening devices. They bounce a laser off of something reflective, and recreate the modulation of the reflected light into sound waves. You're literally listening to the speech of the people in the room bouncing off of the window.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-253025", "score": 0.6244633197784424, "text": "If I remember right from Hawking's \"The Universe in a Nutshell\" you can predict the probability of certain outcomes but not the outcomes themselves. You're essentially predicting the [wave function](_URL_1_) of the universe.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-189612", "score": 0.624252200126648, "text": "Simple. You are put in a room with a 2 keyboards and 2 screens. On one end there is a person, on the other, a programm. You ask both whatever questions you want, for how long you want. The person is not trying to trick you. If you can't figure out reliably which is the computer and which is the person, the programm has passed the turing test", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-97981", "score": 0.6241733431816101, "text": "There's a sensor that detected when he twiches that muscle. That directs the computer towards a control like a single key on your keyboard. Except he types really really really slow. Like 1 word a minute.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-243498", "score": 0.6240140199661255, "text": "Some time ago, astronomers in England discovered a black hole that generates sound waves with a frequency of 10 million years: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-120477", "score": 0.6239762306213379, "text": "Depends on what is being used but a couple of options. 1) speech recognition, much like on your phone when you use Siri/Cortana/ok Google. 2) Delayed transmission with someone typing, not delayed by much, just enough to let them transcribe.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-246793", "score": 0.6239392161369324, "text": "It's not a solved problem so the refutation is philosophical. Susskind and t'Hooft are exceedingly smart people, they justify their conclusion by holding information conversation as the more fundamental principle in physics. To them, they know GR must be incomplete at some level, therefore the extension/modification to GR should retain information conservation. > Doesn't that just mean there is an error with the assumptions of quantum theory that require information to remain? It could very well be that, or it could be a problem with general relativity. Or even both. We really don't know as we have no experimental way to determine the outcome. As I understand it Hawking has since conceded his position that black holes truly destroy information, but the argument that he used to convince himself is controversial.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-246065", "score": 0.6239333152770996, "text": "Most physicists, now including Hawking, believe that the information is conserved due to _URL_0_ Which is I think similarish to what you were saying. The problem is that we're combining quantum mechanics and general relativity for black holes, which don't work together, and until someone sorts out a theory of everything we won't be able to solve this conclusively.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2561", "score": 0.6239213943481445, "text": "I hope you get to read this. Look for a YouTube channel named singingbanana the guy is a matematician and he has an awesome explanation on how the enigma machine works. Found the link for you (wanted to watch it again) _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-245695", "score": 0.6238587498664856, "text": "I am under the impression that weather forecasting runs up against turbulence rather quickly. In that case, I think it's difficult/currently impossible to create accurate models generally which is a necessary precursor to creating algorithms to run said models. But about quantum computers, they are not able to solve any problems that normal computers cannot. However, they can solve some problems much more quickly than normal computers. So unless the problem for weather prediction comes down to efficiency, quantum computers won't be much help.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-246338", "score": 0.623791515827179, "text": "I recently visited the National Museum of Computing in Bletchley Park, UK. They have up and running a pretty old computer based on Dekatron termionic tubes (gas filled tubes, to be exact), the WITCH: [WITCH](_URL_0_) It has the most basic instructions set and the status of every single gate is easily readable just looking at the tubes. It can be perhaps the most effective way to teach Computer Science in existence, in fact they are using it to explain how a cpu works to children. Definitely worth a visit!", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1691350", "score": 0.6237419247627258, "text": "This machine has really been piquing my interest lately. I think it will be very important one day. \nDo you think their intentions of understanding the Big Bang are completely pure or is there a lot more going on then they allow us to know? What will happen when they finally reach light speed? Will it create a black hole or a tear in the fabric of space? Let me know what you think.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-175854", "score": 0.6237390637397766, "text": "There is an internal microphone that picks up all the sound \"happening\" around the clapper device, and sends it to what is essentially a small computer that translates that sound to information. If that sound is a clap, it will know. (Claps usually fall between the range of 2200 to 2800 hertz, which the little chip will identify. All other sounds are ignored.) When it \"hears\" a clap, and the computer realizes the sound is indeed a clap, it will send an electrical signal to the switch, that will either switch on or off.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-323754", "score": 0.6237269043922424, "text": "I'm not sure it would be possible - wouldn't you need more than one particle to store the information about a single particle, hence you'd need a computer bigger than the universe is in order to model the universe? Then there's another problem that just occurred to me - if the computer you were using to model the universe existed, it would be within the universe, which means the computer would have to be modelling itself modelling itself modelling itself... etc. and now my brain is bleeding and coming out my eyes.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-90679", "score": 0.6237125396728516, "text": "When listening to someone else talk, you're using the listening and interpreting sections of your brain. When you're speaking, you're first forming an idea, then deciding how you want to phrase that idea, then possibly translating that phrasing in your head, then trying to use a combination of airflow, jaw movement, tongue movement, and lip movement that are not necessarily familiar or natural to you to create a series of sounds in a particular manner, pitch, tone, intonation, speed, and precision. The aforementioned listening and interpreting portions of your brain are also in use while speaking. One is obviously more involved than the other.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-84722", "score": 0.6236954927444458, "text": "Communication to and from space is almost exclusively via radio. And in the case of Hubble it is unmanned so the process is automated on its end. It obeys commands from the ground though, so it isn't just sending pictures whenever it feels like it.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-74997", "score": 0.623659610748291, "text": "Sound has two main attributes, frequency and dynamics (pitch and loudness). This can be represented using electricity that goes up and down higher the louder it is, and moves faster the higher the frequency is. This electricity is then changed into magnetic energy. Tape is ran over the magnets at a certain speed, which transduces the representation to a magnetic reading on a tape. To get back to speakers, the reverse happens and the magnet is read and the information is changed to electricity. The electricity runs over wires to the speakers. The electricity is then converted to magnetism again, and the change in magnetism pushes and pulls the speakers at the correct speed to recreate the original sound.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-71", "score": 0.7708209156990051, "text": "It will do whatever it is programed to do in that situation. Self driving cars are not true conscious A.I - they are just really, really complex \"if...then\" programs. If it gets into a situation where an accident is unavoidable, it will do what its programing tells it to do in that situation. As far as liability, we don't know yet. It's possible that the programer would be liable for the accident but we'll need a court case to set precedent before we really know." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-98468", "score": 0.7288678884506226, "text": "No laws have been decided for this yet, so nobody can say for sure. There is also a big chance it won't be a blanket ruling as in 'X is always at fault with every accident with a self driving car'. It might end up depending on what exactly failed (was it a sensor, a software issue, neglected maintenance by the owner) and how the accident played out.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-191518", "score": 0.723410427570343, "text": "Self driving cars have a large number of sensors, and can detect when the car is sliding. In the same way you \"feel the road\" the software detects the slightest slide or slip and reacts accordingly", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-132035", "score": 0.720134973526001, "text": "No one really knows. There is no established case law to settle the issue. The fact is that the first truly autonomous accident will likely make it's way to the supreme court before we have an answer to this question.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-110612", "score": 0.7158474922180176, "text": "You have a bunch of sensors around you car that feed data to a central computer on the surrounding and the car itself. The central computer take decision and send electric signal to manœuvrer the car. Most control in a car today are no longer mechanical, but electronic anyway. The question is no, how will they not be prone to malfunctioning. The question is can they create less accidents than human. Yes a self-driving car can have a malfunctioning or be hack or lose power, etc. But a human can be distracted, reckless, not follow the rules, be drunk, be on drugs, be sleepy, etc. So far, even basic self-driving car of today seem to have be better at driving then human. But of course, the sample size is not that big and problem like hacking in the future could be a problem. But hacking didn't stopped pretty muche everybody to electronic for their life saving. The advantages are just better than the risk.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1110766", "score": 0.7140504717826843, "text": "Hello, i would like to write a paper on Self-Driving-Cars and i would appreciate something quotable. In particular i need to know how the self Driving car decides in a risky situation and how it handles it internally. It can be as technical as needed.\nThanks.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-42197", "score": 0.7133232355117798, "text": "If someone is intentionally jumping in front of cars, a self-driving car will stop. Real drivers should stop too. A self-driving car has near-instant reaction time and will likely stop considerably earlier than human drivers. Where in the hell do people jump in front of cars for fun? A self-driving car can detect small animals like cats and most likely squirrels. It will stop or avoid animals within reason, but never with risk to the passenger. A self-driving car can see in all directions, through fog and in pitch black darkness, and is never distracted, so it can stop for an animal much more quickly than a human driver. It probably won't detect butterflies. But humans usually don't either, especially at high speeds.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-8047", "score": 0.7122241854667664, "text": "> Can a self-driving car keep tabs of all the pedestrians around it too? Yes. A self-driving car also has (depending on how its implemented) a 360 degree field of vision, and has a reaction time that exceeds human reactions by an order of magnitude. A computer can begin stopping the car before you've even *noticed* the child in the road.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-6559", "score": 0.7107920050621033, "text": "Self-driving cars use more than just GPS to navigate; they also use onboard cameras to identify the road, other vehicles, pedestrians, traffic lights, and other potentially relevant information. If they lose GPS signal, they continue going along what was the plotted route until the signal is regained. As the technology improves, they can also gather data on *where* GPS is likely to fail (such as a tunnel or mall plaza). In these instances, their navigation can plot more detailed courses in advance since the computer is anticipating a loss of satellite feed for a bit.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-158234", "score": 0.7107047438621521, "text": "Extensive testing of these systems on all terrain has been conducted and will continue to be conducted. There are standard responses to certain situations that we should all do. For example if you're skidding, you turn into it to regain control. The car can do this, but faster than you can even think it. Modern cars even without all of the fancy cameras of self driving models are able to determine the ground conditions; for example modern Land Rovers can auto detect sand/gravel/loose dirt etc and adjust traction and gear differential accordingly. If you throw in visual and radar sensors as well, then the car will very very quickly know what condition the road is in. So what we have, is a car that can determine the road condition better and faster than a human, that can also respond to out of control situations faster than a human. It will also be able to respond to individual wheel traction etc automatically, which a human currently can't do anyway. Blizzards are fine as radar can see through it.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-147628", "score": 0.7096418738365173, "text": "I suppose there would have to be sensors in the wheels to sense different road conditions. But even then, it is hard to imagine a computer driven car reacting to changing conditions during a blizzard or something like that. Personally I hope the whole self driving car for everyone doesn't become reality in my lifetime.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-187048", "score": 0.7083103060722351, "text": "> We use all our senses to make a decision like that; like sight, hearing and judging of the speed and acceleration of the other car. The sensors and computer of a self-driving car are better at that than we are. I'm not sure why you think they wouldn't be. e.g. lidar is much more precise than the eye at judging speeds.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1535970", "score": 0.7082937955856323, "text": "Let's say the car is driving on a bridge and you encounter an imminent impact with a pedestrian. The only options are to collide with the pedestrian or swerve off of the side of the bridge. How should the programmers program the car to respond?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1381509", "score": 0.7054855227470398, "text": "Say two self driving cars are going along, and through some glitch or another, they crash into each other. Who would be at fault? My father was saying that whoever makes the self-driving cars would be sued, but is that true?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-99824", "score": 0.704820454120636, "text": "Same way as humans; only trust the GPS so far, and look for the markers signifying construction areas. The huge sensor suite can, with sufficient software, actually make the car more aware than a human driver and many choices can be made faster than a human would need to even realize there was a problem.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-685884", "score": 0.7023559808731079, "text": "My understanding is that as of yet, self driving cars are not able to drive in the rain, snow, on ice, etc.\n \nConditions that impair visibility for humans as well, that can often be described as inherently hazardous.\n\nI see this as a potential long term problem. Not necessarily that the cars will be worse drivers than humans, but that the manufacturer won't want to accept liability if something happens in inherently unsafe driving conditions.\n \nThe problem for me is that I absolutely must get to work, even if there is a foot of snow on the ground, even though I am risking getting stuck in the wilderness and freezing, even though I am risking sliding off a mountain, I must go to work.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-144671", "score": 0.7020025849342346, "text": "These laws have not yet been worked out, so there's no answer at this time. However, I suspect a driver engaging the 'self-drive' mode of his car assumes all legal responsibility for what the car does. So in your scenario it would be handled as if both owners were driving.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-135262", "score": 0.7018330097198486, "text": "Few states have laws that cover self-driving cars. The few that do, I believe, have laws requiring a driver be behind the wheel, and that driver is held responsible for accidents. In the future, laws will have to change. I suspect that things will eventually settle out to something like laws regarding aircraft accidents. It will be investigated to determine if someone was at fault. If the manufacturer screwed something up, they'll be held liable. If the owner screwed something up (took over manual control, or didn't maintain the car properly) they'll be held liable.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-161979", "score": 0.7010217308998108, "text": "The Tesla software isn't autonomous driving; it's more like enhanced cruise control. The driver is required to basically keep their hand on the wheel, and Tesla expects them to still pay attention. Tesla has built this as \"the driver is still driving the car.\" Like autopilot on planes and like normal cruise control, the human is still responsible for safe operation; that means the driver has to be attentive, licensed, and sober, or they're breaking the law. If the vehicle gets in a crash, it'd be the driver's fault. The main issue with autonomous cars is that there is no human who can reasonably be responsible for safe operation; that's not the case with Tesla.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-309882", "score": 0.6999841332435608, "text": "I think that is the case. The car would likely stop, then hand the car over to the human driver. > Google employees putting their safety where their mouths are and commuting daily could go a long way toward convincing the public that robotic cars are safe. Of course, the Mountain View, California area isn’t the most arduous of terrains on which to test road worthiness. Acknowledging this, Google engineer, Chris Urmson, writes “…we’ll need to master snow-covered roadways, interpret temporary construction signals and handle other tricky situations that many drivers encounter.” _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-306692", "score": 0.6978928446769714, "text": "Your question is very broad, so I'll do my best to answer it. The true answer is that we don't know the software approach used because most of the companies developing self-driving cars are using closed-source software. The likely answer is that they may have different approaches but are using the same fundamental principles; they write rules of the road and then collect tons of driving data for processing to better refine the rules given to the cars. To your second question, the answer is probably yes, but if I knew what it was, I would be out developing it and not talking about it on Reddit ;-)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-72", "score": 0.74299156665802, "text": "\"The answer hinges on the fact that spicy foods excite the receptors in the skin that normally respond to heat. Those receptors are pain fibers, technically known as polymodal nociceptors. They respond to temperature extremes and to intense mechanical stimulation, such as pinching and cutting; they also respond to certain chemical influences. The central nervous system can be confused or fooled when these pain fibers are stimulated by a chemical, like that in chile peppers, which triggers an ambiguous neural response.\" Source: _URL_0_" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-15527", "score": 0.7057389616966248, "text": "Capsaicin in spicy food is what causes the burning sensation in your mouth. The capsaicin triggers a response from your brain that makes it seem as though something awful is going on in your mouth, hence the pain. When you go number two, the capsaicin causes the nerve endings around your anus to trigger the same response in your brain as when you first put the spicy food in your mouth. Humans are incapable of breaking down capsaicin. This is why it burn going in and coming out. As with most other things, people are able to develop a tolerance for spicy foods. This is why after years of eating spicy food, you're able to handle it a lot better than the first time you chomped on a raw jalapeno. Same goes for people whose cultures devour spicy food on a more frequent basis. The more you do it, the more you become used to it. Eating spicy food does not result in health problems, or at least I'm not aware of any; however, spicy food can aggravate existing gastrointestinal problems, such as ulcers.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-166125", "score": 0.7056740522384644, "text": "Most spicy flavored food contain a chemical called [capsaicin](_URL_1_). You see, \"spicy\" is not actually a flavor but an irritant to all mucosae (Mouth, stomach, intestines, and yes rectum/anus). When it comes into contact with our saliva it releases irritant vapors that end up going all through our mouth and by anatomy into our nasal cavity and through the [lacrimal duct](_URL_0_) into our eyes. One of the best ways our body has to get rid of chemical substances is throught secretion and elimination, hence, the runny nose (and also the crying).", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-90539", "score": 0.705203115940094, "text": "Because capsacin, the thing in chilies that you experience as heat, is an oil. The fats in milk combine with capsacin to neutralize it. Drinking water doesn't help because the capsacin resists it. But you could just as well drink butter or anything else fatty.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-301433", "score": 0.7051195502281189, "text": "[Here's an NYT article about spicy food and why we like it](_URL_0_) There are a lot of reasons given in this article, from protection against fungi, to lowered blood pressure, to \"benign masochism\".", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-180110", "score": 0.7048105597496033, "text": "If I'm not totally mistaken, spicy is meant to *deter* people from eating it. Those plants are trying to keep out of your mouth, so they are attacking it from the inside by being irritating. Runny nose, the heat, and the other actions are the body trying to get that irritant OUT. Your body thinks it's a bad thing, so it's attempting to get the bad thing out. Fortunately, my mind overrules my body's reaction, and I'll just keep shoveling vindaloo right down my gullet.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-185495", "score": 0.7042976021766663, "text": "Same reason peppers feel hot... the nerves that are fired by the flavor confuse the brain because the chemical reaction in the tongue/mouth nerves is near-identical to the one triggered by temperature.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-73428", "score": 0.7041125297546387, "text": "Pee is not the result of a direct line from your stomach to the bladder, unlike poo. When you eat food, it goes through your digestive tract (stomach, small and large intestine). In the intestines, broken down food molecules and water are absorbed into the bloodstream and then carried around the body to the cells that need it. Once the nutrients have been used up and waste products have been put in by the cells, the blood flows to the kidneys, which filter out these waste products and some water. The part of spicy food that tastes spicy, capsaicin, does not last very long in the bloodstream before being broken down into smaller molecules that don't have the same spicy effect.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-2641668", "score": 0.701616108417511, "text": "A friend bought a chili sauce for me with habanero chili, which is way hotter than I'm used to: The hottest I can get around here is basically jalapenos.\n\nIt's hot as fuck but my mouth literally waters when I think about eating it, so I take a small spoonful once in a while of it.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-186647", "score": 0.7012104988098145, "text": "Capsaicin, the chemical in chilli that gives it \"heat\", is soluble in fat. And milk contains fat. That's why, if you eat something that's too spicy, milk or yoghurt will help, whereas drinking water will do nothing at all.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-119742", "score": 0.7005729675292969, "text": "Capsaicin is the chemical that makes spicy things spicy. When your mucous membranes get hit by these chemicals, they become inflamed and go into defence mode. This means producing mucous to trap allergens and other undesirables, and keeping them out of your respiratory system by removing them via the nasal passage. In other words, your nose, eyes, and skin start watering as a defence against a irritating chemical. I basically copy pasted that from [here.](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-14339", "score": 0.7001951932907104, "text": "Carbonation is bubbles. Bubbles pop. That's why carbonated drinks feel tingly in your mouth. Have you ever blown bubbles outside, and had one pop close to you? Sometimes you get sprayed with the soapy water as the bubble pops. The same thing happens in your mouth. When the bubbles pop, the drink can spray the inside of your mouth. So what happens when you eat spicy food? Well, spicy food has a chemical in it called capsaicin. It touches your taste buds and makes them feel hot. When you drink a carbonated drink and you have capsaicin in your mouth, the bubbles pop, and they spread that capsaicin around to more taste buds. Instead of cooling your mouth down, it makes it spicier! Maybe that's what you are feeling. Not everyone feels the same thing. Some people don't mind the spicy flavor spreading. I like to drink beer with spicy food.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-134441", "score": 0.6999369263648987, "text": "Sounds like a your body reacted to possible high levels of capsaicin in the sauce they used for the wings, and your body went to work trying to cool you down with the sweating and other things. The watery eyes were also triggered when your tear ducts are sent into overdrive trying to expel the the irritants. The stomach cramps from it are again when the capsaicin comes into contact with the lining of your stomach causing it to become unsettled.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-94241", "score": 0.6994733810424805, "text": "I have not experienced hiccups after eating spicy food (And I eat it on a weekly basis) , nor have I seen or heard of this before. Could be the chemicals like capsaicin annoying the lungs.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-145010", "score": 0.6990633606910706, "text": "You can get used to eating physically hot food (by eating it often), but not build a \"tolerance\" for it. Chemicals make us interpret spicy food as \"hot\", but it's being actually hot that makes hot food \"hot\". Your body will never build up a tolerance to getting burnt.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-117770", "score": 0.6987006068229675, "text": "Pretty sure that capsaicin (the spicy chemical) really just makes the heat-sensitive cells in your mouth have a lower threshold for feeling heat. So basically, the regular heat of your mouth feels like burning because the cells that sense heat are very sensitive. Tiny bubbles popping on the cells feel like tiny explosions because they are so sensitive to heat after eating capsaicin.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-102901", "score": 0.698354959487915, "text": "Spicy foods, specifically chillis and peppers have something called capsaicin in them, which irritates the mucous membranes in your nose, hence making it run. It's basically a defense mechanism to get rid of the spice as it's technically in the plant to stop animals from eating it! Here is a little more info if you fancy a read! [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-88227", "score": 0.6977258324623108, "text": "The spiciness of spicy foods is typically found in an oil contained in the spicy food. Bread helps absorb the spicy oil. Milk helps to neutralize it. Being oil based, this is why drinking water doesn't help - water will just pass over the oils at best, or spread it around further at worst.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-62084", "score": 0.6975943446159363, "text": "It's a different chemical ([allyl isothiocyanate](_URL_0_)) in horseradish, mustard, and wasabi that causes the \"hot\" sensation than the chemical in peppers ([capsaicin](_URL_1_)). Being two unrelated chemicals, they each act differently upon your body, producing different sensations.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-103361", "score": 0.6970750689506531, "text": "Your tongue still has all the other types of tactile sensors your skin does, such as heat, pressure, pain, and cold. The capsaicin that makes spicy foods spicy binds to the heat receptors in your tongue and... stays there. The bond is pretty strong, which is why that spicy sensation is hard to get rid of. They will eventually break off and there are substances that can help with that.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-66185", "score": 0.6965470314025879, "text": "The main ingredient that makes chili hot is capsaicin. It activates a receptor called TRPV1 which also gets activated by heat and physical damage to the cells. This means that your brain interprets it as if your mouth is being scalded.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-73", "score": 0.8004274368286133, "text": "An NHL goal is 6 feet wide by 4 feet wide. I doubt there's many people actually large enough to block that entire area. And if there is someone that big, I doubt they'd be able to stand up and skate their way out to the net." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-32059", "score": 0.7534267902374268, "text": "A hockey goal is actually pretty big... 4'x6' iirc, nobody is *that* big. And hockey players can shoot for areas where the goalie isn't. If the goalie is standing, they'll go for the lower corners or between his legs. If the goalie is in butterfly or otherwise lower down, they'll go for upper corners. Goalies have to be quick to get back up from the butterfly position so they can be in the best position for the situation. Huge guys would be slower getting up.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-987351", "score": 0.7527987957000732, "text": "A lot of people that I talk to say that goalies should be fair game because of how much equipment they wear. \"How could they possibly get hurt, do you see the size of those pads?\" And the like. Here are a few main reasons why goaltenders should not be fair game: \n\n1. Equipment: Goaltenders look like they can probably take a lot more damage than regular players because of how much equipment they have on, but that is not the case. Goal pads are meant for blocking 10oz disks flying at 80+MPH from bruising their bones, not protecting them from physical contact. The chest protector is more of a pad that builds up the shoulders to make them bigger to block shots. It doesn't hug the shoulders like player pads do to prevent injuries and such. The mask is meant to deflect pucks and reduce the impact from direct hits. It doesn't fare well against a fall to the ice, and falls off easy because of it's design (to absorb the impact).\n\n2. Their position while playing the puck: Goaltenders shoot with their opposite hand, and also have gloves that inhibit their ability to get into a proper shooting/passing position. This results in a tall, venerable position that if a player does hit them (intentionally or unintentionally) they can do little to protect themselves from the hit. \n\n3. Their mindset: Goaltenders have a lot to think about in the crease. They watch the game and try to predict what is going to happen next and how they are going to handle it. One of the last things on their mind is worrying about getting laid out. \n\nTL;DR: 1. Equipment isn't designed to be hit. 2. They are in a venerable position 3. They aren't expecting it.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-57845", "score": 0.7219792008399963, "text": "It is part of the game. Many of hockey's star offensive players are small and fast. One strategy is to unnecessarily hit them hard to try to neutralize them. The counter strategy is to bring out the enforcer...a big player who isn't very skilled but can beat up the guy who is hitting the stars. They mostly serve as a deterrent, but often it will erupt into outright fighting. In a more general sense, when you have guys with sticks in their hands and blades on their feet, letting them indulge in a little fisticuffs when they get mad is probably a good idea.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1878787", "score": 0.7144378423690796, "text": "Hi guys. I tend to lurk around /r/hockeygoalies and /r/hockeyplayers to get tips and finally decided to take the plunge. This fall, I'm learning to play. Before the session starts, we're supposed to decide if we want to play forward, defense, or goalie. Netminders are always my favorite players on the team and I think it'd be really fun to try. However, it's kind of a big investment money-wise to try just because it looks like fun. Whereas I can get hand-me-down equipment to play forward or defense, I'm on my own for goalie. Secondly, my family (all who are current or former players) think I'm too big to play (I'm a 19yo 5'11\" 145lb female). \n\nTL;DR: Are there any actual size specifications to become a goalie? Why do you love playing in goal over other positions that made you front the money for it?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2361091", "score": 0.7122706770896912, "text": "It is of my opinion that the “incidental contact” with the goalies, and the subsequent no-penalty-calls are encouraging guys to skate through the blue paint and accidentally/on-purpose clip/interfere-with the goaltender.\n\nGoalies are responding by “defending themselves” with high blockers.\n\nIt’s a recipe for disaster and I think the league needs to do something about it.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1092862", "score": 0.7120001912117004, "text": " for tweet in thtiel\n\nBabcock told the team it's his fault - \n\nSorry to make a new thread but there was a lot of confusion in the GDT and all the explanations seem to be lost.\n\nBasically the team has the option to not replace someone in the box, but nobody ever does because it isn't worth the risk (the only way I could see it happening is if a team was already down a D-man or a key PK guy and another one of those guys got a major penalty). \n\nSo the reason why none of us had heard of that rule before is because it basically never happens. Thankfully we weren't punished by it, and goes to show that even the best coaches at the highest level can make mistakes.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-114552", "score": 0.7108078598976135, "text": "In older times in hockey, the best players would score a lot of goals. So opposing team would have big guys hit the good players a lot, resulting in them being stunned or injured. Hitting (checking) is an integral part of hockey, and the sport wasn't willing to give that up. So what do you do if your star player is getting hit? You get one of YOUR big guys to defend him and hit the opposing big guy, slow him down, maybe stun him a bit so he can't hit your star player. The other big guy isn't going to take that lightly, so fights develop. It is a consequence of hockey condoning the hitting of players.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-40375", "score": 0.7044268846511841, "text": "Hockey helmets are more about not getting hit by a puck. There are rules about hits to the head which try to mitigate incidences where concussions can occur. The helmet needs to be smaller and lighter so that it doesn't inhibit a player's performance because unlike football where you are running anticipated routes in short bursts there is a lot more time playing between stoppage times and the situations which players are in are constantly changing making players have to keep their heads on a swivel; a larger helmet would just get in the way.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-134210", "score": 0.7008529305458069, "text": "A hockey puck delivers a ton of force to a very small area, a direct hit to the mouth will shatter teeth even with a mouth guard. Human fighters can't deliver that kind of focused energy.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-85504", "score": 0.7005006670951843, "text": "It's not allowed. That's why there are penalties for fighting. Fighting is a result, usually, of three things. 1. Get your team to raise their game. I'm willing to drop gloves and get into a fight. What are you willing to do to get our team back into the game? 2. Defend a team mate. That little a-hole just unloaded a dirty hit on my guy, I'm going to make sure he doesn't think about doing that again. 3. To pay the price. I need to fight him to atone for a bad play that hurt someone or nearly hurt. This one is a rare one. Hockey is a sport of passion and grit. Players are tough as nails and don't like having their ice disrespected. If you allow a player from the opposing side to disrespect your team once what's to stop him from doing it again? Even worse if the ref keeps missing it or doesn't think it's a penalty.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-196407", "score": 0.6972613334655762, "text": "I feel like r/hockey could answer that better. I honestly never thought of that. it could be because it makes it easier to move the puck around with the ablity to wrap around the net.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-116493", "score": 0.6952552199363708, "text": "As goalies have developed better techniques and equipment for stopping the puck, there are better techniques and equipment for scoring. It's a simple evolutionary relationship between 2 adversaries as is seen in nature between predator and prey, or microorganisms and antibiotics, or whatever... in other words both sides need to \"adapt or die\".", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2153739", "score": 0.6945478320121765, "text": "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can have offsetting goaltender interference penalties... And yet... it was just called in my game lol.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1092180", "score": 0.6935951113700867, "text": "I have a dumb theory that Ovechkin should be on the PK. Not only would he be dangerous to score shorties, a la Nash, but teams could possibly be less aggressive because of their fear of his offense.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-714464", "score": 0.6927748918533325, "text": "although I follow hockey and am a big fan, there are still a lot of rules/way things are done that I don’t understand. If neither goalie is injured, how is it decided what goalie is going to be used ? I’ve noticed Anaheim uses Miller quite a bit, even when Gibson has been playing good and isn’t injured.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-648488", "score": 0.692005455493927, "text": "NHL rules say that if a team declines to participate in a shootout they will be given a shootout loss. Why would anyone ever choose this option? Is it there for a reason that I can’t think of?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1212982", "score": 0.6916221380233765, "text": "The Pekke Rinne swinging and missing got me wondering. Without actually commuting the penalty, can a player be disciplined? Say a player tried to Marty McSorely someone, but they missed. Is there a call? What would it be? Unsportsmanlike? Could they be suspended after the fact?\n\nCurious about this.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-32516", "score": 0.6914399266242981, "text": "If you can get another player ejected for \"hurting\" you, your team gets an advantage. The consequences for flopping aren't severe enough to discourage this, so players do it constantly. In the NBA egregious flopping can earn a technical foul, but even this isn't much of a deterrent and it's become common. In the NHL \"embellishment\" is a penalty that can leave your team a man down, which is usually significant enough to keep the flopping to a fake-high-sticking minimum.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1416596", "score": 0.6905941963195801, "text": "You have two options on how to protect your players:\n\n1) Protect seven forwards, three d-men, and one goalie\n\n2) Protect eight skaters (forward/d-men), and one goalie\n\nOf course there are no movement clauses and long term injuries to consider but with most of that aside who would you protect? \n\nLastly, if you were Vegas who would you then take from the remaining players on your team?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-2155450", "score": 0.6899518966674805, "text": "That's one point that almost never seems to be mentioned. \n\nA clean hit is shoulder to shoulder, right? But if a guy who's 6'4\" hitting a guy that's 5'10\", how is it supposed to be a clean hit? Are they supposed to bend down sort of? \n\nAlso, I see a lot of player bending down to gain positional advantage. What happens in that case? How do you check a short forward that's bending over?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-75", "score": 0.7554226517677307, "text": "Generally yes, anything generated by an algorithm can be reproduced if you know the \"initial\" settings. Numbers generated this way are referred to as \"psuedorandom\". There do, however, exist various dedicated hardware solutions that allow computers to pick truly random numbers. They work by basically installing in the computer some sort of sensor that can detect random properties of nature. An example might be some sort of detector that picks up low levels of radiation. While we can make statistical predictions of radioactive decay over time, the actual decay of individual particles is truly random, and cannot be predicted with perfect accuracy. A sensor designed to measure those tiny random variations and feed them to a computer could generate truly random numbers." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-115206", "score": 0.716562807559967, "text": "There are three cases if you are adding/multiplying two numbers. There is odd-odd, odd-even, and even-even. For addition and multiplication two of these turn out to be even which appears to give a 2 in 3 chance of getting an even number. However if you pick numbers at random, you are twice as likely to get an odd-even case. All of these events are equally likely: odd then odd, odd then even, even then odd, even then even This reduces the chance to 1 in 2 if you work through it.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-314420", "score": 0.7165274024009705, "text": "Yeah it's possible, but computers don't usually contain photon detectors or Geiger counters. Anyway, the entropy pool is generally big enough to generate significant randomness. /dev/random in Linux uses irq calls, which are not random but are (in most cases) non-detetministic. Edit: Yeah, I meant unpredictable, not non-deterministic. Systems can be non-deterministic (in theory), but I claimed the seed itself could be. My bad.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-740823", "score": 0.7160316705703735, "text": "So I have a text file with a bunch of random numbers, each number on a different line. The first part of my program is to open the file and calculate how many numbers there are in the file. I can get the program to open the file, but how would I go about calculating how many numbers there are? I need that number to do the rest of the problem.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-31002", "score": 0.7154490947723389, "text": "Same reason that answering 'C' 4x in a row pisses people off. We tend to see patterns in short runs of random numbers, even if they are aperiodic. A more annoying response is that your brain is deterministic and therefore at best can only come up with pseudorandom numbers.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-266307", "score": 0.715358316898346, "text": "> Are we truly selecting a random number ... ? I'm not going to attack the biology angles about memory, but I will say that the only truly random processes in the physical world are purely mechanical. Nuclear decay, electromagnetic interference (static on your television), ~~mutation of cells~~... those are random. Asking your computer for a random number - that's unpredictable (if you don't know the seed), but it's not random. Picking a number off the top of your head is certainly not random.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-8142", "score": 0.7152020335197449, "text": "Pseudo-random number generators use an algorithm to generate a number. The algorithm starts with a \"seed\" value to create the number. Then it crunches through the algorithm (essentially a formula). Since it is an algorithm, if the seed is the same, the result is the same. So systems will try to pick a seed value that is essentially random. For example, when the event occurs that triggers the RNG, take a few of the least significant numbers of the system clock. Such a system is generally good enough for a video game \"random\" number. If you are using cryptography to protect something valuable, however, you might want something that is more robust.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-291503", "score": 0.7141352295875549, "text": "Even if the _seed_ to a random number generator is _truly random_, the values output by the RNG are constrained to its construction. Of course, if you are starting from a binary file in the first place (what is its structure? what is its function? how was it obtained?), then I'd argue you are at a low-entropy starting point anyway, and a single or double bit flip during a copy isn't enough to alter that significantly. It's better to obtain random numbers by sampling real world noise, as /u/heyheyhey27 has mentioned in their comment. If you can produce adequately random numbers for your application by some process, why not take the results immediately into use, instead of feeding them into an inferior RNG? As to whether a number of bit flips (which would result in checksum errors) result in sufficiently random numbers, you can determine that by giving your binary output as input to a statistical randomness test (e.g. [diehard](_URL_0_) tests and [friends](_URL_1_))", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-2088103", "score": 0.7137541174888611, "text": "i really need to do something and i need a random number but all the numbers siri gives me are dumb x\n\nhaha thanks so much guys\n\naight apparently i’m using either 69 or 7", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2060385", "score": 0.7130001187324524, "text": "I am using **=Today()** to generate 10/12/16 in a cell. Now I need another cell to turn it into 101216. Anything I try to do with numbers always spits back 42655.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-321839", "score": 0.7128292918205261, "text": "Not really. The usual metaphor that people use to answer this question is: Pick a real number from 0 to 1. Now pick another number, you'll have to try an infinite amount of times until you pick the first number again.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-307816", "score": 0.7123673558235168, "text": "No. The string will be generated by a very simple algorithm using an entropy source (which could be hardware based or the program may ask you to press random keys or wiggle your mouse etc.) which, if correctly implemented, is entirely unpredictable. Now of course, the source of randomness may be biased or otherwise defective, but a) this would be pretty easy to detect (there are tools to evaluate sources of randomness, look up TestU01) and b) changing one of say 32 keys to be less predictable will do little good against attacks. If 31 of 32 chars can be predicted, your password is toast anyway.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-305572", "score": 0.7122872471809387, "text": "This relates to the gambler's fallacy The sequence (111) (111) (111) is just as likely as (Avogadro's number) (pi) (1) in a TRULY random numerical sequence,and you could also say that this sequence was man-made to output this combination,so AFAIK,no... There is no such way", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1122", "score": 0.7120874524116516, "text": "I'm thinking of an ATM PIN. What number am I thinking of? If you can guess it, you can access my checking account. It's like guessing a password. If I use a system to generate my ATM PIN that seems random, but can actually be reproduced (like taking my birthday and scrambling the order of the digits), someone could figure out the system I use to generate PINs and guess only a few times before discovering it. Randomly generated passwords are related to randomly generated numbers. Computers generate pseudorandom numbers with a lazy function called Rand() or something like it that use the time that the function is called to generate a number. This is like creating an ATM PIN with your birthday. It can be guessed if you know enough of the other pseudorandom numbers the system generated. Even perfect security - like one time pads - rely on truly randomly generated passcodes. If the code isn't randomly generated, nothing is secure.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-60936", "score": 0.7120826244354248, "text": "Because if you try a bunch of ridiculous combinations of random functions of random numbers, one of them is bound to be close to an integer. There's no deeper reason.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-8491", "score": 0.7117453813552856, "text": "Reminds me of a joke: a brilliant computer scientist claims to have invented a computer that can generate truly random numbers (not psuedorandom, but truly random). He assembles a room full of mathematicians and scientists to demonstrate it. He asks the machine to give him a truly random number. The machine responds \"1\". Someone else in the room asks for another truly random number. The machine responds \"1\". A third person in the room asks for another truly random number, and the machine responds \"1\". At this point, everyone turns a cynical eye on the inventor and someone asks, \"are you *sure* these numbers are truly random?\" The inventor replies, \"well, that's the problem with truly random numbers, it's impossible to tell.\" On a more serious note, in your Rubik's Cube example, there are only a finite number of positions that it's possible for a Rubik's Cube to be turned to, so the \"randomness\" of any given starting position is just one divided by the total number of possibilities.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-181940", "score": 0.7113845944404602, "text": "The usual way is to use a simple formula that looks like this: Xₙ₊₁ = (A⋅Xₙ + C) modulo M Where A, C and M are well-chosen constants. You start with a first number you choose (Xₙ), then you can generate (Xₙ₊₁) from it; you reuse (Xₙ₊₁) to generate (Xₙ₊₂), and so on. A set of values in the wild (used by the GNU C library) is: A=1103515245 C=12345 M=2³¹", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-288596", "score": 0.7111146450042725, "text": "All finite numbers are in the reals, including your random number. In fact, a randomly chosen real on any finite interval will [almost surely](_URL_0_) have random digits. Most reals look like your example number. We will never be able to write down or even fully describe any of these real numbers because knowing all the digits is effectively the same as knowing the outcome of an infinite number of coin flips (which means almost every real number effectively contains infinite information).", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-132312", "score": 0.7106273174285889, "text": "There are programs called Random Number Generators. This is a misnomer: they don't generate random numbers, they generate pseudo-random numbers. They do this by performing complex mathematical operations on what is referred to as a 'seed value'. As long as the same seed is used to start the generator, the same numbers come out of the generator in the same order. Hence, pseudo-random. As a result, that entire world, every corner, can be determined from the seed value used to create it. Only the changes to the world are tracked.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1383906", "score": 0.7105728983879089, "text": "Hello, I am very new to python and an idea I had was to make a password guesser. My school uses our ID numbers plus 3 randomly generated alphabets as our username, and the ID as our password.\n\nEx: USER: 18272UIW\n PASS: 18272\n\nNow, knowing the ID numbers, how would I create something that would allow me to randomly add on the 3 random alphabets and show me the correct results.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-314931", "score": 0.7104591727256775, "text": "This property is **(edit: almost)** called [normality](_URL_0_). Almost all real numbers are normal. Obviously rational numbers are ~~(generally)~~ not, but it's rather easy to construct irrational numbers that are not -- just choose \"randomly\" only allowing a subset of the digits. (Replace random with any deterministic non-repeating sequence, if that worries you.)", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-76", "score": 0.6954691410064697, "text": "Scar tissue is different to normal skin. It contains more collagen than regular tissue, and doesn't structure the same as regular skin, which is why it looks so different. It's also less flexible. The benefits to having scar tissue is the body can recover from wounds exceptionally quickly - many animals can't create scar tissue, and so wounds can remain open longer and are more susceptible to infection and other problems. Conversely, other animals can regenerate entire limbs whereas we can't. Interestingly, the collagen in your scar tissue is constantly replaced. If your body stops producing collagen (due to certain illnesses), your scars' wounds can actually reopen. The scar is difficult to get rid of because the tissue has been created in a less structured/ordered form than your regular skin (because it was deployed quickly to help heal the wound), but some medical procedures exist to reduce that effect." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-191116", "score": 0.6603862643241882, "text": "The same way we still have regular skin which acts differently in various locations (such as hair growth in some places and no hair in others)— it gets replaced with the same type of cell that is programmed to act the same way. Some of these things may seem like “flaws” (cosmetically or otherwise) but they are just following the body’s chemical signaling, or genetic makeup of the cells in that location. As far as the replacement cells are concerned you are “supposed” to have a freckle there so it stays. And when it comes to scars— they form during the (relatively fast) healing process when it may not be possible to fully, or quickly rebuild the underlying structure with the same circulation, muscle tissue, nerve tissue, etc to restore the original appearance and function... so scars can fade over time but there are good reasons why they persist and take a long time to heal.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-158402", "score": 0.6597790718078613, "text": "Scars are just layers of skin where the collagen which forms essentially the backbone structure of the skin has a different shape than normal. In normal skin, collagen has a a regularly interwoven pattern, kind of like woven baskets. In scars, the links tend to all be present in one direction rather than in the perpendicularly opposing directions of normal collagen. The scarred skin is essentially normal skin with a slight deformation of the collagen structure, and behaves like normal skin with a slightly different appearance. However, there's a type of scar called keloid scars which don't play nicely and continue growing larger and larger into massive, benign, fleshy tumours.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-311896", "score": 0.6589117646217346, "text": "Scar Tissue can actually form anywhere on your body, including on internal organs. Your skin is made up of cells that are attached to a structured matrix. When you damage your skin sufficiently, you can also destroy that matrix. When such a wound heals, the new skin cells do not have a defined structure to grow on top of, and scar tissue is formed - tissue that doesn't have an underlying architecture. This is why scars look different from regular skin. Slowly, the underlying matrix can be reformed, and as skin cells divide to replace themselves over long periods of time, the defined structure returns. The unstructured tissue is supplanted by the new structured tissue, and the scar disappears.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-281548", "score": 0.6583898067474365, "text": "All wounds that go deep enough (into dermis) will scar to some degree, but the amount of scarring is dependent on many factors, including: -How well the wound is cared for - is the skin allowed to rest, is it cleaned of debris, not picking the wound, etc.. -Whether or not the wound is gaping or sealed. -Tesion of skin in that region - surgeons maniplulate this to make incisions in directions that leave the least scars (_URL_0_) List not comprehensive", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-311193", "score": 0.6566939949989319, "text": "There are several types of scars. As a wound heals, a few different proteins are present, including elastin, fibrin, and collagen. Collagen and elastic are found in your skin, and provide a scaffolding to which your cells can attach. Trauma disrupts this scaffolding, and part of the healing process involves rebuilding it. Most scars result from too much collagen being in the wound after the healing process is over. EDIT: The [wikipedia](_URL_0_) article has some good information. EDIT2: cleaned up my response since so many people are seeing it", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-152510", "score": 0.6559128761291504, "text": "Its due to the same reason that we have normal scars. We only grow an initial set of design cells from a young age hence why scar from childhood will heal. Once these cells replaced by adult cells its kind of like photocopying a photocopy. When the cells are damaged or missing they are copied like that resulting in things like scars and cancers", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2510364", "score": 0.6551393270492554, "text": "I'm sorry if this kind of post isn't allowed here. I'm just looking for some suggestions on what to do. I have pretty extensive scarring, mostly on the tops of both legs from struggles with self harm. Some are 6 years old, some are less than a year old, some a quite deep, others not so much. I have recently been experiencing a fair bit of pain with certain movements, and lots of itching of scars both old and new. \n\nHere is an album with pictures of the worst of the scarring. \n\nI have used those silicon sheet things on my arms before to lessen the appearance with a little bit of luck. I have also used Mederma scar gel on my wrist and that did okay at reducing redness. I'm looking less for advice on how to lessen the appearance (I don't know how possible that would even be), and more for advice on how to make them more comfortable and less irritated and painful. \n\nAgain, I'm sorry if this type of post is a no-no, and if you are easily triggered or don't like to look at these types of things, don't look through the album. Hopefully someone can point me in right direction. Thanks guys :)", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-134892", "score": 0.6543281078338623, "text": "Because pain releases endorphins. Plus having a major skin blemish is irritating to our mind, and removing it brings the peace of mind that we are closer to whole again.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-17970", "score": 0.6539071798324585, "text": "Scar tissues are made of the same materials as the tissues they're healing, with the exception of structure. This is because the tissue they're trying to heal has been damaged - the \"blueprint\" for how to generate the original tissue structure is lost. So, instead of having a uniform (or matching) fiber structure to the tissue that's being replaced, scars instead employ a random \"weave\" sort of fiber pattern. This ends up working in the end, as the \"weave\" pattern is more resilient to certain forces (such as shearing). It should be noted, though, that scar tissues are also typically *less* resilient towards UV radiation.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-189050", "score": 0.6538384556770325, "text": "because scar tissue is not the same *type* of tissue as surrounding tissue. So even if the scar tissue is replaced, it’s replaced with the tissue making it up, which does not look the same as the other tissue around it. For example if you get a small cut the tissue on either side of the cut divides and meets in the middle to repair the cut. With a larger cut, it might take too long to do this - we need it closed ASAP. So you have tissue from the sides coming together but *also* tissue coming up from below in the middle and all three meet. But now the middle looks like the “below” tissue because that’s what it’s made from", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-184145", "score": 0.6533077955245972, "text": "I’m not a doctor but this is my understanding based on some courses I’ve taken in school. Essentially, when you get a cut or an injury, the body does it’s best to heal the wound which usually involves trying to close it or heal-over any injured tissue. As a result, you sometimes get fibrous scar tissue which never quite “integrates” with the surrounding cells. In the case of your knee, the skin around joints has to be very elastic - and at the very least, it experienced more stretching and compression than say a spot on your forearm. As a result, the healing process tends to take longer. Additionally, the constant stretching of skin in that region makes it harder for the body to cleanly heal a wound which tends to lead to more noticeable scarring. There may be a more scientific explanation but I think the amount of pushing and pulling a region of skin experiences has a lot to do with how easily injuries can heal.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-325017", "score": 0.6532824635505676, "text": "Scars are mostly composed of protein, without much cellular content. To degrade this material and replace it with normal tissue is an energy expenditure without any real benefit, as the scar is doing a fine job of holding things together. Furthermore, degrading the scar tissue could potentially render the injury more prone to re-opening.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-556179", "score": 0.6532760262489319, "text": "I understand that i have scarring on my face, and that some spots are not fully healed. But right now i really just dont see my skin getting any better. Pictures in comments bellow.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-91412", "score": 0.6530333757400513, "text": "It's not the heroin. It's poking the same spot with a needle over and over again without giving it enough time to heal. It can get more complicated where if you *do* give it time to heal after you've abused it too much it will develop scar tissue which makes it harder to inject there.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-2652484", "score": 0.6526501774787903, "text": "Can someone provide me with some insight? I’m so fed up with the fact that my forehead and cheeks are covered in pitted scarring for no apparent reason. I don’t get cystic acne, although I do have acne prone skin I have never gotten large painful acne. Always smaller pimples and closed comedones. It seems like every little bump I get (spots that never come to a head) ends in a pitted scar. I have too many atrophic scars and i’m so freaking confused how and why I got them.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-24045", "score": 0.6514343023300171, "text": "Avast ye! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. [ELI5: What is scar tissue and why does it develop? ](_URL_4_) ^(_14 comments_) 1. [Why do some people scar more than others? ](_URL_5_) ^(_6 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why can't scars heal? ](_URL_9_) ^(_51 comments_) 1. [ELI5: What factors determine whether a cut will heal properly or leave a scar? ](_URL_2_) ^(_18 comments_) 1. [ELI5: If you cut your finger, why when it heals does it have the same unique fingerprint pattern? ](_URL_6_) ^(_60 comments_) 1. [ELI5: If our skin regenerates, why do scars last so long? ](_URL_1_) ^(_44 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why do scars persist when our skin regenerates quickly? ](_URL_7_) ^(_41 comments_) 1. [Eli5: why do scars leave a mark? ](_URL_0_) ^(_8 comments_) 1. [ELI5: Why are scars near impossible to get rid of? ](_URL_10_) ^(_8 comments_) 1. [what makes an injury become a scar? ](_URL_3_) ^(_3 comments_) 1. [ELI5:why do some injuries heal while others leave scars? ](_URL_8_) ^(_64 comments_)", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1718881", "score": 0.6513124704360962, "text": "Does anyone have any advice for coming to terms with the scars? I just can't keep my mind off them, I'm so ashamed of them, and they're effecting my mental health and view of myself.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-174469", "score": 0.6506171226501465, "text": "Leave the scab alone, it's there to protect the wound as it heals and will drop off naturally after it's finished. Rip the scab off and sometimes it can scar the skin", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-171266", "score": 0.6500856280326843, "text": "Scars don't have, or produce melanin, because they're areas of fibrous tissue (from my understanding, just not fully healed tissue). It's also the reason why they have no hair follicles or sweat. Complete regeneration takes a really long while as well. When skin tans, it's because it's essentially your skin adapting to the short-term high amounts of sunlight hitting your skin; in particular UV light attacking the epidermis and causing more melanin to be generated. Scars lack this, because they're an unorganized layer of collagen in the skin, while normal skin is neatly organized in layers. Although this is a bad example, think of scars like welding a large hole in an otherwise complex machine. Something that'd cause the machine to do something if touched wouldn't happen on contact with the welded hole because it's just unorganized metal that sloppily covers the machine, as to prevent things to enter it and mess things up before the mechanic can fix it properly.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-322651", "score": 0.6498365998268127, "text": "When your body is damaged, your body “panics” to seal up and protect the wound. It lays down a random mess of tissue (scar tissue) to simply cover up the wound and protect the body. Some times, the scar tissue is unable to re-learn how to be normal tissue again, and the scar is formed.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-77", "score": 0.6128603219985962, "text": "Because it's cheaper to have it made in other countries." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-101311", "score": 0.5821905136108398, "text": "In the beginning... Indigo (blue) dye was cheap and readily available. Also, the dark color hid stains and discoloration. Jeans were a \"worker's\" garment -- durable.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-208533", "score": 0.5821807980537415, "text": "Most women made their own sanitary towels out of strips of linen or cotton, sometimes they would reenfroce this with cotton batting to make something resembling a pad. By the late 1800's women were able to buy pre-made sanitary belts from local stores or from catalogues like Montgomery Ward and Sears Roebuck. By the turn of the 20th century pre cut material for pads were able to be purchased, but most women still made their own pads, and many still made their own sanitary belts. [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-2021839", "score": 0.5821788907051086, "text": "Since we are forced into this world against our will, things like housing, food, clothing, and other basic necessities should be provided freely. Education should be a loan you pay back in time as you work. A limited population should be allowed. Taxes from work will go toward the provided housing, food, clothing, and basic necessities of the society.\n\nHaving to earn housing, food, clothing, and other basic necessities after having been forced into this world is disgusting.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2021419", "score": 0.5821723341941833, "text": "This is something that just occurred to me. India's economy has never been the best, obviously. Thinking about it though, this doesn't make a lot of sense. They have a population comparable to China for one. I mean, China even has an on-going border dispute with India, as if they seriously can't beat India in a war. Of course, China's economy isn't the best either, but it still looks like a paradise compared to India (assuming you ignore the political situation anyway). \n\nI wonder, what has been holding India back all this time? I'm asking this here because I'm assuming it has something to do with their past, given that the country was under foreign rule until the 50s. \n\nHow could a country with a population like India be so broke? Poverty is a widespread problem, and looking at their movie industry is pretty obvious even the entertainment industry is working on a pretty tight budget. Do they just not have any good resources in their country? They look to be able to support quite a large population, so surely they have plenty of food if nothing else. Japan has no real natural resources either, yet poverty and even the rich having no money isn't something normally associated with Japan. I mean, one of their biggest exports are cars, which they're obviously building out of materials that are being imported into the country. Surely Japan can't have enough metal being mined within the country to build enough cars to flood the American market. Conversely, in India, I heard once around a decade or two ago that 70% of the population worked in agriculture. Why would that be? I mean, they have quite a sizable workforce, so surely they could manufacture things at a far faster rate than Japan ever could. However, Japan is fairly rich, while India is not. How could this be? It makes no sense, and this situation has been stable for longer than I've been alive. What's holding India back? Could centuries of foreign rule really screw a country over for 70 years after independence? To my knowledge, they've never fallen into a period of anarchy. Their country is stable, and it has a massive workforce, but it still sucks to live there. Why? I'm not trying to bash on India here; I'm just wondering how a situation like this could exist.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1132752", "score": 0.5821682810783386, "text": "Free trade is probably good for most developed countries. Although export substitution industrialisation has been very successful in the East Asian economies and can be a path forward for African countries in the next 40 years. From what I understand, even the World Bank adopted New Structuralism.\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nI would like your takes on international trade and global supply chains.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-328048", "score": 0.5821643471717834, "text": "So to set the stage, I was raised in the Netherlands and when I was a teenager this was a massive trend amongst other teenage boys.\nThese days it's no longer a trend and I don't live in the Netherlands anymore but I still prefer it.\nIt keeps everything more together, if the shorts start to skip down you're not showing your ass crack to the world and it keeps you cool in the hot sun as it stays wet longer.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1588956", "score": 0.5821548700332642, "text": "In a surprise vote the parliament has deemed fit, by a slim majority, to outlaw child labor. The practice had been at the front of the crown’s attention for years, but no push by the King in the previous month had gone noticed. Instead enough previously diehard supporters seemed to have changed their mind overnight. A tax raise was also added to the legislation raising them from 20% to 40%, causing many to fear this the beginning of an economic recession. \n \nAbstract", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-208587", "score": 0.5821518898010254, "text": "In pre-industrialised agricultural societies, families tend to work their farms as a collective unit. There's no separation between 'work' and 'home'. While young children would stay close to their mother, older children would work doing chores such as fetching water, and as they got older, helping their father if they were physically capable. Since children didn't go to school, and fathers essentially worked from home, children spent much more time with their fathers than they do now. It was the industrial revolution that turned work and home into two separate places. Men's superior strength made them more desirable workers, causing them to spend more time away from home supporting their families, leading to the archetype of the distant/stern father figure.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-20995", "score": 0.5821483135223389, "text": "That stuff isn't meant to sell to the general public. It's meant to show off how avant garde and creative the designer is. They have other lines of so-called \"ready to wear\" clothing that is a lot more conventional in style.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-656911", "score": 0.5821413993835449, "text": "Some countries have already been developed since the 1920’s. from buildings, bridges, monuments, etc. That’s why we have museums and historical cites to visit. But since these are built years and years ago, how can we be certain that it will bring us no harm? Did anyone see the bridge that collapsed in Italy?\n\nWell maybe for buildings that are already hundreds of years old, we should be doing some renovations. I know some countries are on it now, but there’s just too many, how are we going to save all of them?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-149515", "score": 0.5820936560630798, "text": "Because the idea of Universal Basic Income, is in part, to avoid serious bureaucracy. Giving everyone basic food, clothing, shelter and whatever they need results in serious administrative overhead, as you need to organize all those services (which are entirely separate from civilian services already existent), then check if those are adequate for everyone, to avoid wasting resources that some people don't need, or that are misappropriate.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-214872", "score": 0.582064151763916, "text": "Take a look at this section from the popular questions section of the wiki talking about [how people in the past viewed the future](_URL_0_). The broad answer to that particular question is that, before the Industrial Revolution, life changed very slowly or not at all. It was difficult or impossible to observe technological and cultural changes within a single lifetime. How does this answer your question? Well, let's extrapolate backward: How would someone in 12th Century Saxony have imagined Julius Caesar? How would someone in 8th Century Asturias have imagined the Biblical siege at Jericho? The answer: \"why, things would be just the same then as they are now! After all, why would anything be different?\" So: it works backward as well as forward. If it's impossible for you to conceive of a world where anything could change then you're unlikely to imagine that the past was \"different\" in some meaningful or even superficial way (clothing, weaponry, architecture, etc).", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2021579", "score": 0.581993818283081, "text": "Let's say there is something so important that the country absolutely cannot exist without but is so dangerous and expensive that it absolutely must be made and distributed by the state, how is this justified by a capitalist? \n\nI can't think of any real examples of this but I think the closest might be the production of laws as a commodity. They are potentially more dangerous than anything else but their existence is necessary for a country to exist. \n\nIn this example I'm looking at Congress as a bill/law manufacturing plant. Couldn't this be seen as a socialist mechanism? It produces a \"*good*\" that every citizen pays for through taxes. \n\nI know it isn't a perfect example, and it really breaks down when you realise that what is considered *socialist* is essentially defined using the state so it's circular, but it's the best example I could think of.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-209400", "score": 0.581957221031189, "text": "At least for the Tudor period in England the answer for the really fancy over clothes is basically never. Spot cleaning and brushing were about it. Delicate fabrics and colors couldn't be washed without being destroyed by most of the soaps of the time period. They did wash their underclothes though. These would've been white(ish) linen and laundered roughly once a week if you could afford it. The wealthy would also have more underwear and replace as it got dirty. There's a really relevant section on this beginning at roughly 9 minutes _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-49082", "score": 0.581920862197876, "text": "Two things come to mind: 1) Canada and the US are both large countries. There could be places in the US that are closer to Canadian steel producers than to those in the US and vice versa. 2) There are many different kinds of steel. Not all manufacturers will produce all types.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-40444", "score": 0.5819178819656372, "text": "You're comparing retail pricing versus manufacturing costs. The items are cheap to *make*, and purposefully not cheap to *buy*. That's how it works.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-157927", "score": 0.5818812251091003, "text": "It has to do with animals, specifically domesticated animals. Europe had many more large animals which could be used for food and work, while other continents did not. CGP Grey explains this very well in his [Zebras vs Horses video](_URL_0_).", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1893490", "score": 0.5818690061569214, "text": "According to the Wall Street Journal, 85% of toys are currently made in China. If you buy your kids/nieces/nephews or friend's kids toys you're almost guaranteed to be helping the Chinese economy.\n\nStop buying toys. Cancel gift giving tradition during Christmas.\n\n ", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-752760", "score": 0.5818614959716797, "text": "It seems pretty obvious then, because that's what people actually imply when they are against a basic income, as freedom is actually virtually priceless:\n\n being able to be with your family, being able to pursue arts, hobbies, being with friends, self development and self discovery, traveling etc.\n\n-\n\nCpt obvious: Because when all the jobs for the basics are taken (basic foods, trains/busses/infrastructure, housing, schooling and healthcare, (simple (public) computer/internet)), and people are still not allowed to have access to their basic needs met unless they also work then you imply luxury is more important than freedom.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-170562", "score": 0.5818277597427368, "text": "Because the people who like it are politically powerful enough in their own countries that they can ignore foreign complaints (foreign complains may even add to support, similar to someone picking on a family member), and nations are sovereign which means other countries can't make them do anything (unless the maker is willing to commit to a war and occupation).", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-78", "score": 0.9256708025932312, "text": "> Two spaceships are travelling towards each other at speed of light.. **AHHHH!**" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-240841", "score": 0.7938917875289917, "text": "_URL_0_ spaceship1 observes spaceship2 traveling at .99995 c.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-11901", "score": 0.7680747509002686, "text": "No. ALL velocities are relative, so the prohibitions of relativity apply to any inertial reference frame. In this case, they would observe the other ship to be going very quickly, but still sub-light speed: at very high velocities, you can't simply add one ship's velocity to the other; there's a more complex formula.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-270831", "score": 0.7571030259132385, "text": "An observer who sees the spaceship moving at speed 0.9*c*, will see both light signals moving at speed *c*. The distance between the ship and the front signal increases at a rate of 0.1*c*. The distance between the ship and the back signal increases at a rate of 1.9*c*. The distance between the two signals increases at a rate of 2*c*.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-290095", "score": 0.7570546865463257, "text": "When properly adding relativistic velocities, two ships going half the speed of light away from each other in their centre of mass frame would be going at 80% the speed of light relative to one another.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-269455", "score": 0.7502009868621826, "text": "When speeds get appreciably close to the speed of light, they don't add linearly, they obey [a more complicated formula](_URL_0_) which only looks like usual linear velocity addition when speeds are much slower than the speed of light. In this case, each ship would see the other moving at [2*80%/(1+80%^2 ) = 97.6%](_URL_1_) of the speed of light.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-168438", "score": 0.748629093170166, "text": "No, they'd see each other moving at 96% of the speed of light due to special relativity. Strictly speaking, if the rockets were moving at 100mph then they'd see each other moving at very slightly less than 200mph, but it's so close as to make no difference. Once the speeds get higher, you start having to worry about the difference.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-293903", "score": 0.7453028559684753, "text": "No, they are not travelling faster than the speed of light relative to each other. You are changing reference frames, which means you are essentially changing the way time and distance is measured. See: _URL_0_ However, as an outside observer, you would see the distance between them increase at a rate faster than c, even though the objects are both moving less than c.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-246554", "score": 0.7378851175308228, "text": "You've discovered [the twin paradox](_URL_0_). The answer is that you can't have the spaceships \"suddenly\" be at rest with each other. Either one or both must undergo acceleration. In the case of one spaceship accelerating and becoming at rest with the other, the accelerating spaceship has its time dilated. If they both accelerate at the same rate to reach the same frame of reference, then neither's time is dilated - symmetry is conserved. In the case that the spaceships never attempt to reach the same frame of reference, _both_ views are valid.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-279680", "score": 0.728386402130127, "text": "Asteroids are actually very far apart from each other. You usually can't see one from another. So, spaceships pretty much coast right through.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-278827", "score": 0.7224079966545105, "text": "No, they smash into each other at almost the speed of light. The speed of light is the same in all reference frames, which means that velocities don't add the way you'd intuitively expect.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-250526", "score": 0.7186232805252075, "text": "One mass creates a distortion in spacetime. The other mass travels through this distorted spacetime and it looks like it is experiencing a gravitational force.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-287704", "score": 0.7161340713500977, "text": "Given the context you've provided, you are correct. All that matters is the ships' relative velocity. After all, we don't have trouble walking from one room to another, despite the fact that the earth is moving around the galaxy at over 200 km/s.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-293398", "score": 0.7110915780067444, "text": "I'm on Earth, I see you on a spaceship approaching Earth at 99% the speed of light, and I see Jill on a different spaceship approaching from the exact opposite direction at 99% the speed of light as well. I see the distance between you decreasing at a rate of 198% the speed of light. What do you see? You see me (and the rest of the planet) moving toward you at 99% the speed of light. You see Jill's ship moving toward you at roughly 99.99985% the speed of light. What does Jill see? The same as you except she sees you as the one going at 99.99985% the speed of light.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-260359", "score": 0.7098057866096497, "text": "You're right, they'll both see the other slowed down. And they're both right. The thing is though, unless they turn around to meet back up, it doesn't change anything physically/logically. And if they do turn around, they must accelerate, which breaks the symmetry of special relativity", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-168386", "score": 0.7079670429229736, "text": "The twin in the spaceship has to accelerate to leave and come back. Acceleration isn't relative.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-269456", "score": 0.7069520354270935, "text": "The speed of light is constant in all reference frames. Imagine you are standing exactly in the middle between the two ships. Because light always travels at c (in a vacuum), this means that the light that is coming towards you from ship A will pass by you with a speed of c. Since ship B is travelling away from you at 'only' 0.5c, the light that passes by you (which is travelling at c) will eventually reach ship B. The same thing is true if the ships were travelling at 90% or 99% or 99.999% of c.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-257403", "score": 0.7039457559585571, "text": "Everything! This is actually the big trick with relativity - the speed of light is the speed of light relative to *any* observer. This only works if you change the equations of time and space from the classical forms into the new relativistic forms. You also need to change the equation for how you add and compare velocities - it's more complex than just adding the two numbers, and you can see the equation [here](_URL_0_) if you're interested. It turns out that if two cars are moving towards each other at 100 km/h, their relative speed is actually *slightly less* than 200 km/s relative to each other. This effect is small at low velocities, but becomes extremely important at large velocities. If you go through the maths, you find that if two objects move towards each other at 60% of the speed of light, each one observes the other moving towards them at 88% of the speed of light - not 120%. This is again just a result of the new equations for velocity and time and space that you need to use in relativity.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-251636", "score": 0.7039051651954651, "text": "If two light rays are headed for each other, the distance between them decreases at a speed of 2*c*.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-249896", "score": 0.7027547359466553, "text": "All that matters is the relative velocity of the two observers. How fast is one moving relative to the other? There is no fixed preferred reference frame.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-237314", "score": 0.7025283575057983, "text": "Let's say that Alice and Bob are in separate space ships that are heading in opposite directions at a large percentage of the speed of light. After 10 seconds (in her reference frame) Alice sends a message to Bob via tachyons and it instantly arrives at Bob's ship, due to time dilation only 5 seconds have passed for Bob. He then sends the message back to Alice's ship via tachyons and it arrives instantly at Alice's ship, but due to time dilation only 2.5 seconds have passed for Alice. The message she sent arrives 7.5 seconds before sent it.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-80", "score": 0.7635794281959534, "text": "On TV, when the price of gas goes up, they say they have no choice but to sell it higher in gas stations too. But when the price goes down, they say that they had already bought a lot of gas when it was higher so they cannot lower the prices immediately or they'd lose money on it. There is probably a good explanation for it but my guess is that it's another of these \"Heads I win, Tails, you lose\" situation ;)" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-2592255", "score": 0.7245833277702332, "text": "I've done some searching on reddit and the interwebs and can't find any reputable sources stating exactly what's going on here.\n\nAn example of what I'm talking about is, when gas was out of control a couple years ago, at $140 a barrel we were paying about $4 a gallon. Now, its \"going crazy\" again with Libya and middle east stuff, but it's at $3.80 where I live (in Boston). Why is that? Kind of makes it seem like we were getting a deal when we were getting screwed two years ago.\n\nCan anyone explain?\n\nTL:DR: Why aren't a barrel of oil and a gallon of gas more linearly related? Most importantly I think, if a barrel of oil never seems to matter in the end cost to us ($/gallon) why do we care as much?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-25429", "score": 0.7241978645324707, "text": "The specifics about why gas prices go up can be better explained by others, but this chart shows gas prices adjusted for inflation: _URL_0_ It seems like the climb started closer to 1999 than 2001, but asking why it hasn't gone back done since then is a great question.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-155570", "score": 0.722463846206665, "text": "This is most likely due to the oil you buy takes time to refine, and the oil retailer bought the expensive oil a long time ago and stored it and slowly selling the remaining stock and wont want to make a loss. thus the price of crude oil is elastic while the price of retail oil is rather inelastic.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-29751", "score": 0.7215530872344971, "text": "Part of it is also tied to the price of oil extraction. Alberta for instance has been experiencing an economic boom because of the oil sands, however when the market value of petrol drops below whatever it costs to extract and process oil from those oil sands(IIRC $75 a barrel around 2000), it becomes a better strategy for the owners of the oil sands to stop extracting oil until the price comes back up.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-26051", "score": 0.7181755304336548, "text": "A lot of oil comes from the Middle East. Political instability might lead to chaos on the ground, that could result in less of it being produced in the future. You're probably familiar with the idea that prices are determined by supply and demand. If just as many people want something, and there's suddenly less of it, the price will rise. OK, so how does this cause the price of oil to rise *before* there's actually chaos on the ground causing less of it to be produced? The way this works in practice is pretty complicated, and is largely controlled by [futures markets](_URL_0_), but, basically, if I think oil will be worth $60 a barrel in a month, why would I sell it to you for $35 a barrel today? I'd make way more money just holding onto it for a month and selling it then. So, if you want to buy my oil today, you're going to have to give me more than $35 to get me to part with it — the price rises as soon as there's a reason to *think* it might be in shorter supply in the future.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-146475", "score": 0.7170031666755676, "text": "Oil price varies based on supply and demand. If supply is too high or demand is too low, price falls. Oil production (and consumption) is seen as an indicator of the overall performance of the economy. More oil being produced (and used) means companies are manufacturing and shipping more goods, more people are commuting to work every day, etc. If consumption goes down it is indicative of a decline in economic output. If production goes down it is seen as a bet that producers think less oil will be needed in the future, again a sign of a slowing economy.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-118734", "score": 0.7149945497512817, "text": "First, as you point out, there are fixed costs involved in the refinement and distribution of fuels. In other words, cost of the feedstock is only one component of the cost at the pump. Second, it takes time for the feedstock and the costs associated with it to move through the supply chain. The gas you buy at the pump today was still crude oil three to six months ago, so the price you pay is based on the cost of the feedstock at that time.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-32047", "score": 0.7149109244346619, "text": "It reduces the price to deliver oil to the refineries (at home and abroad). That means that refiners can pay more for oil and still sell gas at the same price. It leads to higher oil consumption by reducing the effective price. While you might think that low gas prices are good, environmentalists know this means more oil usage, more carbon in the atmosphere and a warmer planet. They want to save the planet rather than save money on gas. Your opinion might vary, many people's does.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-51758", "score": 0.71341872215271, "text": "Energy prices are driven by supply and demand. If the cost of oil suddenly went through the roof and all your state's power plants run on oil, it's perfectly reasonable that all energy rates would go up.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-50500", "score": 0.713175356388092, "text": "Because the price isn't based on production cost. Oil is traded in markets, where supply and demand plus a certain amount of speculation determine the price.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-170137", "score": 0.7123068571090698, "text": "Oil prices are a bit higher than 6 months ago. It was $50 a barrel now its about $62 i think. So slightly higher.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-7899", "score": 0.7113813757896423, "text": "That's a loaded question, but on an ELI5 level: Higher domestic production is just one small piece of the supply and demand curves that dictate gas pricing. Other factors, particularly supply of imported crude (which accounts for a very large percentage - 40-70% depeneding on who you want to cite - of petroleum product in the US), rapidly increasing global demand and a complicated regulatory system all contribute to pump (ha!) the price higher. Also worth noting that gas in the US is still cheaper by volume than most of the world.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-49405", "score": 0.7098222970962524, "text": "Look at [this graph](_URL_0_). That's a graph of the Consumer Price Index. It's a number the government calculates every month which basically acts a measure of how much things cost. Do you notice the dip starting in mid-2008? That's because things actually got cheaper. You may have noticed that gas got about $1 cheaper per gallon right about that time. So, prices did go down during the recession. But, you may say, prices went right back up afterwards. You're right. That's because the recession ended. Technically the US economy came out of recession in June 2009. That was over three years ago. So, it makes sense that things will continue to get more expensive. Slow, stable inflation is to be expected and is actually a good thing for the economy.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2763", "score": 0.7077425718307495, "text": "Because the markup on gasoline is much smaller than the markup on more processed goods like bread. [Wheat prices](_URL_0_) are similarly volatile as [oil prices](_URL_2_), but there's about a nickel of wheat in a loaf of bread, so when the price of wheat moves by 50% it impacts the total cost of the loaf by only a couple percent (and most of the other costs are much more stable). Oil is the majority of the cost of gasoline, so when oil prices move gasoline prices often rapidly follow. Milk is unique because dairy prices are heavily influenced [by the government](_URL_1_).", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-137024", "score": 0.7075513601303101, "text": "Much of the price w/ regard to gas prices is due to taxes. In addition to the Federal gasoline taxes, there are state, country, local taxes on gas. So high tax states will have more expensive gas. There are also some variation based on distance from refineries, state-level requirements that may limit number of refineries who can supply state and lead to higher costs as a result (ie. some states require different formulations at different times of year, and different dates at which the flip from \"winter gas\" to \"summer gas\" takes place). Europe has much higher taxes on gas, both to encourage mass transit and to promote lower output, higher mileage cars. 3rd world countries have high taxes because cars are a luxury item, and also because they suffer more from currency weakness relative to oil prices being priced in dollars.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-160152", "score": 0.7067254781723022, "text": "[Gasoline](_URL_0_) is like any other commodity that's traded on various financial markets. Plus there are local and regional fluctuations in supply and demand that impact the wholesale price of gas at the station level. And finally there are competitive pricing between various local stations.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-71065", "score": 0.7065531611442566, "text": "Simple answer is inflation. The price of petrol is always going up, leading to everything that relies on it having to spend more. Buses are directly affected by this as they use petrol obviously. Other energy sources like gas are always increasing in price too, costing companies even more money. This leads them to increase prices to cover the higher costs. I believe the rate of these rises is the rate of inflation? To combat this workers are usually given a pay rise above the rate of inflation, but this also leads to the company having higher costs!", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-47725", "score": 0.7064478397369385, "text": "There are two reasons. One's unremarkable but one surprised me. First, we drive less in the Winter, so prices go down. But here's the surprising reason: We just switched to a different blend of gasoline in this country. The EPA requires gasoline producers to sell an oxygenated blend during summer months to help combat smog. It's slightly more expensive to produce and requires a slight re-tooling of their plants. We just switched over to the old blend, which is cheaper to produce. This bump down in prices happens every year since the regulation went into effect. _URL_1_ _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-3526", "score": 0.7062707543373108, "text": "Same way as any other business, supply and demand. When you see to gas stations with different prices, the high priced one might have better quality fuel, be easier to get to, a better convenience store, more pumps, or a have loyalty program. Or maybe their supply raised prices faster, and they would rather sell less gas than sell at it a loss. Note this is true with most products. The main difference is unlike most businesses, you see the price of their primary product a half a block away, and can easily choose to go somewhere else. If you have already walked into a store, it is not worth the bother to make another stop to save 45 cents on your potato chips.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-123987", "score": 0.7057908773422241, "text": "The short answer is \"on purpose\". As more and more American oil companies began fracking OPEC and other traditional crude oil companies drove the price down to keep the fracking process from being profitable. It they drive them out of business they can raise the oil prices much higher with theirs being the only supply. They are taking a short term loss for a long term boom.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-81", "score": 0.7633159756660461, "text": "That's a really good question, as if deals with the metaphysical in a physical context; basically, the universe will end before time ends, so we have no real way of knowing. However, one could argue that time will end when physical existence ends; in that case, the end of time will come with the end of the Universe." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-286841", "score": 0.7248888611793518, "text": "The universe is not ~~ontologically~~epistemologically\\* deterministic. ie, a computer (or a demon as the question was first proposed) cannot calculate the future to arbitrary levels of accuracy. It may yet be metaphysically deterministic in that even though you can't at all calculate the future, if you were to \"play out the tape\" and then \"rewind\" and \"play it back\" the repeat would be the same as the first time through. Of course we don't have a way to time travel, so it's probably impossible to test the notion of whether the universe is metaphysically deterministic.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1786853", "score": 0.7243559956550598, "text": "(I am an atheist) \n\nI was just thinking earlier about the universe. No end of time is easy to think about, but no beginning doesn't make a lot of sense. Do you think it is a loop? What are your views?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-86078", "score": 0.7234023809432983, "text": "You could think of it like time. When does time finish? When the universe collapses maybe? Then what happens the day after that? I think it may help the concept, because to us we deal in finite terms of how big things can be, but you'd never think we're about to run out of total seconds in the universe. Like it's just going to stop where it is because there's no time left. Now, if you'll accept that space and time are two parts of the same thing, then if the universe were to have a size, eventually time has to run out.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-109382", "score": 0.7232659459114075, "text": "Maybe this is why it's called freezing time, eh? But actually, if you think about what you mean by freezing time, you realise it isn't a good concept to begin with. Time is the marker of entropy. To say that time is still, usually what is meant is that an instant in time begins to last for eternity -- but what is eternity if time has stopped? There is only one time line, so if time stopped, you would be at one moment in time, but have no way of measuring how long that moment lasted, in its stopped state. So essentially, each passing moment of time is a point where you could say, Time stopped. Or on the contrary you would need to address how time can never be stopped. I do like the question though. There must be something significant to determining the limit of the transfer of energy or the change in entropy as the measure of time's passage shrinks to zero. Reminds me of the question, Is time quantized; how would we determine this, and how could we take advantage of it in our technology?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-77657", "score": 0.7216006517410278, "text": "There isn't, so far as we know, an \"edge\". There's decent theoretical reason to believe the universe is infinite, but even if it isn't, there is probably no edge.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-319349", "score": 0.7215660214424133, "text": "If our current cosmological models are correct and the universe is infinite, then the quantity of massive objects in the universe will be infinite. Whether or not this is actually the case remains an open question.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2101256", "score": 0.7212873101234436, "text": "From an atheists point of view, the end does not seem to be very exciting. Actually it is quite frightening. Ever notice how falling asleep seems to pass time by in an perceived instant ?. The universe will cease to exist when we pass away. At least our own perceived universe. \nTime has no meaning if you're dead. Time has passed by in an infinitely small amount of time from the time of the creation of the universe until the point in time where we first remembered ourselves. Similarly when we pass away the time to the end of the universe will pass by in an infinitely short amount of time. Why one may ask. The answer is simply because time is a perception perceived by the neural networks which we all are and who's own existance is also simply a perceived perception.\nEver wondered what it is like to cease to exist ?, well unfortunately it is unfathomable.\nOn a side note. \nDid you know that if you were a photon that could perceive time and were moving at the speed of light, then no matter how great distance you had to travel (think trillions of lights years) you would perceive the time from when you were emitted until you were absorbed again as an instant.\n\nedit. Spelling :)", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-261004", "score": 0.7210363745689392, "text": "All indications are that the universe has no spatial end. The best analogy I've heard is to think of our universe as the skin of a balloon. Since we live in the \"skin\" of this hypothetical balloon, no matter what direction we look, we see space go on for infinite distance. Further, the balloon can expand (we observe our universe expanding), and since we live in the skin of the balloon, it is expanding in every direction we look.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-1787234", "score": 0.7209073901176453, "text": "I had an idea and did some searching around the interwebs and found others with the understanding I have. In philosophy and religion we are often confronted with idea that all this (the universe) had to come from somewhere. That there had to be a beginning. I believe this understanding of time, beginning-middle-end (past-present-future), can be detrimental to our understanding of the universe. I would posit to you that the word \"time\" could be synonymous with \"gradual change.\" I believe the matter and energy that exists now has always existed in one form or another. I don't think if I need to point out that the \"time\" I'm referring to is different then the time on your watch, but I suppose I just did. So reddit philosophers, please weigh-in on your thoughts about time in relation to our universe.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-272616", "score": 0.7203899025917053, "text": "To the best of our knowledge, the universe has no \"end\" or \"edge\". It either wraps back on itself smoothly, like a three-dimensional version of a sphere, or it goes on forever in all directions. While it's *possible* that there's an \"edge\" of some sort out there somewhere, we have no way of detecting it and it's not incorporated into any of our models.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-241728", "score": 0.719089925289154, "text": "By definition, no. The words \"past\", \"present\", and \"future\" are used to indicate that things are *not* occurring simultaneously. (This would be a little like asking \"Are larger and smaller things the same size?\") It might be possible to think of past, present, and future events as having the same value *in some dimension other than time*. _URL_0_ _URL_1_", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-719653", "score": 0.7188321948051453, "text": "Could objects have multiple futures and multiple pasts? I was just wondering if anything in special relativity actually precludes this from being the case. I realize that even if not, it is still an unfalsifiable position for now.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-287656", "score": 0.718695342540741, "text": "No, time is continuous. People are linking you to Planck time, but that's just a very small unit of time that is constructed by physical constants.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-236347", "score": 0.7185515761375427, "text": "even assuming time *is* infinite, a controversial claim, one's body wouldn't necessarily reassemble itself. for example, 3.3333 is infinite, but you'll never find the string 752 anywhere in it. it's impossible. similarly, your body being reassembled might be impossible. so it appears possible, but not inevitable. It probably isn't even possible. if I am destroyed, and then an alien lifeform appears on some far off world, with no memory of me or evidence of my existence, it seems almost nonsensical to say that that alien is me.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-658594", "score": 0.7184156775474548, "text": "Universe can't be finite (like someone said long time ago, if finite what's beyond the edge) and can't be infinite. So what is going on? This question is really killing me for years..", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-322481", "score": 0.7181404232978821, "text": "*Subjectively* it appears as if the universe is non-deterministic. According to quantum mechanics the outcome of a measurement can only be described in terms of probability distributions over multiple outcomes. However, there are interpretations of quantum mechanics (such as the [many worlds interpretation](_URL_0_)) that allow for an objectively deterministic universe. In this sense you could know all future and all past by simply knowing the present. This concept is also known as [Laplace's demon](_URL_1_). At the end of the day it seems like the jury is still out.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-659896", "score": 0.7178191542625427, "text": "AFAIK The universe supposedly started with the big bang, and then expanded outwards from there. Can it be said that the universe is infinite, as much as it's ever-expanding?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-166859", "score": 0.7177460789680481, "text": "The current body of evidence suggests the universe is spatially infinite. A spatially infinite universe can expanded into itself infinitely. And with an infinite universe, there is no point that is not the universe.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-277430", "score": 0.7175316214561462, "text": "> What would happen if you managed to get to the end of the universe and tried to walk through it? The universe is infinite, it has no edge. > Would you consoiusly feel like millions of years are happening? No. Time dilation means that a clock moving relative to you will appear to run slowly. You don't experience any kind of \"slow time\" yourself - apart from being incorrect this is in fact a meaningless concept. Think about how you would measure it. Half a second per second? What?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-165171", "score": 0.7173699736595154, "text": "Nobody knows. Some think God. Some think a vacuum. Some think energy. Some think a previous universe. Some think a master universe. It's literally impossible to know because everything we know about the universe breaks down the closer you get to the beginning, including time.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-82", "score": 0.7703600525856018, "text": "In many psychotic individuals, the wide eyed look is because of their intense anxiety levels. It's more than just the eyes though. In someone psychotically agitated, you'll see facial grimacing and body postures indicating stress or aggression as well. The scariest patients are the ones that have a flat affect, meaning they just have a blank stare all the time. Though many of them are lost in their own world and harmless, some are not. They are concerning because i can't judge their propensity towards violence at any given time. Source: IAMA Psychiatric RN" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-146470", "score": 0.7289780974388123, "text": "It is called Pareidolia. Basically our brains are so primed to see faces, we will also see faces in random patterns.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-543733", "score": 0.7287450432777405, "text": "Every year they get on the news with that shit smudged on their foreheads. \n\nThey look like crazy people or cultists.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-259805", "score": 0.727881908416748, "text": "There is no scientific basis behind these claims. Eyes are eyes, and do not change appearances based on psychological phenomena (excluding dilation due to fear, etc.). What's more often the case is that psychopaths or other people with similar disorders don't perform the subconscious facial mimicry that humans do to show recognition of emotions. We can tell that there's something \"off\", but because we process this mimicry on a subconscious level, we can't quite tell what- and we often attribute it to the eyes (possibly due to our socialized belief that \"the eyes are the window to the soul\").", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-143015", "score": 0.7143990993499756, "text": "I'm pretty sure this is just the lighting / angle at the time. Also, some people are active in their facial expressions, and so their eyes are more open over someone who is passive / perpetually laid back, so they may not be opening their eyes as much as someone who is outgoing or excited. Finally some other factors could be glasses reflections, contacts, touched photos, camera filters, etc. etc. I think generally it's what I said about being passive/active, which determines more exposure to 'opportunities' that could result in an eye sparkle or glint.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-160531", "score": 0.7096585035324097, "text": "There is a lot of facial detail in and around your eyes. If you know the person, then your brain will fill in the blanks and help you recognize them, but if you don't know the person, then you have no idea what that area should look like, and that conceals their identity.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1872342", "score": 0.700168788433075, "text": "I was walking through the train station late last night and noticed a lot of people had that same sort of appearance that immediately gave away they were drug addicts. What is it about certain drugs that makes your face start to look like that?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-242428", "score": 0.6971681714057922, "text": "The phenomenon is called [pareidolia](_URL_0_) and it's essentially due to the fact that our brains look for meaningful shapes in everything we see. It's most pronounced for faces because as social beings our brains work very hard to recognise faces. \"Objectively\" it would all be random bits of colour and light. The best way to appreciate this would be when humans try to get computers to interpret images/video like we do.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-138052", "score": 0.6961736083030701, "text": "It's a figure of speech called a [synecdoche](_URL_0_), where a specific part of something is used to represent a whole. When referring to a person's eyes, you're actually referring to his entire facial expression (and perhaps other body language).", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2641853", "score": 0.6958141326904297, "text": "Idk how to describe the visual distortions but it’s usually peoples faces will kinda look weird and the holes of the nose will be more distinct then the rest of the face I don’t know if this could be from effexor or what but it’s really weird it only sometimes happens", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-224038", "score": 0.6909827589988708, "text": "I don't think it's because of bewilderment that makes them look all stern and serious. It's because the long exposure time required makes it really hard for people to hold a smile. Just you try holding a smile for more than a few seconds.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-2037903", "score": 0.6902921199798584, "text": "To quote someone on this sub, \"psychedelics make you feel higher than you look, but stimulants make you look higher than you feel\".\n\nTell me what you guys think are trademark looks or ways to tell that someone is on a drug. It can include actual physical characteristics, facial expressions, mannerisms of speech, habitual actions, etc.\n\nI'll start with what I've noticed.\n\n**Cannabis** - red eyes, slow actions, random bursts of laughter, puffy facial features (sinking/large eyelids), general vibe of sleepiness. Paranoid thoughts that may sometimes manifest in speech if they want to talk about it (you can also see this if the high person is constantly perking up and looking over their shoulder every few minutes). If you ask them a question, their response may indicate that they totally misunderstood it or took the question with a very different interpretation.\n\n**Psychedelics** - dilated pupils (but IMO not as intense or as prevalent as with MDMA), very sensitive (both mentally and physically), very easily distracted, seem to fall into trances at times, physical activity ranges from couchlock to hyperactivity, fits of both extreme happiness/unstoppable laughter and total panic/fear. Speech may become very difficult for a tripping person.\n\n**Stimulants** - dilated pupils (but not always), drinking lots of water but not eating anything, dry/white mouth and tongue (from dehydration and talking nonstop), talking nonstop, quick to switch topics, can become very open and in-depth about very specific topics or very personal issues, always cutting you off in conversation (if you can even get a word in, in the first place), eyes look wider/larger either because the \"stim\" feeling makes them open them, or because of vasoconstriction (I had allergies + naturally puffy eyes during morning/daytime, and 4-FA shrunk them and oh my god this is what I look like when you can finally see my eyes I'm so beautiful).\n\nWould love to see contributions with benzos, dissociatives, and opiates (not nodding/hole levels of intoxication, it's no mystery that it looks like they're lying in bed with their eyes closed).", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-279751", "score": 0.6897021532058716, "text": "There are a *lot* of variable features about eyes. They can be different colors, wildly different shapes of the overall socket, the eyebrows are distinct, single-lid/double-lid, how deep the indentation is, the relation of the forehead to the eye opening, the shape of the actual opening of the lids, the expressions the person typically makes using their eyes... there's just a lot more variation in the eyes and surrounding area than other areas of the face.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-119266", "score": 0.6891598701477051, "text": "It's not simply the eye's, as in the eyeballs. You are also hiding their eyelids, lashes, distance the eyes are apart, size of eyes, eye color, creases around eyes, eye socket depth/size, part of their nose bridge, eye brows and brow features and probably more. Blocking out that one part of the face can leave you with many possibilities as to what someone actually looks like. It's the same reason a person wearing sunglasses can seem very attractive with them on then when they take them off, suddenly you aren't as attracted to them anymore. There were a lot of features hidden in that one small area, and you weren't expecting them either.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-71868", "score": 0.6880480647087097, "text": "I'm not sure how to express this in terms of neurology or biology, but it's when you stop using your eyes to see, and start using them to remember events, or access visual memory. It's not unique to soldiers. Anyone who's seen something traumatic can get this look about them at times.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-242689", "score": 0.6871749758720398, "text": "Good question. I wonder if it is the actual eyes that give it away, or the parts of the face surrounding it. While reading this question I tried to look \"focussed\", \"fearful\", etc., and I noticed my facial expression changed markedly, aside from possible (subtle) changes of the eyes.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-114303", "score": 0.687170684337616, "text": "I think it just serves to accentuate the eye itself. A nice eye with bright whites and clear lense is a sign of health so they contrast makes the eyes pop.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-166110", "score": 0.6858576536178589, "text": "We don't know, there isn't an answer yet. There are a few theories, and some are fairly ridiculous, The brain interprets the input from one eye then the other causing the image to seem familiar. A small mistake during the brain's construction of the situation results in a false sense of familiarity. A mix up between long-term and short term memory. Men in Black. Reincarnation. It hasn't been linked to serious mental disorders but possibly to certain drugs. Nobody can say for sure. Sorry.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-82489", "score": 0.6854350566864014, "text": "Part of it is that our eyes are pretty constantly moving even in very tiny ways. When you're dead, they stop. Also, for some people, when they're thinking heavily, or lost in thought, their eyes unfocus and they're not actively looking at anything. So when someone has their eyes open, but not actively using them (which we are the vast majority of the time), it can look disconcerting.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-47108", "score": 0.6836191415786743, "text": "The size, shape, and placement of every feature. The reason they all seem unique is that humans are wired to notice tiny variations in faces, even without consciously processing it (hence why people look familiar even when you might not be able to explain why).", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-26940", "score": 0.6835507154464722, "text": "It's called facial recognition. Your mind refuses to accept the image as it is so it tries to rectify why the face doesn't make any sense, thus the scanning around the image constantly.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-83", "score": 0.6842161417007446, "text": "It facilitates trade. I want apples, but have oranges. You want oranges, but want bananas. Jim wants bananas and has apples. None of us can make a deal we want by dealing one-to-one, we'd all have to be together at the same time and value the fruit identically. Money let's us do one-to-one deals and sequentially get the stuff we want." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-103044", "score": 0.649977445602417, "text": "Gold is a material that is easy to identify, has a limited quantity making it valuable but not so limited that its value is inaccessible to everyday people who want to buy, and doesn't rot. That means that after the zombies are contained it will be the first kind of currency reintroduced. Gold will be indefinitely valuable in just about any financial crisis. It's the currency of a less populated world. Edit: clarification", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-2592419", "score": 0.6499712467193604, "text": "I don't mean like physical money. I mean all kinds of spendable money. And are there any way that amount rises or falls? because lets say if a country starts printing more money there would be inflation and the total spendable money wouldn't change because that currency's value changes. right?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-97235", "score": 0.6499669551849365, "text": "It's tempting to think of wealth as synonymous with money but really wealth is another measurement of value. New wealth is created anytime a person (or machine) does some kind of productive work. If a farmer plants seeds in a field then wealth is generated as the field produces useful crops. If a factor churns out consumer products those are all tiny bits of wealth. When construction workers build a house wealth is created because the total value of the house is more than the sum of the materials, and so on. Of course, by the same token wealth can be destroyed by things like accidents, disasters, or vandalism. If a house burns down that much wealth has been lost. Sure it can be rebuilt, but the time the workers spend rebuilding it they could have spent building something else, so the world is still one house poorer.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-166565", "score": 0.6499154567718506, "text": "In modern societies, we give an organization called the \"central bank\" the authority to create as much money as they'd like. When they want to make more money go around, they go buy a bunch of stuff, and make some new money to pay for it. That's where money comes from. For a variety of technical reasons, the stuff that central banks buy to create new money is usually government debt bonds. That's what people mean when they say money represents debt.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2325127", "score": 0.6498781442642212, "text": "Honest question.\n\nWhere is all the money? I hear nothing but bad news about financial crisis all over the world, and it seems that there is a shortage of cash - like it is some sort of natural resource.\n\nPeople haven't stopped buying stuff. They still need food, clothing, medicine, shelter. Taxes are still collected. Fines are still levied. \n\nSo where is all the money? I mean, labor has been produced to make things and wages paid to the laborers. The things are purchased by other laborers, who were paid for producing goods or services, etc. It's a closed loop, right? \n\nCan someone explain it like I'm five or something?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-264658", "score": 0.649833619594574, "text": "Wealth is creation. Anything you create - whether it be a physical good, a service, a way to improve a process, etc. - generates wealth.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-113590", "score": 0.649823009967804, "text": "The primary purpose of the stock market is to provide a means for companies to get funding. By selling ownership in the company, companies are able to raise large sums of money without taking on debt. This money is then used to grow the business and everyone gets to make money.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-1139015", "score": 0.6497825980186462, "text": "Where do you keep your money ? Is it in your bank account ? In cash ? in precious metal ?\nPlease tell me\n\nFor me, I keep enough cash to live 3-4 months and i put the rest in silver (mostly) and some gold. I only have in my bank account some money to pay bills and rent.. Cash is going to loose value when hyperinflation kicks in, but it will allow me to survive longer than people lining up at the ATM.\nGold and silver are for later.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-25584", "score": 0.6495282053947449, "text": "It's about getting the most bang for your buck. Which sounds a bit callous when put like that, but it's essentially true. It's about using logic, evidence, and reasoning to figure out where your money will do the most good. For example, lets say you want to help the homeless. You have $1000 floating around that you want to give. Now, you could go around the area just giving $100 to 10 homeless people. You now have no idea what they will use the money for. Or, using Effective Altruism, you decide to give the money to a homeless shelter. This allows them to feed and shelter, let's say, a hundred homeless people for a day. Now you've helped 100 people, rather than just 10.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-95963", "score": 0.6494759321212769, "text": "> okay, give me a document, promising that I can exchange it for hard currency, even though you don't have enough hard currency to exchange for all the bills you're giving out Congratulations, you've just described *banking.* As an aside, you're not describing fiat currency, you're describing commodity-backed currency. Which do you want to know about?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1141333", "score": 0.6491524577140808, "text": "That has never been a goal in my life. All I’ve ever wanted was to have enough income to hire someone to clean my house because I hate doing it lol\n\nMy second thought on money is having enough to pay it forward. There have been times in my life where I went to bed hungry because if I ate another meal, I wouldn’t have enough to last until I got paid again. I want to randomly hand out one hundred dollar bills to people who need groceries, buy Christmas presents for kids whose parents can’t afford it, and fill up gas tanks so people can get to work.\n\nI’ve been on the needy end, I want to be on the giving end.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-246905", "score": 0.6490521430969238, "text": "An economy isn't money or income. Money is a marker of some quantity of goods, things, and services yet to be performed, but it's not the same thing as those goods/things/services themselves. If the quantity of those goods/things/services decreases, then we have become poorer. Put another way, a factory produces 100,000 widgets a day. It shuts down. The world is now 100,000 widgets poorer. Nobody somewhere on the other side of the world is automatically now going to get those 100,000 daily widgets. (Although market demand might lead tom it)", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-114296", "score": 0.6489937901496887, "text": "It effectively disappears. The same works with any good or service that has a value and then loses it if something better comes out. An iPad can cost $500 one day and then only be worth $400 the next day once they announce the new model. Stocks are valued by how much money people guess that stock will make over time. During a crash, a lot of people change their minds about how good a stock does, and the value of that stock decreases. That change in value doesn't go anywhere, it just vanishes.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-96664", "score": 0.6489667892456055, "text": "It does have some practical applications, but mostly it's essentially just a currency. That is, it has value because people agree it has value.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-191587", "score": 0.6489579081535339, "text": "All those answers about the zinc lobbies and such are missing the point entirely: **Creating physical currency isn't done for profit.** The cost to produce a penny and the monetary value of that penny are entirely unrelated concepts, as the US government isn't making physical currency in order to come out positive. This is similar to how police enforcing the law isn't done with the aim of making more money in fines than it costs to employ the police force; it just isn't why it is done in the first place.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-2547704", "score": 0.6489030122756958, "text": "It’s not that money makes you happy or lack of it makes you unhappy. \n\nRather think if money as an “active high” signalling system. \n\nMeaning when you go from,\n\n**(Don’t have it -&gt; Have it)**\n\nit makes you happy. But once you have it for a while, it ceases to continue to make you happy coz you already got it a while ago. \n\n*Conclusion:* Earn money, then lose it, earn it back again and so the circle continues to obtain perpetual happiness. Easy.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2675114", "score": 0.6488727331161499, "text": "Every morning of everyday of every week, I wake up, I shower, I get dressed and then I head off to work. I earn a wage and I pay taxes. But thats my question. Why do I need money? Of course, I need money to pay for food and water and heat and electric and everything else that costs money in life. But why do I pay for water? Why do I pay for it when there is so much of it around me. Its around me, but it's polluted and its unsafe to drink. Organisations pollute the rivers I drink from. I have to pay for drinkable water. Animals don't. Why do I have to pay? Why has a man all of a sudden decided; right, i'll start charging people for this. And then a load of other people who are \"in power\" say ah yes, thats a good idea and now everybody has to do lots of work to get water that is no longer shared.\nLikewise, why can't I start farming by myself? Why do I have to \"buy\" land to farm? This world is messed up. People say that they are in power in order to control everybody else and make themselves richer. Its how poverty happens. People can't \"afford to live\". People end up on the streets. They have no money to buy a part of a shared resource called water. They can't drink from it because that's illegal. It doesn't matter if they die from thirst, they shouldn't be drinking from \"privately owned water\". Think about this carefully. \"Why am I having to work to buy water that belongs to everybody anyway?\" Think carefully and you will realise the stupidity of soceity.\nLets say that I live in the United Kingdom. I have made myself a boat out of wood that is from some trees near a house that I built. So, with this boat, I decide that I want to sail to France and walk around Europe for a large portion of my life. This sounds reasonable right? Yep, its a world that we are living on, so why can't I explore it. Why can't I move around freely. So anyway, whilst i'm sailing, a coastguard approaches me in his boat and asks me for identity. Now, if was asking what my name is, i'd tell him my name and if he wanted a conversation and a biscuit, then I'd be more than happy to cooperate. However, he wants to know who I am because he wants to know why I am crossing the sea to get to another country. He is controlling where I am going. A man I don't even know is now telling me where I can go and what I can do. I just want to go to France and now he is saying no. Its irritating to know that I am controlled by people I don't even know. \nWe were all born into this world. We didn't ask to be here. But now, I am being forced into a prison called Soceity. We work to be able afford to live. If we don't work. We die, or we live such a miserable life, we may as well be dead. But the rich people such as the Rothschilds, well they have it good don't they. They control the world's wealth. Now, when I say rich, I am not applying this to people such as Bill Gates who have earned their wealth. They have worked hard to get where they are. I'm talking about corrupt politicians who vote each other in, steal money, lie, cover their errors up from the public. \nWe are slaves to the governments. We aren't able to travel freely we aren't able to use shared resources such as water or trees or land. It's ridiculous how much we are controlled by people who could kill millions without being noticed. People who have commited mass genocides but the public don't know. When you think about it, we are in prison. Work or die. Cooperate or die. That's how simple it is.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-110042", "score": 0.6484925746917725, "text": "Let's say you have a pizza. You can cut it into more slices, but that doesn't make more pizza. Same with money, because a dollar is basically a tiny slice of the total economy. Printing more dollars just makes each slice smaller.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-107001", "score": 0.6484065055847168, "text": "Because value comes from scarcity, so multiplying everybody's wealth will do nothing but lower the value of the dollar. Secondly, only the Fed prints money, and it is dispersed to the People through banks, so it's not that more money is being added to the economy, it's that people's already existing money is being paid out on newer, prettier bills.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-125585", "score": 0.6483128070831299, "text": "Digital currencies have value for the same reason other currencies do: because people believe they have value and are willing to trade stuff for them. If someone is willing to trade a pizza for whatever currency you have, be it bitcoins, dollars, or cowry shells, then it has value. If they don't, it doesn't.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-85", "score": 0.8316252827644348, "text": "A home equity loan is a loan that is based off the difference between the value of the house and the current balance of the primary mortage. If you paid $50,000 for a house that's worth $75,000, you can get $25,000 in equity loans. Subsequently, if your house was worth $75K when you bought it and it's now worth $135K because reasons, you can now get that much more in your equity loan. In theory, you don't have to wait at all to get a loan. If you sign on the dotted line for the $75K house for a $50K mortgage, you could turn right around that day and get a $25K equity loan. you just have to have the equity in the house to get the loan." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-97372", "score": 0.7643832564353943, "text": "Lets say a house is worth 250K. You borrow 230K and put down a 20K deposit. You now have 20K equity in the house. It's the value of your holding minus your debt. As you pay down the mortgage, your equity percentage rises until eventually you own the house. If the prices have remained stable or risen, you've also gained a paper profit that you can realize when you sell. The process of paying off the mortgage is what builds the equity.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-10865", "score": 0.7634509801864624, "text": "A second mortgage is basically a home equity loan. If you have a mortgage on your house, the home equity is the difference between the value of your house and what remains to be paid in the mortgage. For example, if you have a $100,000 house and you still owe $60,000 on it, the home equity is $40,000. That's the part that's already yours, if you will. A second mortgage is when you use all or part of that home equity to serve as collateral for a new loan.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1064180", "score": 0.7501446008682251, "text": "We came into possession of a house that needs some repairs (new roof and HVAC system) and are wondering the best course of action for financing them. The house is fully paid off and we will be selling it after it's repaired. \n\nAdditionally, we plan on buying a home in a couple of years. Will this hurt our chances of getting approved for a home loan? I read that getting a HELOC/home equity loan is essentially the same process as asking for a home loan which worried me. The line of credit will be paid off before we move forward in buying our own house, but I don't know how negatively (or not) this will impact our credit score.\n\nWe're new to this so any help is appreciated!", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-112665", "score": 0.7467004656791687, "text": "Equity is the amount of the house you own, versus the amount the bank owns. A Mortgage is basically just a loan that uses your house as Collateral*. If your house is worth $100 and you put $10 of your own money in and borrow the other $90 from me to buy the house then I logically own 90% of your collateral. the 10% you own of your collateral is your equity. This can be figured by (total value of the house-the amount you borrowed to buy the house) ____________________________________________________________ Total value of the House *Collateral: is what I hold ransom from you in order to make sure you pay me back the money you owe me. So in a mortgage, lets say your house costs $100 and I am giving $90 so you can afford the house, you agree that I own 90% of the house if you can't pay me back my $90 so I can sell your house and get (some of) my $90 back.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-653", "score": 0.7431215047836304, "text": "Equity in something means how much of a stake you have in its ownership. If you pay for the house in cash, then you own it, and you can borrow against it. If you take out a loan to buy it, then you only own it conditionally (so long as you keep making your payments to the bank). If you already have a mortgage on the house, then it will be harder to use it as collateral for a loan because you're already in debt on it.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1066318", "score": 0.7342835664749146, "text": "Say, for whatever reason, you cannot get a new mortgage on a home you currently own half of. If you take out a lifetime mortgage, they release about 1/3 of your house value in cash. You then have a loan to the life time mortgage company secured against the value of your house. From what I understand now, if you maintain paying the monthly interest payments, say £1,000 then you essentially have a normal interest only mortgage with a bank, just at a higher interest rate.\n\nNow, ideally for the company, you fail to maintain the £1,000 monthly interest repayment and they get to erode the equity you own in your house, which gets compounded monthly. If you knew you could maintain the 1k, does this make an equity release a good tool to keep your property?\n\nAdditionally, I’m looking for a calculator that can demonstrate how lower payments on the ‘1,000’ erode the equity of the house. I cannot find anything online and working it out seems like a major ordeal in excel", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-94904", "score": 0.7197160124778748, "text": "The idea is that you would buy a house for, say, $100,000, of which $90,000 was financed (i.e. debt). Then, because housing prices were rising, in two years your house might be worth $150,000, and you still owed $90,000. Your house was worth $60,000 more than what you owed. This is called \"having $60,000 in equity\". Lenders would allow you to borrow against this equity, meaning, they would give you $50,000 in cash in exchange for a loan against your house. So you would have a house worth $150,000, and owe that original $90,000 plus the $50,000 loan, or $140,000. But in the meantime, you used that $50,000 in cash for a sweet car and a huge TV. Now as long as home prices continued to rise, you were good.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-123254", "score": 0.718671441078186, "text": "Say you borrow $100k to buy a house. At first the bank \"owns\" the house as you haven't made any payments yet. But after a few years you have paid it down to where you only owe $50k now. You have paid off half, so you now have 50% equity. It's important because it represents *your* percentage of ownership.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-1954296", "score": 0.7185567021369934, "text": "The more I think about it I don't see a personal benefit at all. I was initially informed it was the equity that held value to me personally. But what is the equity for? To borrow more money and get deeper in debt? I know, right now, I won't be in this house for 30 years. I'm not an accountant, but is there any other way to structure a home loan that doesn't involve most of the interest being paid up front? Do the banks know the numbers and have they configured loans to pay them the most money in the shortest time?\n\nWhat am I missing? I'm sure there are a bunch of points I am not aware of.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-1065437", "score": 0.718390166759491, "text": "Here's the deal - We are trying to purchase our first home. We are getting destroyed in the housing market because we can't make a \"cash offer\", and have to wait for financing. The houses we are looking at purchasing are around $300k. My parents' house is worth around $600k with about $250k still owed. \n\nI had heard you can use your equity in your current home to make a \"cash offer\" on another home. Is there a way to make their equity work for us to give us the advantage over other buyers? (and ultimately return us to status-quo, with a loan in our name for our property, and them not being \"on the hook\" for the mortgage on our home) \n\nI was thinking if they took out a home-equity loan to purchase the house (essentially paying for the house in \"cash\"), then us turning around and taking a home-equity to repay them)? \n\n\nOr is all of this too expensive and not worth it?\n\n\n**EDIT: Thanks for all the help and insight! It seems that this particular move is more risk and hassle than it's actually worth.**", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1065076", "score": 0.7170669436454773, "text": "Construction loans, construction-to-permanent loans, home equity loans, refinancing all together. It all starts to get a little blurry for me, and I was wondering if someone out there had any good advice. \n\nWe have about $70K of equity in our house. For all of the projects we'd like to do, we'll need about $150 - 200K.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1064265", "score": 0.7112113237380981, "text": "Hi folks! My wife and I saved up and bought a $200k house outright, ~2 years ago. It was our first house, so we've never had a mortgage. Now I'm thinking that was maybe not the smartest; since we had $200k cash, we should have put down $40k and gotten a $160k mortgage, and invested our leftover $160k in index funds instead. Paying 3-4% and making 6% is good, right? (I realize this adds risk, but we both have well-paying jobs and would be very confident with this amount of risk.)\n\nNow we want to do about $80k of improvements on this house, and we've saved up $80k to do it. But I'm thinking, the second time we can do this smarter - let's get a loan for that $80k, and invest our money. But, having never been through this before, I don't know where to start.\n\nSo my questions:\n\n1. am I right in thinking that we should have gotten a mortgage originally?\n2. am I right in thinking that we should get a loan for these improvements? (I know home equity loan rates aren't as good as mortgage rates, but they still look ~4% at a glance; we have great credit)\n3. is a \"home equity loan\" the thing I'm looking for? (or is it a HELOC, or \"second mortgage\", or some other thing?)\n\nThanks!", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1608983", "score": 0.7098961472511292, "text": "Hi everyone. My wife and I are looking at using some of our home equity to help family buy their first home.\n\nWe're just looking at the budget and wanted to ask if banks consider contracted wage or actual wage? I'm full time with a guaranteed 30 hours, but in reality I work closer to forty. Will the bank look at my actual wage for borrowing against equity, or will they look at my contracted wage only? Or does it depend on yearly/half yearly average? Thanks for any help and info!", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1065985", "score": 0.7090513110160828, "text": "As the title says, I am buying a house form a family member that they have owned for a couple years. They are willing to sell it to me for the amount they owe on their mortgage, which is 130k. Based on recent sales of other houses in the neighborhood, which are all fairly similar, we anticipate it to be worth around 155-165k (best estimate until an actual appraisal is conducted). \n \n\nIn this scenario, would we obtain a mortgage for the appraised value of the house, let's say 160k? At first I assumed we would be looking at getting a mortgage for the amount he wants to sell us the house for- 130k, but after thinking about it that doesn't really make sense because where would the gift of equity come from? If we buy the house for 160k, would receiving the gift of equity from my relative then be a separate transaction later on once he uses the proceeds of the sale to pay off his mortgage, and then he gives us the remainder to apply to our mortgage? Or would this somehow occur simultaneously when we close on the house?\n\nI am mainly having a hard time understanding when and how the gift of equity gets factored into the purchase of the home or where it shows up in the contract, and how we could use the gift up front to assist with closing costs and as large of a down payment it can cover. \n\nI am meeting with a real estate lawyer in a few days to discuss in exact detail, but am trying to at least have a basic understanding of gifts of equity and how this will potentially work beforehand. Thanks!", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1064361", "score": 0.7064661979675293, "text": "So, sorry in advance if this isn't really the right place for this. I've been Googling, and can't find exactly what I'm looking for. I understand the theory of it, but I'm having a hard time calculating the specifics.\n\nBasically, I want a sort of plug and play formula for determining how much equity I'll have in a house after so many years of paying my mortgage payment.\n\nSo, if my initial loan is X, interest rate is Y, life of the loan is Z, if I pay the minimum payments for A years, I'll have B equity in the home. Also assume traditional mortgage, fixed rate, and 20% down ( so no PMI ).\n\nI want to calculate for B, so I can get a rough idea of how much I can expect back when I sell the house. \n\nI know there are cost associated with selling the house, and I may get more/less than I paid for the house, but I've found resources for calculating that part.\n\nThanks in advance!\n\n\nEDIT: THANK YOU EVERYONE! The Amortization Calculator is EXACTLY what I was looking for! This makes my life much easier :) Have a good night everyone!", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1063611", "score": 0.7062203884124756, "text": "No experience in this field going to soak in all the information I can get. I am a college student with 20k saved up ( from a job and stock market investing) looking to make my first big investment. Want a rental property and good source of passive income I know it’s never as easy as it sounds. However is this how it works speaking very broadly by the way, put X% down get a loan from the bank let tenant pay off loan until it’s paid off, then on the rest is profit. Now I know there is a lot more too it but is that how the loan process works? Would love to hear some personal experiences and recommendations.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-164202", "score": 0.7059441208839417, "text": "Simply put: The bank lends you money to buy a house. In return you pay interest and pay the money back over an extended period. The bank specifically lends you money for a house, which means that the money is invested in something that remains valuable (or even increases in value). This means that, should worst come to worst, the bank can sell the house to pay off the money you borrowed. That's why a mortgage is a special kind of loan, and can be done at lower interest rates, because the bank has an insurance that he can get the money back. (Should the value of all houses suddenly decrease, this system will get in a lot of trouble).", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1063754", "score": 0.7010172605514526, "text": "Hey! So I have a question about how I should transfer my equity from a recent home sale into another property.\n\n\n\nSo, I bought my house 3 years ago for around 375k and recently sold the house for about 485k, so after everyone gets their piece and I pay all my debt off I will walk away with about 100k in cash in the bank. \n\n\n\nWhat I want to do with that money is buy a larger piece of undeveloped property and build my own house.\n\n\n\nMy question is, would it be better to buy the property (I intend to make an offer on 12 acres in the next 2-3 days) outright, which would take a significant portion of my money, and then get a construction loan to build, or would it be better to get the loan to cover the cost of the property and the construction, and keep what I don't need for down payment for emergencies until eventually paying it towards the overall loan? My gut says I should buy the land, because I'll own it and if something terrible happens I have a place to camp, but I don't know what would make most sense financially. I know you pay interest on a loan, but with more money for a down payment I can put more money into construction and improve the potential value of the property. \n\n\nAny advice or tips?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-41365", "score": 0.699885368347168, "text": "Equity is the difference between what you owe for the property and what it's actually worth. If you owe 200k and the house is worth 250k you have 50k equity in the home.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1063770", "score": 0.699855387210846, "text": "Hi, does anyone know if its possible to pull equity from multiple properties at once with a HELOC type loan? lets say i have 4 properties each is worth 250k, but i only owe 500k in mortgage debt all together, so i could pull out roughly 300k (200k stays as the 20%). is there any way to do this? thanks", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-86", "score": 0.7667936086654663, "text": "An is used for words that start with a vowel sound. Examples, An owl, an hour, an eight, an apple, an onion. A is used for all others." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-718997", "score": 0.7276882529258728, "text": "Among other sources, I'm using Rosetta to teach myself German and today I came across two sentences:\n\n\"Ich arbeite im Krankenhaus.\"\n\nand\n\n\"Ich arbeite an der Schule.\"\n\nGoing by this it looks as though there are some places/locations where you'd use \"in\" and some where you'd use \"an\" -- is there a specific set of rules about this? I did a quick Google search but the results just confused me even more when some people were saying \"bei\" is a better word. That may very well be true, but I haven't reached the usage of that word yet in any of my lessons so seeing that did nothing to answer my question.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-747498", "score": 0.7272148132324219, "text": "Can someone explain to me the difference between these expressions and when they should be used?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-124659", "score": 0.7230390310287476, "text": "\"I\" (oneself) is a proper noun, and should be capitalized as such. \"A\" is an article.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1396026", "score": 0.720498263835907, "text": "Or maybe it's just me who has never heard \"an European\". What are your experiences?\n\nedit: I guess the correct question would be, why is 'a' in the case of Europeans and not 'an'. It was to my understanding that 'an' is used when referring to something that starts with a vowel?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2789768", "score": 0.7202112674713135, "text": "I was doing a grammar exercise and this was the answer. Is it correct? Are there times when you don't have to put the \"pas\"?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-31370", "score": 0.719673752784729, "text": "This is not in fact a national difference. In both countries the rule is the same (though often misunderstood by people in both countries). If you would say \"I\" you say \"John and I\". If you would say \"me\" you say \"John and me\". I (doing it) | me (being done to) -|- I hit a car|A car hit me John and I hit a car|A car hit John and me", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1110485", "score": 0.7178609371185303, "text": "I haven't figured out the difference in between using ' and \", I have been just using ' the entire time.\n\nEdit: Thank you all for the input!", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-1396211", "score": 0.7162889242172241, "text": "Let's say I am ata supermarket. Do I say \"Je suis à un supermarché\" or \"Je suis en un supermarché?\" Are there any rules for using à and en when describing general locations like the park or a house? Much thanks!", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-70146", "score": 0.7147225141525269, "text": "You use an if the next letter starts with a vowel sound and a if it doesn't. An apple, a pear, an elephant, a donkey, etc. The only thing you have to look out for is words like unicycle or honor. They are a unicycle and an honor, because you look at the first sound of the word, not the first letter. Also, some people pronounce words differently and will adjust accordingly. A historic moment and an historic moment are both correct. It should in every case be easier to pronounce the phrase the proper way.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-28944", "score": 0.7144646048545837, "text": "Phrases that use \"AN H...\" were grammatically correct when no-one in England really pronounced their H at the start of any words; this wasn't a class issue, it was just the accepted way the language functioned. As people began pronouncing the H at the start of some words, the \"AN H...\" structure remained part of \"proper\" speech - in England, it's not uncommon to hear it from people who are older, better-educated, or who are making an effort to be well-spoken, like BBC newsreaders. In general conversation, people seem to have unconsciously absorbed that a sounded H doesn't require \"an\", but a silent H does - as if they're ignoring the H and matching with the first vowel. This is true even of people who regularly drop their H; for instance, those with an Estuary accent. So, \"a hotel\" but \"an heir\", \"a historic\" but \"an honour\". The difference between \"a horrible man\" and \"an 'orrible man\" remains one of class and geography.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1061833", "score": 0.7141909599304199, "text": "Sorry I had a typo in the title, I mean ä and ö.\nI'm going to Germany in a little over a week and I'm practicing my pronunciation. Because I know another language that uses the long and short sound of \"ü\" it is one of the easier German sounds for me, but the long \"ä\" and long and short \"ö\" sounds are difficult for me. I've looked at a ton of tutorials but I still can't quite get it.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-720173", "score": 0.7124437093734741, "text": "Pretty much the title. I am referring to the situation when both are used as verbs!\n\nAre they interchangeable? How to distinguish the situation when to use one or another?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-1395198", "score": 0.709990382194519, "text": "I’ve been taking a few lessons and noticed that sometimes para is used where I always thought a would be. For example, I always thought “I am going to the island” would be *voy a la isla*, but I’ve noticed that sometimes it is *voy para la isla*. Is the former incorrect, or are there just different ways of saying the same thing? And what’s the general rule for which to use (in this context) and when?", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-5814", "score": 0.7098245024681091, "text": "Because eight/eighteen/eighty-eight begin with a vowel-sound, and therefore get an 'an'. While seventeen, ninety-one or five do not and therefore get an 'a'.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-16891", "score": 0.7096213698387146, "text": "The two pronunciations of the word \"the\", that is, sounding like 'tha' or 'thee,' follow the same rule as \"a\" vs. \"an.\" When the *the* follows a vowel sound, you use 'thee' (ex. The Apple). And if the doesn't, you use 'tha' (The car). They are both only one word, however.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-33580", "score": 0.7073220610618591, "text": "It apparently stems from where the stress falls in the word, e.g. his-TOR-ic vs. HIS-tor-y. Plagiarizing from the Mac dictionary app's entry for \"An\": > There is still some divergence of opinion over which form of the indefinite article should be used before words that begin with h- and have an unstressed first syllable. In the 18th and 19th centuries, people often did not pronounce the initial h for these words, and so an was commonly used. Today the h is pronounced, and so it is logical to use a rather than an. However, the indefinite article an is still encountered before the h in both British and American English, particularly with historical", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1393900", "score": 0.7063766717910767, "text": "For the past few weeks I've come across the letter \"á\" being used alone as a word. I know it's not the possessive and I think it has something to do with verbs similar to \"atá\" but I can't figure it out. \nThe second question is the difference between \"don\" and \"go dtí\" to both mean \"to the\" or \"for the'. Are they used based on whether it is a noun or verb preceding it?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1620328", "score": 0.7052987813949585, "text": "Could someone please explain to me what the correct position is of 'också' in sentences? I can't figure out the pattern/rule (if there is one?), and it's been causing me a lot of frustration. :/ Thank you in advance!", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-258322", "score": 0.7052733302116394, "text": "I'm a linguistics student, and the only one I can think of off the top of my head is [Grimm's Law](_URL_0_) in terms of named laws. That's not a law describing how things work, though, it's a description of how certain sounds changed into other sounds. There are some things that are rules in English, like the order of determiners, adjectives, and numbers before nouns in English. Considering the following: (*whatever means \"whatever is ungrammatical.\") * The/my three red rubber balls * *The red three rubber balls * *Red rubber the three balls * *The red rubber three balls * *The three rubber red balls There are also some phonological (sound-based) rules that are always true. So, for example, the plural in English comes in three forms: [s], [z], and [əz]. [s] always follows unvoiced sounds and [z] always follows voiced sounds. I can't think of an example where this is not true.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-699171", "score": 0.7046270370483398, "text": "What's the rule regarding the usage of a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence? I have seen sentences that start with \"And.\"", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-87", "score": 0.767676830291748, "text": "It's usually not noticeable unless you sniff harshly, but one nostril is usually more open and free-flowing than the other. The nostril that's closed usually swaps back and forth after several hours throughout the day. When a nostril is more closed, it's swollen, because the blood vessels inside the nose are swollen. During that time, your immune system attacks all the nasty stuff that came into your nose. It's harder to breathe when that happens. But your other nostril is wide open and maximum air comes in. This combination of having one closed nostril and one open nostril is a super efficient way for your body to both clean the nasties and breathe full air at the same time. If it was all just 1 nostril, then every few hours you would have difficulty breathing. Air breathed through the nostrils are combined in the back and flow into both longs. One nostril does not lead into one lung." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-23932", "score": 0.7284829020500183, "text": "Its actually like that all the time. Its simply more noticeable when you are sick. (normally both are open, one slightly less than the other. when sick one is usually closed) If you plug each nostril individually and breathe you will notice one is more closed. This is done to aid with smelling. Some scents are quickly dissipated so your unclogged nose can pick them up quickly. The clogged side picks up more subtle long lasting scents because they are trapped in your nose longer. So doing this allows you to pick up a wider range of scents. Which nostril is plugged also rotates regularly throughout the day. Edit: My ENT told me that years ago.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-556253", "score": 0.7279902100563049, "text": "2 eyes. 2 nostrils. 2 arms/legs. 2 lungs. 2 testicles. 2 boobs. 2 kidneys. 2 tonsils. 2 ears. It seems as though if we need more than 1 of them, then 3 is too many. Why is that? Is it a symmetry thing, a mirroring of each side of our body? Come to think of it, I cant think of anything that I have 2 of on only one side of my body. huh.. weird.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-80158", "score": 0.7277503609657288, "text": "> Because your nostrils split their workload. Throughout the day, they each take breaks in a process of alternating congestion and decongestion called the nasal cycle. At a given moment, if you're breathing through your nose, the lion’s share of the air is going in and out of one nostril, with a much smaller amount passing through the other Source and more info: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-60310", "score": 0.7270639538764954, "text": "it should switch back and forth every few hours: Humans favour one nostril at a time and the other shrinks slighty. This is most noticible when they're blocked.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-130384", "score": 0.7256056070327759, "text": "Your nose is actually one tube once you go far back enough. The place where they join is connected by a flap of tissue and when you're sick, mucus blocks one of the openings (can happen to both as well). When you lie down or roll over sometimes you'll notice the stuffiness switch sides, which is the mucus being pulled to whatever side you're lying on. I've found that if you blow your nose as the moment when one nostril clears up but the other hasn't clogged, you'll breathe much easier for a while.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-73295", "score": 0.7235658764839172, "text": "A large part of that is controlled by a natural process called [the Nasal cycle](_URL_0_), which switches back and forth between congesting one side and the other. It's controlled automatically by the body and takes about 2.5 hours to cycle. As for why, there are different ideas, but one might be to keep the membranes inside of your nose moist and warm. While air is going through your nose, it is being warmed and humidified so that it doesn't cool down or dry out your lungs. After a while, the inside of your nose can get dry and can get infected. So if one nostril takes a break to warm up and humidify itself, while the other breathes then switch, it would avoid that problem.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-287119", "score": 0.7231941223144531, "text": "There is such a thing as the \"nasal cycle\": the majority of people (about 85%) only breathe through one nostril at a time. About every four hours or so, people switch nostrils. Studies have indicated that which nostril you're breathing through at a particular time, has a great effect on your body and brain: f.e. breathing through your right nostril increases blood glucose levels while breathing through your left nostril does the opposite. Breathing through one nostril for extended periods of time (years) can have adverse effects - there are speculations that it may be one cause of diabetes. It appears that having two nostrils helps to maintain the equilibrium of the body in some way. _URL_6_ _URL_5_", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-105147", "score": 0.7218227386474609, "text": "All people's nostrils actually cycle back and forth from one nostril to the other every so often (~45 minutes-ish). Congestion due to cold can make the effect much more noticeable. I think it's a mechanism to help keep nasal passageways moist and hence more efficient if the sides take turns. [Further reading:](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-14903", "score": 0.7207156419754028, "text": "The various shapes of noses appear to be tied to adaptations to climate. The nose must properly heat and humidify the air that you breathe. In a cold climate, it's advantageous to have a narrower nose. That's so that when a person inhales, more air comes into contact with the mucosal surface of nose, which provides moisture. The narrow nose maximizes the surface area.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-179338", "score": 0.7177419066429138, "text": "I'm not an expert, but I saw an ENT and he basically said that there is tissue in the nose, called turbinates, that is responsible for controlling air flow into the nose in a way. On a normal basis, it swells a little on one side, then the other. When you're sick or if you have swollen turbinates (like mine, which required a surgery to reduce, a long with a septoplasty to correct a deviated septum) they can cut off air flow in one nostril while they're swollen. I'm sure it's much more involved than that, this is a patient trying to sum up what he remembers from a surgery over a year ago!", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-140617", "score": 0.7171981930732727, "text": "[Mental Floss has an depth report on this.](_URL_0_) Because your nostrils split their workload. Throughout the day, they each take breaks in a process of alternating congestion and decongestion called the nasal cycle. At a given moment, if you're breathing through your nose, the lion’s share of the air is going in and out of one nostril, with a much smaller amount passing through the other. Every few hours, your autonomic nervous system, which takes care of your heart rate, digestion and other things you don’t consciously control, switches things up and your other nostril does all the heavy lifting for a little while. The opening and closing of the two passages is done by swelling and deflating erectile tissue - the same stuff that’s at work when your reproductive organs are aroused - up in your nose.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-51927", "score": 0.7160730361938477, "text": "Could you imagine only having one nostril? What would happen when it clogs 30% of the day and you don't have the other to fall back on? What about when you have the sickness? Would you be down with it?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-163259", "score": 0.7122370600700378, "text": "See [this Wikipedia article](_URL_0_). Only one nasal is fully uncongested at any time so that both nasals don't become dry and crusted at the same time. While you're breathing through one side of your nose the other side is \"recharging\".", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-112231", "score": 0.7114704847335815, "text": "Because it is more familiar to you. You have 10 fingers, 10 toes, two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, etc. Yes, you have one nose and one mouth but the number two satisfies your natural sense of symmetry more easily. The reason that five is comfortable is because of five fingers and five toes.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-291438", "score": 0.7109665870666504, "text": "When you have two eyes/ears it is used to pinpoint the distance/direction of the source. Our ears for example hear a sound in the closer ear first. Our brain determines the time delay between the two sounds and calculates the direction. With our nose, there are two nostrils but they are very close together making this a less exact science. Take something fragrant and put it in front of your nose, you can tell which side it is one. But with non-localized smells it is less exact. This is why hammerhead sharks have their nostrils so far apart, it gives them more information about which direction the smell is coming from.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-87474", "score": 0.7108470797538757, "text": "You don't notice it when you're not sick, but your nostril actually do this all the time. It's just exaggerated when you're sick. It's called the nasal cycle. At any given time, one of your nostrils is doing most of the work and is clear, while the other one is \"resting\" and is more congested. It's managed by your autonomic nervous system so you can't control it and most of the time don't notice it. There are two reasons for this. The first is that it gives the cilia and mucous membranes a chance to rest so they can better filter and humidify when they're doing the work. The second is that it helps you smell better. Some smells are better detected in fast-moving air, and some are better detected in slow moving air.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-182497", "score": 0.709717333316803, "text": "To better sense the particles we smell, both nostrils have different levels of obstruction, to change how fast the particles flow through the nose. This allows the nose to sense the larger particles that take more energy to move, and the smaller ones which would be pulled into the lungs too fast. Throughout the day they switch over, so neither nostril can go \"blind\" from just smelling the same things.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-170520", "score": 0.7096925377845764, "text": "Because going towards the nose you're focusing on one point. Going away you're trying to focus on two completely different ones.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-2642733", "score": 0.7094790935516357, "text": "Ive always thought it was just me, one of my nostrils \"closes\" while the other is open and breathable and then they swap. Or sometimes both are clogged and breathing through my nose gets more difficult.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-32593", "score": 0.7089322209358215, "text": "Only one of your nostrils are active at a time (called the [nasal cycle](_URL_0_) ). The non-active one is the one that gets blocked up.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-88", "score": 0.5933839082717896, "text": "As a random side point I lit fire to my bathroom on accident with a candle. The glass holder got hot and broke, the countertop started burning, and a towel had gotten caught before I realized it. It happened super fast and I panicked while throwing water and wet towels on things. My dad, who is a fire investigator, came home the next morning and 5 seconds in the door asked me what burned (he hadn't seen it just smelled). I tried to tell him but obviously my story didn't match up to the burnt remains. I wasn't lying, I just genuinely couldn't remember cause I was so panicked. Anyway, he was able to give an exact play by play of how it started, what it caught next, etc. Tl:dr; fire investigators know their crap. Edit:typo" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-110323", "score": 0.5637025833129883, "text": "The orange light emitted by a fire that isn't combusting completely is due to incandescence. Basically, leftover carbon atoms that didn't get oxidized (from whatever you are burning) get really hot. This extra energy allows the carbon atoms' electrons to randomly jump up to higher energy states. Each time an electron jumps back down to its normal energy state, it releases a photon (light). Basically this is just black-body radiation from bits of soot. The blue light emitted by clean-burning flames is due to electron transitions as a part of the oxidation of CH radicals as the hydrocarbon fuel breaks down.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-872902", "score": 0.5636996626853943, "text": "First time posting here. I've had these pics for a few years and finally thought I'd share them. These were captured on a couple different motion-activated trail cams on the same night, and appear to show the same girl carrying a bag of some sort.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThese pics were taken by someone my dad used to work with who sent them to my dad who then sent them to me, so I can't be entirely sure that these are legit, but I have no real reason to doubt them. I don't think they were shared with many people, and I can't find them posted anywhere else online.\n\nAccording to my dad, this guy (a hunter who was using the cameras to see wildlife in the area) was so freaked out by these pictures and other strange occurrences in his house that he wanted to sell his property (in western Wisconsin) and leave the area. \n\nI did notice that one of the pictures is dated 2014 and another is dated 2015. I can't make out the date on the third picture, since it's a picture of the guy's computer and the date is cut off. I still have the email from when my dad sent me these pics, and I received them in September 2014, so the picture dated 2015 is showing the wrong date. I'm not sure what to make of that dating error, but I still think the three pics together show some pretty convincing evidence of a ghost.\n\nThe other interesting thing about these pics is that apparently there was an ATV accident in these woods and a young woman was killed. The guy living on the property who captured these pictures showed them to a friend who was one of the EMTs at the scene of the accident, and he thought the girl in the pictures was dressed similarly to the girl who died in the accident. I have absolutely no idea when this accident occurred or the specifics of the location, so again I cannot be sure that this is credible information. I've tried researching it but can't seem to find anything, so the girl in these pictures is still a mystery.\n\nI've had many of my own paranormal experiences near this area, in small-town, middle-of-nowhere Wisconsin, so I definitely believe these pics could be showing a ghost but I'm not 100% convinced. I'd love to hear others' opinions on this, so I just wanted to share and see what you all think!", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1730017", "score": 0.5636854767799377, "text": "If everyone in the house is a tenant (not the owner)and police search the residence and find, say, marijuana in a linen closet-how do they determine who to charge? \n\nI'm still figuring out how to best protect myself in the massive shift from legal to illegal marijuana states in the US, and this has always bugged me. \n\nI keep a little pot in the house, the bulk is off-site. I store it in a linen closet shared by three tenants and I fail to see how cops could assign the blame to any one person. Do we all go down? First to \"rat\" wins? Urine tests for everyone? How to they decide who is responsible?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-30763", "score": 0.5636522769927979, "text": "In reality theres no sure fire way of knowing its going to erupt soon until, you know, it erupts. The thing could be completely inactive for all we know. Also, dont worry, because its completely out of your control.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-598624", "score": 0.563637375831604, "text": "Manager called the police. 2 police units quickly arrived and detained the mess maker. Evidently some sort of deal was worked out between manager, police and mess maker. \nThey had mess maker clean up the area and the whole parking lot.\n\nI watched the whole thing go down from about\n1/4 block away.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-254616", "score": 0.5635810494422913, "text": "Sea level rise is one issue. Lack of snowfall in the mountains means less snow pack and less melt off for summer water. Drier and hotter summers make for progressively worse wildfire seasons. And I'm sure there's more.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-510839", "score": 0.5635323524475098, "text": "I was rollerblading with my friend on a bike trail that goes through the city back in 2006. We had taken this trail many times and didn't think it was necessary to bring our cell phones. \n\nWe came up to this wooded park and suddenly this man came flying out of a bush acting like he was rabid (this was way before bath salts were around, but he probably was high on something.) He made some kind of growling noise from what I remember, but we were flying by too fast to have him do anything to us.\n\nI was in front of my friend and said, \"fuck, what was wrong with that guy\" as we both looked back. I looked forward and suddenly another man came out from the woods on the other side, but this one was running towards us. I screamed out, \"Shit! Get out of here!\" My friend panicked and ending up falling. She got back up just in time before the man caught up to her. \n\nWe rollerbladed down the trail for quite a ways and stopped. We waited for 20 minutes for another jogger to come through from the safe direction and \"escort\" us back through. It probably would have been smarter to just continue on the long way (away from the area of the park), but I guess there was a bit of curiosity as to what the hell we just saw. Finally, we found a jogger, told him the story, and he agreed to come with us although I think he thought we were pulling a prank by the look on his face. As we got back to the wooded park, we could see three silhouettes of people waiting in the distance (it was dusk by this point) but all three went back into the woods when they could see we had extra company with us. I guess they had a third person waiting in the brush. Nothing else happened. \n\nI read in the newspaper that there had been lots of crime in that part of the trail a few weeks after the incident, including lots of theft and rape. Biker police presence was increased as well.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-49693", "score": 0.5635223984718323, "text": "Probably using a dish antenna, like satellite TV uses, and triangulation. The antenna picks up signal strongest from where it is pointing at, so they take three readings from three different places and trace the lines back to the source. Assuming that the signal is all they have to go on, this might take several tries, as the method is inaccurate from a long way off. But if they have some other clues that they could use to guess the general location of the broadcaster, then the amount of tries drops to as few as one.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-123842", "score": 0.5634976029396057, "text": "Because if your house caught fire the year after you did that, you'd still expect the fire department to come put it out. If someone broke in, you'd still expect the police to show up. You still expect the roads to be paved. Government services are an ongoing thing.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-1657809", "score": 0.5634863972663879, "text": "When shit was going down with the grease fire at the end. Out of no where Hank has a wheel barrow of dirt to put on the fire. Wouldn't a fire extinguisher work too? I'm sure Hank owns a few.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-2629251", "score": 0.5634694695472717, "text": "Do you guys have any tips or tricks to finding free campsites that don't prohibit having a campfire?", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2676387", "score": 0.5634676218032837, "text": "Australian fires have been all over Reddit and from the maps it looks like huge swathes of the country are burning down. Are insurance companies going to declare bankruptcy? Can the government even afford to replace everything?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-121106", "score": 0.5634323358535767, "text": "Smoke detectors work by having a radioactive substance and a radiation detector inside. The detector keeps getting the emissions from the substance, and this keeps a circuit open. Whenever enough particles that can block the radiation get between the emitter and the sensor, the circuit closes and the alarm goes off. Fireplaces and cigarettes actually burn pretty cleanly, meaning that the smoke they create is made up of very fine particulate matter that the radiation can get through, unless you've got enough present to be difficult to see through. Burned toast smoke, on the other hand, creates larger airborne creosote-like objects that can easily block the radiation. This is due to the oxidation reaction being much less efficient, resulting in larger particulate matter being released into the air as smoke.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-145035", "score": 0.5634180307388306, "text": "Nope. You can possibly make a claim if officers acted incorrectly (may depend on the country), but the fact that nothing was found doesn't mean they did anything wrong (you don't need 100% certainty to search, and if you did have it you wouldn't need to bother searching). The government doesn't need to pay you if them doing their job properly damaged your property.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-129971", "score": 0.5633829236030579, "text": "So there's a big call center somewhere (it could even be thousands of miles away or it could be local), and you call in. You tell them your emergency, you tell them your location (they generally already know your zip code and if you don't know exactly, they can use GPS to locate the phone you're calling with) and then they send in a call to your local police or fire department telling them what's up.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-509525", "score": 0.5633093118667603, "text": "I live in Tennessee, and this happened back in early February-March of this year. I live near a place called Red Ash. Before I begin the story; Red Ash is a long stretch of road with railroad tracks, lumber depositing, and old mines, and it is known to be haunted (which I don't believe in ghosts), however, it is also known for cult activity, sacrifices, gang violence, drug dealings, illegal dumping of drugs, sex trafficking, and the KKK. It is actually one of the only places our local police and State Troopers never go out and visit. I had a friend, who was also my manager, take me and a friend she doesn't really talk to anymore for a drive out there (it is actually a peaceful road with nice nature aside from its horrible background), this was around 11 at night and around here that late the temperature can actually drop to the 30s. Red Ash has a secret road people take for Halloween as there is an old jailhouse that's from the 1900s at least (some people have actually posted videos and pictures about this place before many times). My friend drives to the Jailhouse and since we were all 3 young females I told them it would be safer if we just stayed in the car as sex trafficking was starting to get really bad at the time (even though my friend carries a gun she got from her Dad). Now I get gut feelings about certain things or places, and I had an odd feeling the entire time we were there; like we were being watched. We did a little turn around at the nature reserve where there are train tracks and we were listening to some music while I kept telling her and her friend that something did not feel right. I was in the backseat and I still can't believe I saw it over them. As we were heading up to the tracks to get across to pass the jailhouse I saw a white blob at first; which I thought was a trick of the car lights...until I saw it was cone shaped and it was a mask, someone was staring at us! I told my friend that I see someone in there and she stopped the car to flash her lights and even pulled out a flashlight to roll down her window and blink it at them. The person was motionless this whole time and I was beginning to think maybe my mind was playing tricks. Until she yelled out that she had a gun the person then quickly moved away from the window. I told her and she said she knew and we drove out of there quickly; seeing no sight of the person. The story doesn't end here though, as we got back on the asphalt road there in the tree branches in front of us was a white, cone-shaped mask that was blowing in the wind and when we were heading back through there were signs of masks in the trees. My friend and her friend were actually so scared they wanted me to pray with them (I was the only Christian in the car), and as we crossed the second set of railroad tracks that lead into town almost there was nothing else. We haven't really been out there ever again since, and while it's good that nothing happened thankfully I can't help but wonder what was going on? Were we about to be in a meeting with them? What was that person doing out there on a cold, dark night inside an old, abandoned building? And what would have happened if just the 3 of us would have went inside the building not ever seeing the person? It was definitely a night I can't ever forget along with others.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1588931", "score": 0.563300371170044, "text": "Could you please describe me those steps?\n\nFor example:\n\n- The field agent reports an anomaly\n...\n- The task force contain the anomaly\n...\n...\n\nThanks", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-322032", "score": 0.5632967352867126, "text": "A match flame only looks pointed when not affected by outside turbulence. The flow of air is fairly uniform. In a large fire, there are many more opportunities for the flame to interact with obstacles, wind, etc... and the whole area becomes much more turbulent.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-2202590", "score": 0.5632380843162537, "text": "I'm doing a current event report in my civics class, and we chose to do wildfires. Thing is, we have to include bias in the media, but it doesn't seem like any of the articles from biased websites are even biased about the situation. So, long story short, we chose a topic that doesn't work for our presentation. Is anyone by any chance aware of any type of debate between conservatives and liberals over this? Anything related?\n\nIt would be a pain to start our presentation over, but let me know if I'd be better off doing that instead. I just need some advice, my partner isn't responding to any of my messages either.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-41713", "score": 0.5632362961769104, "text": "Fire is a chemical process. All the chemicals involves have mass, and temperature. It takes chemical bond energy and turns it into light and heat (which are really the same thing). It stops when the temperature, fuel, and oxygen conditions no longer are sufficient to sustain it. This is a frequently asked question, Search can find you many fine answers.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-89", "score": 0.6032336950302124, "text": "Usually it leaves them scrambling. I know when John Ritter died they actually had to write that death into \"8 Simple Rules\"." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-925760", "score": 0.5730666518211365, "text": "Is it possible to assign an actor to a character, then get a printable report of characters and actors? If so, how? So far I only see a report with characters, but no way to assign roles. \n\nI have a feeling I might just be missing it and it's right in front of me. \n\nEDIT: I write and direct my own stuff. So I'm not putting in some major actor. I'm putting in actors who are going to play those parts when we shoot or put up it up.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-91329", "score": 0.5730465650558472, "text": "From what I've read, Eric Garner died of a heart attack shortly after being placed in that chokehold. The guy had some health problems that included heart issues, obesity, and asthma. Now I'm not saying this makes it ok. BUT, people have died from heart failure/heart attacks from being tazed (a common critique of tazers), and the cop obviously had no way of knowing this would be an issue. I assume the same rationale is used here - the guy had medical complications that made death much more likely. That aside, I think the officer acted extremely improperly (I do know what I'm talking about here - I'm majoring in criminal justice and just finished an internship with my local sheriff's department). Not sure where things will go from here, but I'm surprised that this didn't get the attention that ferguson did, when the details in ferguson seemed to be much more in the cop's favor (he actually had reason to fear for his life).", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-18074", "score": 0.5729842782020569, "text": "This can be accomplished a couple of ways. One is by use of a shotgun mic that records sounds from a narrow direction, thus catching the dialogue clearly without too much background noise. Another method is known as ADR, automatic dialogue replacement, where the actors will go through and record their dialogue again in a closed recording booth to be dubbed over their scene.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-485161", "score": 0.5729573965072632, "text": "I mean, I always watched fiction (most horror, sci fi and so) because they always told me fantastic stories and sometimes showed that the humanity is beyond saving.\n\nAnd then I watched Making A Murderer. I always considerer myself a \"strong\" person. I could watch any kind of gore or anything and don't mind at all.\n\nBut this makes me sick. Even if SA eventually killed her (which, at this point, is highly doubtful): the trial is a complete circus. They had 0 proof about SA killing her (aside from a key that has ONLY his DNA found in a scene searched 7 times before and the blood on the car which was tested in the most suspicious way). At the same time, there were at least 5 or 10 proofs of conspiracy/error by the cops.\n\nBut what makes me lose me sleep are two facts: The officer who called asking informations about the vehicle before it was found (lets not even talk about the key that magically appeared in the trailer) and the fact that she was supposedly raped, cut, burned, shoot at and there is not one single trace of her DNA (aside from a AGAIN highly doubtful test).\n\nAnd with all that, the amazing jury can reach to a UNANIMOUS DECISION that he killed her. It's a joke.\n\nTl;DR: If a fictional movie would be made with a similar case, would be a failure because no one in his mind could ever believe in such thing. But then, reality shows that is way harsh than fiction.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2200922", "score": 0.5729256868362427, "text": "Which movies or TV series have you seen that portrayed your profession, and how accurately did they do so? What do they change to make it more entertaining? \n\nI'm particularly curious about medical shows.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-183586", "score": 0.5729020237922668, "text": "Pick one: 1. Shooting at an angle so that the camera is out of view. 2. Special effects (mirror is replaced with a green screen). 3. [Using a body double, a dummy, and the actor's identical twin sister.](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-287033", "score": 0.57283616065979, "text": "You could ask the same question of classical actors e.g. doing shakespere on stage. Widening the net might bring more more insights.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-199866", "score": 0.5728340744972229, "text": "/u/Bobby_Newmark gave an excellent answer to this question in regards to common law. _URL_0_ In summary, the cultural importance of death was such that it had to occur in a dignified way, even if it was an execution of a criminal. The hood was used to spare the audience from having to see the agonised face of the condemned and to save the condemned from being exposed at such a time. It was meant as a kindness.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-199895", "score": 0.5728043913841248, "text": "As a follow-up to this, why is death portrayed with a scythe?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-481988", "score": 0.5727273225784302, "text": "Funerals aren't cheap.\n\nEdit 1: This blew up more than I thought.\n\nYes the drinking and drugs are costing a lot but funerals cost way more. I think its 85% funerals 15% drugs, on why they're poor. \n\nNow granted there isn't a funeral every episode but to me it comes off that they do just off camera; as the have had several on camera ones. Either at a home, turning the boy to ash, or just putting him into the ground. This isn't cheap. Average funerals can range 5-15k. The past few years he doesn't die as often but, previous seasons he does. \n\nI only thought of this after watching a documentary on funerals and cremation.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-136327", "score": 0.5726767778396606, "text": "Producers are basically the managers of the creative industries. In film and TV that's about things like convincing financiers to pick up a script, deciding the shooting schedule, booking locations, HR work with the crew and cast, managing production/renting of equipment, props, costumes... everything that has to happen before you're ready to point a camera at someone, and to keep that stuff flowing smoothly until post-production is done and the product can go out to the audience. Although it's aimed at video game producers, [this Extra Credits video](_URL_0_) does give a look at production work in fairly simple terms.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-689140", "score": 0.5726385712623596, "text": "So im working on a short that is about someone suffering from Alzheimers Disease. we have some transitions utilizing home video footage that we are going to slowly throughout the film drop its quality and add some blurring effects to faces. this is a means to visualize that her memory is getting worse. I have yet to find the right answer online yet and I'm looking for some advice on this. Has anyone reading this used this technique or something similar before?\n\nThanks guys!", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-972496", "score": 0.5726274847984314, "text": "Do any of you other redditors know of a site that has instructions on how to do this properly? Google has failed me immensely, and I know, in the vastness of the interwebs, there has to be something somewhere to show how to do this without hurting our actors.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2385241", "score": 0.5726181864738464, "text": "I feel like a lot of fiction is primarily driven by the author wanting to explore the way they feel about something, a particular opinion, and why they feel that way, so that the reader will also think about it and what that topic means to them/think about it in a new way. \n\nI was just watching a tv show, Scream Queens, which is basically exploring how greek societies have had carte blance to emotionally and physically damage other students for years - a place where the power/wealth imbalance of society is dangerously externalised. I'm not from the US so debating whether this is true or not will not mean much to me. \n\nIn the penultimate episode, there is a monologue (*lots* of monologues in this show) where one previously victimised character tells his girlfriend that there have been 104 deaths specifically from hazing since 1970. A real figure. \n\nThe rest of the show has been frivolous and quite distinctly not based in reality, also considering it's prominent position in one of the final monologues of the show, made me feel like it was possibly a direct source of inspiration for the writer and that he worked backwards from the statistic with the idea of it being a minor shock reveal that the audience would sit up and take notice of, having invested themselves in the rest of the show already gone.\n\nI was wondering if anyone here had tried something like this themselves?\n\n* what was the information/fact?\n\n* what made you feel like you should share it with others?\n\n* how did you attempt to 'disguise'/submerge the fact so that it didn't seem incongrous to be sharing it in the context of the story?\n\n* if you've done this several times before, do you have a routine for developing a story from one piece of information?\n\n\nI haven't got a specific thing I want to write a story about myself, I liked some parts of Scream Queens and that bit stuck out so much that I was wondering if it were me whether I would have been able to make it flow better in my own version of the same story. Seems like a task easy to underestimate the difficulty of though.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-24770", "score": 0.5726051926612854, "text": "The number of deaths has been embellished. Remember, they are lumping in drowning and other summer-related deaths with the heatwave mania. It's just typical media dramatization.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-45652", "score": 0.5725082755088806, "text": "Kids are difficult to control, and you can't be as mean to them as you can an adult. There are definitely adult actors who behave like children (or worse...I'm looking at you Christian Bale), but on the whole adult actors are more 'mature' and professional than children. Children also have special protections in many jurisdictions (hours worked, exploitation, etc) that make it difficult to shoot a movie (the goal of the shoot is to film as much as possible in as little time as possible - so having a restriction on the number of hours that can be worked in a day is a problem).", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1389822", "score": 0.5724115967750549, "text": "We all know that death is a natural part of the life cycle, so why are some/most humans negatively affected by witnessing death? I'm not really referring to natural death, either. Humans who witness tragedies are often left traumatised. Why? What happens mentally to cause that trauma?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-519972", "score": 0.5723380446434021, "text": "So I'm making a film about some college kids who are violent, either do drugs, deal them or both and somehow come up with or stumble upon a revolutionary computer game that basically allows them to play god. As you can see, the way it is so far these guys wouldnt seem very likable to most people. Can anyone give any advice on some ways I can make people care about what happens to them?", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-102906", "score": 0.5722445249557495, "text": "why would the actors care? They aren't splicing the movie scenes together back in the studio. They just need to act and read their lines. If your characters start their journey in Paris, and then travel to England, and then back to Paris, it's only logical to shoot all of your Paris scenes at once, saves time, saves money, saves the stresses of travelling so frequently as a film crew. Also actors aren't stupid (I guess I can't speak for all of them), I'm sure they can understand exactly what is going on in terms of production.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-2130873", "score": 0.5721997618675232, "text": "I feel like I have seen many anime in which the plot ends either in the death of the one the MC loves, or the entire plot revolves around the past death of the one the MC loved (Anohana). Not just a loved one, but THE one they were in love with. And all of these deaths happen at a very young age. Like early 20s, high school, or younger. I personally, and luckily, have never had a romantic love die. Nor has anyone I know had it happen to them. So my question is this: has anyone here ever experienced anything like in these shows? And if so, can you make it through those kind of shows? If it isn't too personal, and you feel comfortable sharing, I would love to hear what happened. These stories leave lasting impressions on me because of the emotions they invoke, and I don't even have a personal experience with it. \n\nPS this is my first post ever, have mercy &gt;_&lt;", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-90", "score": 0.654198408126831, "text": "Not an expert in the topic but I have some knowledge Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing as it represents a flow of money. This is why the average lifestyle in America is comfortably more lavish than those of in China. This is made possible because Americans are in better position to take out large loans and pay them back in the future. If all the debt were to be wiped out then that would mean banks would lose a very high percentage of income. Heres where my knowledge stops as my train of thought has been limited to what I know." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-54633", "score": 0.6213933825492859, "text": "A single currency allows for more efficient trade, but removes monetary policy from the individual nations and gives it to the bank of the entire EuroZone. As everyone is using and borrowing the same currency, when some countries *cough Greece cough* lie about their finances to get in and then do a terrible job on their own economy, it hurts their currency which is also the currency of everyone else in the Eurozone. This makes it harder for other countries to borrow money, which hurts their economies, and makes it even HARDER for the others (and those initial countries) to borrow money, etc. etc.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-2608912", "score": 0.6211280226707458, "text": "What if one day, all the LatAm govs decided to unite and stop selling things to the US and become an internall market or something like that, like an autarky.\n\nI mean everything they are exporting right now (oil, seeds, fruits, etc).\nWhat would be the response of the USA Government?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-47561", "score": 0.620919942855835, "text": "The US debt and deficit isn't that large relative to other developed counties. The US National Debt as a percentage of GDP [is less than most of the rest of the Western world](_URL_1_). The deficit as a percentage of GDP is [unusually high](_URL_0_), but that's a long term problem and the other places you mentioned are suffering from problems that will effect them in the short term. Moreover, IIRC, Greece's deficit, as a percent of GDP, is 4 times higher than the US's. The US deficit can be controlled far more easily than Greece. The US is in bad shape, but there isn't a large, wealthy, stable country that is in better shape. Though there are rumblings of Russia, China, and various Arab countries forming an alternative to the Dollar and Euro.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-131044", "score": 0.6208431124687195, "text": "A financial collapse of the US economy or USD would destroy the entire world economy, not just Canada's. The US economy is so large and intertwined with the global economy that it would trigger a domino effect, taking the whole world down with it. A few reasons: 1) The world uses the USD as the primary reserve currency. If it were to extremely lose value, many countries would be sitting on a lot of worthless paper. Also, most non-physical transactions use USD. If it lost value, these transactions would be almost impossible. 2) China's economy would almost surely collapse. If the US economy collapsed, China's largest importer by far would no longer be able to buy enough goods from it. China's GDP would implode considering exports are so important to its economy. 3) The US has many leaders in the financial industry. If these were to all collapse at once, what happened in 2007 would happen again, but much much worse. When these things all happen, the world would be in a lot of trouble.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1339811", "score": 0.6207568049430847, "text": "For starters, what if smaller governments around the world try to take advantage of the war to resolve their own disputes? Such as an Argentinean take over of the Maldives/Falkland islands, or a Bolivian invasion of Chile.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-173417", "score": 0.6207376718521118, "text": "Theoretically yes, a nation could agree to be peacefully annexed with a transfer of wealth as a prerequisite. This was once fairly common, as small nations occasionally sought protection and wealth by yielding sovereignty to imperial nations. It hasn't happened in recent memory, but there's no UN \"rule\" (If UN rules really meant anything anyway) preventing two nations from merging.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1185973", "score": 0.6207213401794434, "text": "If you have debt with a bank and it collapses, does your debt disappear?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-186782", "score": 0.6204875707626343, "text": "This is actually an exceptionally difficult question to answer. In the event of an armed takeover, the winner can set whatever terms they want, and the loser can suck it. In the event of a peaceful transition of power, what happens to the money (or at least *should*) be set forth in the agreement that led to the transition. Of course, in practice economies do what they want and sometimes the money that people actually use isn't the money the government wants them to and sometimes isn't even actually money. I'm pretty sure that RuneScape gold is still more valuable than the sovereign Bolivar.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-8418", "score": 0.6201725006103516, "text": "Theoretically you can threaten tarrifs on their goods if they don't pay and offer them trade deals if they do. That's about the only real power short of war. If they don't pay either we build it and pay for it or we don't build it.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-190431", "score": 0.6201614141464233, "text": "Other countries can't control the value of USD. If they have USD debt and the value of the dollar rises against their local currency, their debt gets bigger. Many emerging markets are having this issue right now. They took out a bunch of USD loans in the aftermath of the 2008 crash, and now that debt is getting harder to service as the dollar gets stronger.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-123383", "score": 0.620040237903595, "text": "Next to nothing. Having a large debt does not matter if you can make the payments on said debt. The US has never missed a payment and if the economy was tanking hard enough for it to miss a payment there would be far greater concerns for the average American.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-141592", "score": 0.6200213432312012, "text": "AFAIK, something like 90% of all student loans are granted directly by the federal government. In a loan forgiveness program, like the existing Public Service or Teacher Forgiveness programs, that debt simply ceases to exist. Someone at the Federal Student Aid office just goes to their ledgers, electronic and paper, and writes off the corresponding assets. If it helps, think about what happens when someone declares bankruptcy or dies. Their credit card debt just goes \"poof,\" and ceases to exist, after a period of negotiation or verification. Your question's more relevant for the aftermath, when federal student aid most likely disappears. That's up to policymakers, and will probably involve increased taxes, laws that cap tuition, etc.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-114593", "score": 0.6198402047157288, "text": "The USA has a massive economy & can manage to make payments on those debts because its citizens pay taxes. Being deeply in debt is not an issue as long as you can make all your payments on time. Greece is a tiny country with rampant tax fraud. They can't keep up on their payments & the bill collectors are showing up to demand payment.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-60028", "score": 0.6197619438171387, "text": "I am sure you want absolution of the country and not an answer but the answer is that the US was one of the two global superpowers that became the one global superpower and it has had a LOT of effect over the last 60 years. Go back before that and england played a similar role. Sailing around the world and making decisions for other people.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-8582", "score": 0.6194968223571777, "text": "The US defaults on its debt. Several nations with abysmal financial systems have done this in recent years. If the US government defaulted and needed to borrow money in the future it would have to pay a significantly higher interest rate, since creditors would no longer see the debt as highly secure. The US pays a really low interest rate on a lot of its debt since it has a stellar record. Nations like Greece and Argentina have to pay staggering double digit interest rates due to their past (and current) financial woes.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-91306", "score": 0.6193996667861938, "text": "It's bad if your country is unable to make the payments it has set on its debts, because then other entities will decide it isn't safe to lend you money anymore (since they aren't getting it back as agreed) and won't want to do so. That takes away a valuable tool for funding activities in your country, limiting you to cash on hand. If you *can* make the payments, then it is not necessarily bad at all. But it does *sound* scary to many people, and so politicians will still use it as a scare tactic.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2610566", "score": 0.6193903684616089, "text": "Let's say, hypothetically, the United States goes to war with a foreign country and loses. The treaty demands the United States cedes an entire state, let's say Florida, to the other country.\n\nWhat happens after this? What happens to the delegations, seats, senators, electoral collage, local politicians or the population? What are some changes that would occur in this hypothetical if the United States lost an entire state, what would be the attitude of the country/federal government?\n\nClearly, this has never occurred before in history but was there ever procedures or provisions to supervise the handover of a US state to a foreign power in case it ever did lose a war?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-119702", "score": 0.6193532943725586, "text": "Political/military power? China and Russia would probably accelerate their military buildup and start asserting more and more regional and global influence to help fill the void. China would probably become a lot more aggressive in the south china sea/sea of japan. It's unlikely any country would attempt to outright invade the US - too much to lose economically and militarily (so many guns with private citizens!) and not a ton to gain. Electrical power? Mass chaos initially, probably protests and riots if it weren't resolved quickly. Anything more specific would require more details about how we suddenly didn't have any electricity.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-62261", "score": 0.6192204356193542, "text": "There might be something more in depth, but it probably involves the Euro currency, their financial problems and having to meet financial obligations. Normally a state issues its own currency, which allows it to print its own money, thus having control over their debts. There are good things about having a shared currency, but if one member is doing poorly, it creates problems.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-100775", "score": 0.619107186794281, "text": "money is not arbitrary, it is the memory of services rendered in the past which has not yet been repaid. If they want to forgive that debt... sure. but they would never do so voluntarily. China has been exploiting its population to create a huge treasury, they arent going to willingly give that up. So assuming you brainwashed them into liking this idea, than nothing would happen, it wouldnt matter.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-91", "score": 0.6987304091453552, "text": "Human eyes are way better at detecting moving objects than resting ones. Plus, a change in perspective may present the object in a better contrast/less obscured by other objects." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-290042", "score": 0.6636430025100708, "text": "Different eye anatomy might allow a smaller organism the ability to focus on smaller objects than we can focus on, however the ultimate limit of vision is the wavelengths of the light that the eye can detect. AFAIK, all biological vision is limited to detecting [photons with wavelengths in the 100-1000 nanometer range](_URL_0_). So anything that is smaller than this range is effectively invisible, no matter what you are. For reference, a large molecule like a protein might be ~10 nm, and the radius of an atom is ~ 0.1 nm", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-175788", "score": 0.6635490655899048, "text": "I can't remember the name of the phenomenon, but basically your mind tries to suppress all similar items to find the thing you are trying to think of. But in the process of doing this it will also suppress the thing you are actually trying to think of. Source: watched a SciShow video on it years ago.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-192780", "score": 0.6634402871131897, "text": "Oh I actually think I might know this one! Humans are really good at recognizing patterns. We see faces in everything- toast, clouds, stone, etc. We just automatically look for patterns in things, so when we see a spot in some leaves that seems to have a separate pattern, or doesn’t quite line up, we’re likely to notice it. At least, I think that’s the reason!", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-37419", "score": 0.6633913516998291, "text": "Welp, it's been a while since you posted this, so you probably have an answer from somewhere else already, but I will answer anyway. This is mainly due to our brains being very good at selective attention. It is impossible for the human brain to focus on every bit of information it receives, so instead it will focus on one or two main points and effectively ignore the rest. A good example of selective focus is [the infoumous Monkey Business Illussion](_URL_1_) [More info](_URL_0_) When you are day dreaming, your brain can only focus on that, thus tuning the world around you out.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-172876", "score": 0.6631935238838196, "text": "Being that a camera shows that distortion is a very good indication that there is in fact a distortion with the field of view of our own eyes, the reason why you don't perceive the distortion from your eyes, whether or not it's there, is because your brain regularly makes up for distortions and makes corrections to our perception. A good example of our brains making such corrections are the illusions created from optical illusions, our brains can literally fill in the gaps, even if they don't nessisarily exist.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-31391", "score": 0.6631779670715332, "text": "Because real life is 3D, when you look at something objects at other distances become blurry and out of focus. On a screen everything is in 2D and in constant focus, so there is more 'crisp' image for you to see.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-318739", "score": 0.6631582975387573, "text": "It's a bit more complicated than that. The human eye has the best resolution at the center of focus, and it gets worse as you get closer to the periphery. Hence our peripheral vision isn't as acute as our central vision. So you can't really compare it directly to a camera which has uniform (basically, aside from lens aberration) resolution across its field of view. Also, our eye moves around and our brain uses that information to populate our peripheral vision with information we can't directly see all at once. Kinda like using a low resolution camera, taking a bunch of snapshots and stitching them together to make a panorama of higher resolution than the camera is capable of. A more useful measure is the best resolution a human eye can discern under good conditions. This link speaks to that: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-280763", "score": 0.6631369590759277, "text": "simply put: your eyes don't work like that. you have many cells that respond to light and they don't have to be in sync with each other, they can just fire when they are ready and activated which gives a more 'stream' of vision than many pictures", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-874086", "score": 0.6630674004554749, "text": "Especially on light background, when shifting around the eyes I see these types of things: \n\nOnce seen, they are hard to unsee, and easy to obsess about.\n\nCurious as to how many here can see them at will and how many don't know what the heck I am talking about.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-4395", "score": 0.6629611849784851, "text": "The cells in your eye that are capable of clear vision are concentrated in a circle about one *millimeter* across. Most of your eye just can't see things sharply.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-168671", "score": 0.6629602313041687, "text": "Our telescopes are not large enough to be able to zoom in that far, and still let in enough light for a viasble image. Also, _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-318903", "score": 0.6627791523933411, "text": "Because the object you're looking at isn't on the mirror in front of you. If there is a 30 foot distance between you and the object, and you put a mirror between you, your eyes still have to focus 30 feet away. the mirror isn't displaying the image like a monitor, it's merely reflecting it.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-117730", "score": 0.6627646684646606, "text": "You can focus your eye to see a sharp image at different distances by adjusting the lens. Try holding your finger at arm's length before your face. Focus on the finger and the background is blurred, focus on the background and the finger is blurred. Exactly the same thing happens with your reflection, which is in focus at twice the distance between you and the glass, while whatever is outside it usually further away.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-116484", "score": 0.6626996397972107, "text": "Because it is so far away, nearest and farthest part both appear \"infinitely distant\" to your visual system. Our eyes weren't made to perceive depth at a range of over 300,000 km.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-7183", "score": 0.662487804889679, "text": "It's the difference between looking at a mirror, and looking at a TV. With a mirror, you are looking at the actual light waves coming from the distant object, so your eyes must focus distantly.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-13447", "score": 0.6624701619148254, "text": "Rods and cones, my dude. Essentially, the corner of our eyes contain the part that is \"good at seeing in the dark\", whereas the centre of our eyes do not.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-43982", "score": 0.662408709526062, "text": "My guess is because since you can see stuff with your open eye, your brain treats the closed eye as a 'blind spot', therefore sort of ignoring what it sees (or doesn't see) because there is nothing interesting to see through that eye (in this case, black/darkness). I dunno.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-172360", "score": 0.6623755693435669, "text": "Your eyes detect light via lots of different cells in the back of it. Lots of really good cells for seeing colour are crammed together where the light focuses on the back of your eye; this is why you see colour good. But those cells aren’t so good at adapting to light or responding to motion. You have loads of other cells that aren’t good for picking up colour, but work really well for low light and movement. Those are the majority of cells in the rest of the back of your eye. So when you look to the side of an object in the dark you can see better. This is also why you can sometimes see something moving in the corner of your eye, but when you look right at it you need to focus to really spot the movement sometimes.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-45081", "score": 0.6622635722160339, "text": "Ah, father Dougal struggled with this one. I'd say it's down to depth perception, context and prior experience. Your brain is super efficient as it automates so much, especially based on experience. So, if you see a tiny cow, your brain instantly assumes it must be far away, as that's what makes sense bearing in mind your brain is used to cows being, well, cow-size. Our binocular vision gives us functional depth perception too. The visual context, lighting and atmospheric haze will all help too, of course.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-24797", "score": 0.6621963381767273, "text": "Your brain processes a lot more information than you are consciously aware. So you may see something in your peripheral vision or some noise that you didn't realise you noticed. This makes your subconscious uneasy as it is a base survivor instinct.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-92", "score": 0.6597985625267029, "text": "The acids in tomatoes, peppers, and onions take time to break down carbohydrates (beans) and proteins (meat). So overnight the beans and meat absorb more of the delicious spicy flavor." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1429303", "score": 0.626092791557312, "text": "Tried two so far- the green chicken chili was a big hit, but the Greek-style chicken with warm tabbouleh was very disappointing. Anyone worked through it a little more?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-7483", "score": 0.6256160140037537, "text": "A fraction of the population are [supertasters](_URL_0_) which means they are more sensitive to certain tastes. Supertasters sometimes [avoid spicy foods](_URL_1_) but taste is pretty malleable (acquired taste). I've also noticed that the people who enjoy very spicy foods somehow manage to break down the capsaicin molecule (responsible for the spiciness of chili) in their guts. Therefore, it's not spicy for them when it's coming out the other end (but it burns so much for me).", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-747231", "score": 0.6255478858947754, "text": "Which one do you use and why? What's the difference? I find the later to be more effective than the first. Thoughts?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2285764", "score": 0.6248390674591064, "text": "So basically I became proud owner of 30 red chili peppers thanks to Too good to go. Now I wonder what to do with them, or rather how to preserve them somehow. I do like spicy food, thus that's no problem. But I'm not sure if I can simply throw them in the freezer and take one whenever needed. Making sambal, harissa or similar things does sound interesting as well, but I read that fresh chili paste goes off about about a week, and I might not need any for the next three weeks. Thus probably not a good idea. Thus, any ideas that don't require too much cooking, and too much freezer space (it's very limited, as is the rest of my storage space)?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-79758", "score": 0.6247678995132446, "text": "At least part of the answer has to be that, heating food excites odor molecules. Smells better = tastes better. Plus texture.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-1313335", "score": 0.624446451663971, "text": "For the last two weeks I am finally back on track again. Yesterday I decided to make a big pot of turkey chili as lunch for the next days. I already had most of the ingredients at home and went to the store to buy ground turkey and crushed tomatoes. And I bought... ground turkey and crushed tomatoes. No extra \"let's check what else they have\" or \"maybe I'm in the mood for this or that\". No getting in the store for two things and coming out with two bags full instead, and then the extra food either spoils or I eat it just because I have it.\nI felt actually a bit weird but also very satisfying.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-720330", "score": 0.6243768930435181, "text": "If i smoke half a gramm at the first day, do i get less high with the other half at the second day or is the high the same?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-162167", "score": 0.623897135257721, "text": "It'll die and change color. Probably to black if you leave it long enough. It will also produce spores so getting rid of that chili will be a good idea. Microbes will also start feeding on it, so it'll rot into some nasty black sludge.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-88604", "score": 0.6237746477127075, "text": "Your stomach is dealing with *acid* which is different from the thing that makes chilis spicy -- a chemical called *capsaicin.*", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-1080582", "score": 0.6235024333000183, "text": "Hey everyone,\n\n\nWhen I make chili I like to start by smoking my meat first. Unfortunately I don't have this luxury right now. I was thinking of getting the smoke in other ways. I'll certainly sear the meat in bacon fat, but I'd like to take it step further. I have some smoked pig hocks that I've saved from a while ago. I was thinking about making a stock out of them as a base for the chili. Would I be able to extract the smoke flavor through water?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-104454", "score": 0.6224883198738098, "text": "There needs to be time for the inside to cook as well. Same reason you might want to go at a steak fast and hard (because you wouldnt want to cook it all the way through, but maybe have some nice searing on the outside)", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-2499328", "score": 0.6223211288452148, "text": "...to eat cookies a night before, but you missed it, on the next night you are able to make up with that. So the, would be, 2nd night of cookie eating is a bonus night of cookie eating. DOULBE the serving that night. Keep that in mind.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2010325", "score": 0.6214054226875305, "text": "The flavor is better (salt will do that I guess), and the texture is far superior. Not shelling peanuts is how they were intended to be eaten. Also, you dont have to worry about what to do with the shells. Not sure how unpopular this is, but among my friends and family, apparently quite a bit.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-1429015", "score": 0.6205795407295227, "text": "I've been making this slop (which contains peppers so I called it chili) for awhile but I don't really know how to cook so I want to see if anyone here knows any basic changes that can improve what I'm doing.\n\n**Ingredients**\n\n* 1 onion (equals about 2 'bowls')\n\n* celery (1 'bowls' worth)\n\n* carrots (1 'bowls' worth)\n\n* 1 lb ground turkey\n\n-I've been doing lean but I'm thinking of using more fatty turkey instead lately\n\n* Olive oil (enough to coat the pan to saute)\n\n* 1 red bell pepper\n\n* 2 poblano peppers\n\n* 2 serrano peppers\n\n* basil \n\n* Wegman's chicken stock (4 cups)\n\n* 2 containers of tomato sauce\n\n* A few spoonfuls of garlic or a clove if I have it\n\nWhen I say bowls, basically I mean I use enough that the volume fills up the bowls I have in my kitchen.\n\n**Steps**\n\n* Oil up pot\n\n* Dice up onions, carrots, celery, add garlic\n\n* Saute onions, carrots, celery, and garlic until soft/color change\n\n* Oil up a pan\n\n* Add turkey to oiled pan\n\n* Saute turkey and add salt/pepper\n\n* When turkey is browned dump it (and the oil/fat in the pan) into the pot\n\n* Add tomato sauce and chicken stock to the pot\n\n* Cut peppers, remove seeds, add peppers to pot\n\n* Cut up basil and toss it in\n\n* Simmer until the right consistency (as soon as it's not watery?) Usually seems to take a few hours.\n\nI usually eat this with some bread, but I think rice is what people usually eat chili with. It would be cool if I could somehow add flavor to the rice that the chili was eaten with too, but I don't know how I'd do that (rehydrate w stock instead of water?) or what flavors I'd use.\n\nSo, any tips on how to make this better?\n\nNote: Chili usually has beans right? But the reason I stopped using beans is because they destroyed my insides. I'd like to keep beans or something like it because they add calories to it which is nice.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-77565", "score": 0.6204373240470886, "text": "The smoke that comes off the tip burns at a lower temperature. Because it burns at a lower temperature, More toxins are released. This is why second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-111085", "score": 0.6197471618652344, "text": "I'm not an expert, so this might not be the whole reason, bot some flavours enhance each other while some cancel each other out, causing some combinations to taste different than the sum of their parts. A fine example is caramel and sea salt. When you make caramel, you're burning he sugar, which makes it not only sweet, but also gives it a bit of a bitter flavour. The sea salt cancels out the bitterness, making the sweet taste come out more. For chili and coriander, I know that coriander enhances the spiciness of the peppers. Not sure what else happens to the taste though. I imagine most good combinations either cancel out the flavours you don't want, enhance the flavours you do want, or both. Cooking is essentially just chemistry you can eat.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2253041", "score": 0.6194488406181335, "text": "Hello All:\n\nI have some Thai Chili Peppers in my garden this year. I've used them fresh in pad kee mao, and they were quite good, but I want to understand them better.\n\nHow are fresh and dry chili peppers used differently, if at all? \n\nAlso, are Thai peppers typically seeded before use, or is the inclusion of seeds a matter of how spicy you want the dish? Thank you", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-13480", "score": 0.6193343997001648, "text": "You should cook the first side completely, then cook the second side. Flipping more times not only increases the chance of burning, but can create a tougher texture on the surface of the cooked object. A steak, for example, will create that lovely, beautiful skin that we all know and love on the first flip, but if you flip it again... well, it'll dry out and get tough. We want moist, crisp skins, not tough and dry ones.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-232819", "score": 0.6191412210464478, "text": "In an attempt to answer a question about how spicy Aztec food was, I discovered that chilis were used to clear \"roughness of the face\" which I think might be acne. You may find the post [interesting](_URL_8_).", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-2763590", "score": 0.618076741695404, "text": "I brewed some Tie Guan Yin last night not realizing how late it was. I only got to do one infusion before going to bed.\n\nThe lady that sold it to me at the local tea shop said not to keep the leaves overnight, but didn't explain why. Is there actually anything wtong with reusing the leaves the next day? They're not sitting in water or anything.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-93", "score": 0.7503806948661804, "text": "Ha, had the speakers on when I played that audio clip and the cat **freaked** out. Apparently that knock knock fools animals into thinking someone's at the front door too. Your brain determines the location of a sound's source by a few different factors. Namely, distortion differences between each ear, and delay in which ear hears the sound first. Technology has gotten good enough that with proper equipment it can re-create those effects and trick your brain. We usually use the term \"binaural\" as in \"Two ear\" to describe the effect. One of the most famous examples of binaurual audio is the \"Virtual haircut\" clip _URL_1_ where they demo a technology designed to create the effect. Lots of ASMR artists and other people do it too, one popular device these days is [a 3Dio twin mic setup such as this](_URL_0_). With two microphones and extremely accurate recreation of the human ear shape (it affects how sound bounces about), you can recreate a whole room's soundscape effectively." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-115115", "score": 0.7126532196998596, "text": "Your program, for video, is taking all the instructions you gave, like start this clip at this timestamp at this time, and play it for this long, and bringing them together into one file with two, 5.1, or 7.1 audio channels. Audio programs are taking what is likely dozens of audio and midi tracks and bringing them into one 2-channel file.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-2541621", "score": 0.7125022411346436, "text": "An example is in Shad's song ''Call Waiting (Interlude)'' there is a part at 1:15-1:18 (Link to video where - if you are wearin headphones you can ''feel him moving around you''. Now the way I understand how this is done is one part of the headphone goes softer than the other etc so you perceive it as if he is actually talking in a 3D way, what I'm really wondering is how do they record this in a studio and how does this translate to my iPhone playing the song in this way?", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-9484", "score": 0.7119000554084778, "text": "That's because they have programmed in a feedback control loop to detect which sounds are coming from the speaker (as opposed to your voice) and which should be echoed and which should not. Lots of engineers worked hard to make this work.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1052837", "score": 0.7114742994308472, "text": "Note: I did not make the original gif, i just edited the sound in\n\n", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2745950", "score": 0.7110123038291931, "text": "My recording from a meeting got fucked up, I didn’t realise I put my phone in my pocket as we were leaving, and the last two minutes are... Not good. It's just a personal recording, so it doesn’t have to be top notch, but there’s a reason I recorded it, and I would like to be able to hear what was said.\n\nI dowloaded a few apps from the app store, and WavePad seems to be the most versatile. I am just absolutely clueless. Mostly it's just loud rustling covering two people talking, an adult female with a low voice and a young woman with a high voice. I think doing a high pass and low pass could help? I googled human voice frequency and tried high pass 150 and low pass 300 just to be safe to not cut out any speech. It helped I think?\n\nNormalising, equalising and noise reduction sound like they could be useful. My biggest problem is the fact I lack the vocabulary to even understand what I'm reading when I look up how to use these features, since I don’t have any experience regarding audio. I'm probably not making much sense, but I'll try to answer any questions you have. Can anyone help?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-691300", "score": 0.7109664082527161, "text": "Does anyone know what production technique was used here on 2:32 mark ? \nI hear some soft clipping or limiting but not quite sure how to replicate that", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2001590", "score": 0.7109501361846924, "text": "I need some audiophiles to explain to a layman what I'm missing out on by not having the WAV files, tbh I don't know what I have, it's a torrent, I originally planned to get physical but if the quality is really that much better I may go ahead and buy the download.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-160870", "score": 0.7107507586479187, "text": "That's called 'tape hiss' / 'noise floor'. Whats happening is the audio tape is passing over the playback head and even though there may be nothing recorded the head is still picking up the metal particles on the tape. Also some of the physical energy is being transferred to the head as well. Something like that anyway...", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-1650651", "score": 0.7105957865715027, "text": "It’s called private listening on the roku app. Allows you to stream audio to headphones instead of the tv\n\nLandlord complains about the noise so this is the only way I can enjoy tv", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-308271", "score": 0.7105264663696289, "text": "It doesn't amplify the sound at all. At best, it might transmit the door's vibrations to your ear. It's easier to press your ear to a glass than to a door. Mostly, it's a movie myth. A visual indication of surreptitious intent to eavesdrop.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-242789", "score": 0.7102097272872925, "text": "it would help to know what you used to record it and what settings you used. There are some parts of the signal that look like interference from other devices and then theres something that looks extremly simple and rectangular like a garage door opener, or a rf plug.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-323871", "score": 0.7100799679756165, "text": "Your guess is correct. In order to get high-quality sound, you have to perform [echo cancellation](_URL_0_). This algorithm is so essential and simple that you don't really ever see software settings mentioning it, but if you try to implement a telephony device or application, you quickly discover that you aren't going anywhere without it.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-110124", "score": 0.7100626230239868, "text": "When you hear it, you hear the result of the sound bouncing around *inside* your head. Recorded, you hear what everyone else hears, what you project outwards. And that's weird because it's not what it sounds like to you", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-129121", "score": 0.7098415493965149, "text": "If you take a waveform and inverse it, then play it along with the original, they'll cancel each other out (+1 combined with -1 equals 0). Noise canceling headphones actually have a little microphone on the outside that it uses to listen to the noise around you, and then it produces the inverse of that noise and plays it through the headphones, negating much of the noise outside.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-2540082", "score": 0.7098029851913452, "text": "ive noticed my Audio-Technica ATH-ADG1X sounds better on my old-ish iphone then on my gaming rig and my only guess could be the fact that im using the motherboard audio", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-185266", "score": 0.7094060182571411, "text": "Telephone devices use \"echo cancellation\" techniques to prevent people hearing themselves like this. It's hard to do well, especially in environments where the hardware is moving about. Devices listen for echoes of their outgoing signal to work out their delay and volume so they can subtract it from future incoming signals. Some devices do it better than others, and some listening environments can be more difficult to handle than others, so the results will vary. For example, in a room with many hard (reflective) surfaces, the echo from a speaker can travel directly back to the microphone, and also be bounced off the walls back to the microphone. So there can be multiple echoes, each with a different delay and volume.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-690123", "score": 0.7091636061668396, "text": "Is there a certain way to do this in programs such Audacity? Or is there some other software? Very curious as to how they extend a screaming sound perfectly without clipping or audio issues, for example.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1412423", "score": 0.7090792059898376, "text": "Can anyone help me find where the original audio from this video? thanks!", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-12957", "score": 0.7090092301368713, "text": "It's the speakers. In order to make sounds, the speaker has to move back and forth *extremely* quickly, up to 20 thousand times a second for the highest tones that humans can hear. To make the sound louder, the speaker has to move a greater distance at the same rate, so that more air gets pushed out of the way. In order to cover that larger distance in the same amount of time, your speaker has to move faster. You often will just end up hitting the physical limit of what your speaker is capable of when you push the volume too high, which you hear as a \"tinny\" sort of distortion. I could go into why it's that tinny nails-on-chalkboard type of distortion in particular, but that's not super important and is really technical. The other problem is that when you have loud sounds, it can cause other parts of the headphones/speaker to vibrate when they're not supposed to, which is obviously undesirable. This is especially an issue with heavy bass.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-492856", "score": 0.7089895009994507, "text": "Hopefully that makes sense. I've been reading people on here saying that you should do things like set your kick to 0db and mix around that. Setting the kick to 0db easily puts the peak meter into the red every time as you could probably guess. Does that ruin sound quality or is that a perfectly okay thing to do?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-95", "score": 0.6941614747047424, "text": "Imagine you're filling water balloons. One of them has a hole that lets out the water about as fast as you are filling it. You could stand there all day and be fine. That's how Kilauea erupts. The other one is huge. It is also intact. Eventually, it will burst and soak you. That would be a Yellowstone eruption. Obligatory edit: Thanks /u/arcmokuro for my first gilding. I didn't expect the classic water balloon analogy to blow up like this." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-279074", "score": 0.6590725779533386, "text": "Actually, Earth has quite a big volcano as well. It's just that it's underwater and we didn't realize it was this big until recently. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-1776883", "score": 0.6574589014053345, "text": "It seems like it can happen at any moment now. There are tons of reports stating that this area is overdue for a giant earthquake.\n\nAlso, there have been tons of smaller earthquakes in surounding areas, like Portland and California, not to mention the 8.0 earthquake off the coast of Alaska (as well as the string of other earthquakes alaska has been experiencing over the past few months).\n\nIt honestly seems like this area is set to explode at any second.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1212516", "score": 0.6566790342330933, "text": "It seems pretty obvious that fracking is directly related to a lot of the new earthquakes we've seen around the US. \n\nI've read that this is due to the water in the ground lubricating the fault lines or something. Or at least, that's the general idea.\n\nWould it stand to reason, that we are easing tensions that would probably have caused more destructive earthquakes at a later point?\n\nBear in mind, I'm against fracking due to the unrestricted chemicals being introduced to the water tables. Also, I'm not a licensed scientist.\n\nBonus question: What if we drilled relief pipes to the magma chambers beneath Yellowstone?", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-61179", "score": 0.6556658744812012, "text": "The lava is so hot it can melt rock. Couple that with the fact it *is* melted rock, which is very heavy, and you get something nearly impossible to stop. Digging a ditch takes time, which isn't plentiful when a lava flow can move hundreds of yards in a day, and the sheer amount of lava could easily overwhelm a ditch, or solidify and block it up anyway. Then there's the fact that it's very hard to get building materials to Hawaii on short notice, and you have just about every reason not to try and stop it. Edit: phone keyboard, 'nuff said", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-243543", "score": 0.6550034880638123, "text": "Mauna Kea is 30 miles upwind of Kilauea, and it's in an upper region of the atmosphere that's isolated from the ground level air (which is why the skies are so clear). Also, while the Kilauea eruptions are just now beginning to make the news because a new vent has opened up in a residential neighborhood, the volcano's been erupting actively spewing lava, ash, and haze more or less constantly for the past 35 years. The big earthquake is the only really unusual event, but even that was far enough away that only [some mild shaking was felt](_URL_0_) at Mauna Kea. I'm sure there are precautions, and I'll let someone else speak to those, but all things considered Mauna Kea isn't in a particularly risky spot.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-265578", "score": 0.6463693380355835, "text": "It would collapse, the stresses on a hole with 2000 miles of rock on one side and nothing on the other are immense. It's hard to say how exactly, but I imagine it would involve a lot of melt forming and flowing into the hole (but sadly no volcano). The outer core is a liquid under tremendous pressure that probably flows like peanut butter, so it's hard to imagine drilling through it, and the inner core doesn't even rotate at the same speed as the mantle. Actually the lower mantle doesn't quite rotate at the same speed as the crust, but the difference is pretty small so I don't think that would ruin your hole by itself.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1775952", "score": 0.6463053822517395, "text": "Personally, I think it's Vast Poni Canyon. Mt. Lanakila doesn't fit the bill, though there are a load of people who disagree with me.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-259891", "score": 0.646061897277832, "text": "Based solely on the sources reporting it, I find it hard to consider it anything but ludicrous (Sorry fans of the Epoch Times). It may be possible that the Elk and other animals are reacting to the recent earthquake, but 1) I'm not sure you how test that (vs them moving for any number of other reasons) and 2) I don't think it would mean anything other than animals can get scared. I realize the OP did not ask if the earthquake and/or Elk behavior had an any bearing on an impending eruption, but if given the choice between the opinion of a frightened elk, an irresponsible journalist, and a trained volcanologist, I'll go with the [informed opinion of the scientist who has devoted their professional life to studying volcanoes](_URL_0_).", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-963336", "score": 0.6452780365943909, "text": "I think I may have heard in the past that it's 1) from past eruptions of the Yellowstone supervolcano or 2) that it's from glacial depositions. Is there any truth to either of those or is it something else entirely?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2676951", "score": 0.6449971199035645, "text": "First of all, I live in Denver, a mile above sea level, my house isn't threatened by rising sea levels. And either way, the climate is only going to rise a few degrees, for me all that means is less snow to shovel in the winter. I have heard that a large percent of ocean life could go extinct due to the Ph levels rising in the ocean, but so what? I have fewer options when I want to eat seafood, big deal. And why should I care about there being no ice on Antarctica? All that means is a whole new continent people can live on, which means overpopulation is less of a problem. Of course, climate change seems to have a lot of scientists worried, and I highly doubt they would get so worked up if climate science was no big deal. So why is it a big deal?\n\nOk, I'm going to be honest, I lied up there. I already knew all the answers, about disrupting agriculture and more extreme hurricanes and all the like. I just wanted to see what people would have to say to someone who thought this. And my state (colorado) actually did have some extreme flooding about a year ago. So I know pretty well what the consequences could be.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-263499", "score": 0.6442397832870483, "text": "> **Is it true that the next caldera-forming eruption of Yellowstone is overdue?** > No. First of all, one cannot present recurrence intervals based on only two values. It would be statistically meaningless. But for those who insist... let's do the arithmetic. The three eruptions occurred 2.1 million, 1.3 million and 0.64 million years ago. The two intervals are thus 0.8 and 0.66 million years, averaging to a 0.73 million-year interval. Again, the last eruption was 0.64 million years ago, implying that we are still about 90,000 years away from the time when we might consider calling Yellowstone overdue for another caldera- forming eruption. Nevertheless, we cannot discount the possibility of another such eruption occurring some time in the future, given Yellowstone's volcanic history and the continued presence of magma beneath the Yellowstone caldera. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1020784", "score": 0.642959713935852, "text": "Am I just being trolled or is their actually a portion of the world/american population, that feels the recent Earthquake to Japan is justified due to what happened at Pearl Harbor?\n\nedit--\n", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-102571", "score": 0.6427792310714722, "text": "People tend to fear a small risk of a big catastrophe more than they fear a moderate risk of a small catastrophe. It's the same reason that people fear plane crashes but not car crashes. It's just a quirk of human nature.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-35280", "score": 0.6423614621162415, "text": "We can prevent some of the damage from the event, mostly by expanding communications so that a Tsunami Warning, for example, can be forwarded to the countries in its path. It is only this last decade which has seen Tsunami Warning systems begin operating in the entire Pacific Basin. These kinds of multi-national efforts take time. The USA and other nations have been working for decades to try to understand and predict other natural disasters like earthquakes and Volcano's, and we (the world) are better for their collective efforts. At this point the idea of regulating a volcano or deliberately releasing pressure to alleviate an explosion is still hypothetical and such a process would be a major effort for any country to attempt. Soon, Maybe!", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-297469", "score": 0.6418492794036865, "text": "The sun actually isn't massive enough to explode, at the end of the Sun's life it will gradually expand into a red giant and then slowly sluff off its matter, forming a planetary nebula with a white dwarf at the center. No big boom! :( The fate of the earth is doomed to a hot fiery death as it will be engulfed by the red-giant version of our sun. edit - added a word", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-254821", "score": 0.641842246055603, "text": "The crack is not in Yellowstone, it's near Yellowstone. This is significant, because [it's in the Grand Tetons](_URL_2_) an [actively exhuming mountain range characterized by steep, rocky hillslopes](_URL_0_), where cracks like this are exceedingly common. A good analogue for this feature this are the [exfoliation joints that that lead to rockfalls in Yosemite](_URL_4_). I'm not sure of the rock type in the specific area of the crack (i.e. whether it is technically an exfoliation joint in a granitic rock like those that are common in Yosemite), but regardless of the exact rock type in this area, features like this are 1) common in steep, rocky landscapes, 2) develop overtime through a variety of surface weathering processes, e.g. [freeze-thaw cycles](_URL_1_) but can propagate rapidly (e.g. this [video from Yosemite](_URL_3_) of an exfoliation joint propagating somewhat violently in a few seconds) and 3) have nothing to do with the Yellowstone caldera.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-92095", "score": 0.6415758728981018, "text": "Given Yellowstone's past history, the yearly probability of another caldera-forming eruption can be approximated as 1 in 730,000 or 0.00014%. However, this number is based simply on averaging the two intervals between the three major past eruptions at Yellowstone — this is hardly enough to make a critical judgment.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-275046", "score": 0.640841007232666, "text": "We know that from geochronological analysis of the volcanic deposits associated with it. Several geochronological methods have been used, notably [K-Ar](_URL_0_) and [fission track dating](_URL_1_). These deposits have been mapped and surveyed. They have been subdivided in 3 volcanic cycles, from bottom to top. This in not unlike a stack of pancakes ... the oldest is on the bottom, the second oldest just above that, and the youngest on top. The oldest cycle was dated at somewhere between 2.2 and 2.1 Ma ago. The second cycle was dated at 1.3 Ma. Rocks from the third cycle have returned ages ranging from 1.2 Ma to about 0.6 Ma. The youngest date obtained from volcanic rocks in the area are 70,000 years old rhyolites, but these are relatively small volcanic edifices, not extensive tuff deposits of explosive character. see : [Christiansen, R. L. (2001). The Quaternary and pliocene Yellowstone plateau volcanic field of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana (No. 729-G).](_URL_2_), pages G11 to G16.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-2593043", "score": 0.6406214237213135, "text": "The coming collapse is brought up here a lot for obvious reasons. So many factors are contributing to it that it's hard to actually picture how it will happen. Will the environment be depleted before we die economically? Maybe the other way around? Is there a consensus on what will come first?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-280832", "score": 0.640548825263977, "text": "The primary danger with Mount Rainier isn't an eruption, but rather that the mountain isn't \"solid.\" The mountain's interior is a soft clay which has been formed by the active hydrothermal system underneath and freezing/thawing expansion/contraction of it's 25 glaciers on top. Thus, the major threat is from the collapse of a portion of the mountain itself into lahars -- basically a huge mudslide that wipes out everything in it's path.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-96", "score": 0.7938483953475952, "text": "When you cut down highly developed forests to replace them with cultivated land you're seriously lowering the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed. A big tree that is several decades old will take in WAY more CO2 than several seedlings that are planted to replace it. Additionally, all of the undergrowth that is in forests absorbs CO2 but that is all removed for farming. Further, a lot of the time what's done is called \"slash and burn\" which means that the forests are chopped down and the debris is cleared away via a controlled fire, once again adding CO2 (and other harmful chemicals) to the atmosphere. Also, removing well established plants will significantly increase soil erosion and while that may not directly contribute to global warming, it certainly is detrimental to the environment." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-125645", "score": 0.7034904360771179, "text": "Absolutely it would have this effect. Deforestation is one of the major drivers of global warming. However it's unrealistic in that the trend is massively towards less trees. There are some experiments about growing heaps of kelp (which grows faster than trees and so draws down carbon faster) but to truly sequester the carbon the trees either need to remain standing, or they need to be buried so deep that they don't rot and thereby release the carbon back into the environment.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-95149", "score": 0.6968279480934143, "text": "Funnily enough, plants are our primary machines that combat atmosphere pollution. Plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide in the air with water from their roots to form sugars and oxygen. So essentially, planting a lot of trees will consume the carbon dioxide we pump into the air with coal and oil plants, alleviating most of the world's problems. In the natural world, plants and animals work hand-in hand, where plants create sugars and oxygen from carbon dioxide and sunlight, and animals eat this sugar and breathe oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants use to make sugars and oxygen and so on. It is human activity and our massive population boom that have caused air-based pollution. These are some of the biggest reasons why \"green\" groups are calling for large rainforests not be cut down - they mitigate air pollution.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-191285", "score": 0.6798939108848572, "text": "Its to provide grazing land for cattle. And also for palm oil farms. They cut down the rainforest then plant either grass or lots of just one type of tree. Its not really for the wood that much at all.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-283639", "score": 0.6766622066497803, "text": "> (Well, I believe most of it does) Actually that's not true. Most (70-80%) of the world's oxygen comes from marine plants and not trees. Trees (especially large, long-lived species) are pretty good carbon sinks (because of their woody tissue), so if we cut down every tree in the world it wouldn't diminish the amount of oxygen production that much. Not to mention that shrubs and herbaceous plants also produce oxygen so if we removed every tree it's likely that shrubs and herbaceous plants would take over and would therefore produce enough oxygen to offset any losses due to the loss of trees. The loss of large tracts of trees could have a large impact on global weather patterns, however, but that's a little out of my area of expertise.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-315059", "score": 0.674714982509613, "text": "While I don't know of any studies that have looked at forests directly, there have been a number that have looked at increases in crop yields due to an increase in the concentration of CO2. Given the underlying biology behind it, it would seem likely that plant life in general would be positively affected. More info: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2022445", "score": 0.6736913919448853, "text": "The way we produce food has accelerated climate change, but can sustainable production methods help to reverse it?\n\nAgriculture as a whole, and the deforestation that sometimes accompanies it, contributes nearly a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. Farming also accounts for 70% of water usage worldwide.\n\nThis is not only changing the climate but also affecting our ability to grow food in the first place. Drought, flooding, high temperatures and rising sea levels are turning productive parts of our planet into places that are incapable of growing food. \n\nBut what if we could produce food in a way that not only reduces the impact farming has on the planet but could even be beneficial for the climate.\n\nWe discuss a few ways of improving this situation on our full article, here:\n\n\n\nI'm sure we can think of many other ways to combat the issue, any ideas?\n\nTL;DR The current way of producing food (farming in general) is helping destroy our planet. We can stop it by improving farming techniques, but as usual with good thing, we need great ideas and a lot of effort.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-39419", "score": 0.6731431484222412, "text": "Global Warming predictions say that oceans will rise, costing billions of dollars in damages to coastal communities (and also completely destroying some small island nations). So that's a pretty bad thing. It's also expected to cause bigger storms, which cost a lot of money and kill a lot of people, so that's pretty bad. It's also expected to take land which is suitable for growing crop X and make it too hot to do so. Some other land which was too cold might become usable, but even if it's 1:1 the shear cost of destroying massive farming operations is enormous, even if you could build them up elsewhere for the same output. There are also predictions about increased forest fires (due to heat), and increased droughts (same reason). So, that's a bit of a summary.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-282687", "score": 0.6696047186851501, "text": "Sure, there's [all sorts of genetic modifications being made to plants](/_URL_1_) to improve their growth and ability to survive. \"Eco-conscious\" logging companies already practice reforestation because it's [federally regulated](/_URL_0_), but that's more a political discussion than it is a scientific one.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-2677339", "score": 0.6676658391952515, "text": "A new report released by World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the world’s leading conservation organization for wildlife and endangered species, concluded food choices are a central factor in global warming. The report stated a plant-based diet will significantly lower one’s carbon footprint...\n\n\n\n\nDirect link to the report :\n\n", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2409794", "score": 0.6654863357543945, "text": "Hi Reddit, by day I am a professional engineer, but by night (also by day) I plant trees.\n\nI started planting trees about 5 years ago, and got, well, kind of addicted to it. I now plant roughly 10 thousand trees per year, likely much more, and am now fully converting what used to be useless grass lawn into a multi acre food forest wildlife sanctuary ecosystem. \n\nThis year I have added a 25 thousand gallon pollinator pond. What started as a small garden has now turned into a lifestyle, where every year I add to the system - often now using plant material harvested from the system itself. \n\nI also use the plant cuttings and seeds to restore wildlife habitat in damaged lands such as abandoned gas stations, warehouses, and other damaged land as a hobby. \n\nI am doing this AMA to help spread the word about what dire need we are all in, and to help educate as many people as possible about how we can drive the most amount of change possible - by planting trees. \n\nAbout a year ago I decided that the best way to impact the world and help reverse climate change is to try to inspire others to change their lives with the purpose I have found in the last half decade. I now teach people how trees work, about soil science and the food web of life, and how to plant in order to maximize the efficiency of the system as a whole. This can be anywhere from water catchment earthworks such as swales, carbon sequestrations techniques like coppice systems and biochar production, soil water retention, what mulches do, smart design like drip edge guilds, plant synnergies through companion planting and 7 layer food forest design that mimics nature, and more.\n\nAsk me anything related to how to plant a tree, to what is permaculture, to how we can use trees to sequester carbon and reverse climate change, to decentralizing the food chain, to the critical role of insects in our ecosystems, to well... anything.\n\nHere is a recent video showing some drone footage of my property, including the ecosystem pond\n\nHere is a video about guerilla gardening and planting trees into wild areas of nature to restore ecosystems\n\nHere is an example of layering multiple functions into the design of a guild in a drip-edge guild using some of the healthiest plants on the planet", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-188948", "score": 0.6654099225997925, "text": "I am no expert on this, but trees do exactly that. There are simply not enough trees compared to the amount of CO2 we are producing.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-318570", "score": 0.6649113297462463, "text": "Considering the amount of energy involved, it would be far more efficient to simply plant more trees. As a bonus, you mitigate problems with soil erosion, ecosystem destruction, etc.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-52911", "score": 0.6634682416915894, "text": "Planting trees helps but we're currently cutting down trees, globally, faster than anyone who's interested in helping could plant them. In some areas there is a forest renewal policy that forestry company's must plant new trees when they cut down a forest but some of the largest forests in the world are in South America where no such regulations exist and there is no political will to make them happen. Ultimately this is an added expense either for the company or for the government", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-222907", "score": 0.6618247628211975, "text": "Thanks for your answer! This all makes sense and is basically what I suspected. I wonder if anyone has any knowledge on the situation in the UK. If not mistaken, cultivated land has decreased (I don't know by what percentage this is just off the top of my head). What factors have kept UK fields cleared? Is it that they're all still used contrary to what I thought? Cultural? Or flora related somehow? (Different tree species?)", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-65058", "score": 0.6610381603240967, "text": "Remember it is no good just getting plants to take up CO2 if they end up releasing greenhouse gases back into the air eventually, eg when they rot. Wood is good as it can replace some fossil fuel usage but soft plant material is less of a solution. What is really needed is permanent sequestration, ie CO2 that is taken in but never, ever released again. Anything else is just putting off the problem.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-2780108", "score": 0.6596231460571289, "text": "A family member of mine is wandering if he can start planting some production trees in a small plot he owns in central Mexico. The climate is dry most od the year with heavy rains in summer. He has irrigation but its not really humid. The place is perfect for avocado but I don't really know what else to asociate with avocados. The only shrubs that come to mind are coffee bushes but ita quite high up, about 1500 meteres above sea level. I am just wondering if there are any tropical fruit tree guilds that are worth irrigating for the sale of produce. I know of a lot of tropical trees but not many tropical shruba or edible ground cover. I can't seem to find North American guilds of that sort, mainly tropical south east asian guilds, which there isnt really a big market for.\n\nAny and all help is welcome. Thank you all in advance.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2271135", "score": 0.6592997312545776, "text": "The sources that I'm talking about are these:\n\n\n\n\n\nI am a vegan myself and am interested about what you guys opinion is on the matter? After all these statistics appear to state that agriculture is not the main cause of global warming after all.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-299309", "score": 0.6586068272590637, "text": "The Royal Society evaluated various methods of geoengineering options to mitigate global warming, along the criteria of effectiveness, affordability, timeliness, and safety. In particular, afforestation was rated as having a limited potential for carbon dioxide removal, and was given a low effectiveness rating and a medium timeliness rating due to being slow to reduce global temperatures (though the strategy is considered highly affordable and safe.) If you want to know more, you can find the website [here](_URL_0_) and the PDF [here](_URL_1_), with information on this starting on page 10.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-304984", "score": 0.6565964221954346, "text": "Sort of. Most oxygen production on earth happens in the oceans (algae), so loss of forests, while impactful in many ways, isnt going to cause us to suffocate. Increase in CO2 does remove oxygen from the atmosphere through combustion, and we have increase CO2 concentrations substantially, but its still a negligble loss. The Earths atmosphere is ~21% oxygen, and 400 ppm (thats 0.04% of the atmosphere) of CO2. This is up from about 280 ppm pre-industrialization. Even if it got up to 1000 ppm (climate change to the point of palm trees at the poles) it would still not hugely impact the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere as this would reduce it from 21% to 20.99%.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-268078", "score": 0.6551437377929688, "text": "They call this the \"urban heat island\" effect. It is more than just roads, it is also buildings. The effect is real and documented. Urban areas will have higher temperatures compared to similar rural areas. However, the contribution to global warming from the urban heat island effect is essentially zero. See _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-97", "score": 0.7864852547645569, "text": "So, from what I've understood in the past, people who are lactose-intolerant aren't able to break down lactose. Their body doesn't produce enough lactase, which is an enzyme that breaks down lactose. So, depending on how much lactose is taken in, it usually is broken down by bacteria instead in the gut. This causes a bunch of side effects like, nausea, bloating, gas, and stomach cramps." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-317838", "score": 0.7467702031135559, "text": "Here's what i have found in my handbook of excipient: 10 to 20 % of lactose intolerant individuals showed clinical symptoms of intolerance after ingestion of 3 - 5 g of lactose. - Bedine MS, Bayless TM. Intolerance of small amounts of lactose by individuals with low lactase levels. Gastroenterology 1973; 65: 735–743. - Gudmand-Hoyer E, Simony K. Individual sensitivity to lactose in lactose malabsorption. Am J Dig Dis 1977; 22(3): 177–181. Lactose is communly used in oral forms since it has a good compressibility and is quite cheap. It's also used as a diluent in dry-powder inhalation.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-171277", "score": 0.7459152936935425, "text": "Lactose intolerant doesn’t necessarily mean allergic - it simply means that the body can’t produce its own lactase, an enzyme that breaks down lactose. This inability to properly digest lactose causes the symptoms of lactose intolerance. So, the woman would still not be able to break down the lactose even in her own milk and would have the symptoms, unless she took a pill containing lactase.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-315091", "score": 0.7422277331352234, "text": "Undigested lactose remains in the intestines, where it builds up [osmotic potential](_URL_0_) that leads to a reduced uptake of water from the gut into the blood stream, resulting in loose stool or even diarrhoea. Gut bacteria digest the lactose instead which leads to gas production resulting in abdominal pain and flatulence. Among those gasses is hydrogen, which enters the blood stream and is later excreted in the lungs. [Hydrogen can then be detected in the patient's breath](_URL_1_), allowing diagnosis of lactose malabsorption.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-322522", "score": 0.7417313456535339, "text": "The ability to metabolize lactose is dependent on a protein called lactase. Those who have a non-functional version or decreased levels of the protein would be unable to digest lactose, so it would instead be \"digested\" by bacteria in the gut, which would then produce gas in the form of methane. This explains the symptoms of lactose intolerance. The activity and presence of lactase varies significantly throughout your life. Most infants have the ability to digest lactose, but this activity decreases as you age. The great majority of the world adult population is unable to digest lactose in great quantities, such as that found in milk, with the exception of populations from Northern European origin, where presumably high levels of lactase activity evolved to allow milk drinking late into adulthood. Your example of intermittent lactose intolerance is not something I've heard of before, but almost anything is possible when it comes to the human body. TL;DR: Yes, probably.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-25871", "score": 0.7396430969238281, "text": "It all comes down to bacteria. Different bacteria have different effects on milk products. It's the same way you get different cheeses when the base is just milk solids and lactose. The bacteria feed on the lactose and release lactic acid and other byproducts which provide each of the different products their flavor. This is why some people who are lactose-intolerant can still eat some cheeses and occasionally things like yogurt. A well-aged cheese will have very little lactose making it much easier for those people to digest.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-186818", "score": 0.736367404460907, "text": "There are enzymes (commonly [lactase](_URL_0_)) which breaks down lactose into the galactose and glucose that makes up the lactase (and it's the lack of this enzyme which causes lactose intolerence). You can add lactase to your product to pre-break the lactose and end up with a lactose-free product.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-176985", "score": 0.7360644936561584, "text": "By adding lactase, an enzyme that breaks down the lactose into glucose and galactose. People who are not lactose intolerant have this enzyme in their digestive system.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-2763625", "score": 0.7359407544136047, "text": "Does being lactose intolerant affect nutrient and calorie intake if milk is a big part of your diet?\n\nExample: if I drink 6 cups of milk a day, will I only receive benefits of 3 cups a day?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-310905", "score": 0.7345643043518066, "text": "Lactase is what digests milk (lactose sugar) in humans, we are all born with it. Thus able to drink moms milk. Some populations have lactase persistence mainly white europeans thus they are able to drink milk their entire life without issue. Around 95%+ of white people are lactase persistent. If you are Asian or Black you are more likely to lack lactase persistence thus you will be lactose intolerant, you can be asymptomatic to having various reactions to milk. As long as you are no lactose intolerant milk is a great thing. Dont let this \"we arnt supposed to\" rumor persist its inaccurate.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-168069", "score": 0.7321845889091492, "text": "An intolerance is an inability to process something. Lactose intolerance is when your body fails to produce the enzyme (lactase) that breaks down lactose into more digestible substances. People will food intolerances get things like gas or upset stomach because they're eating things that they can't digest, just like how you'd feel like shit if you ate something inedible like a rock. An allergy is an immune response. If you're allergic to dairy (like me), your body thinks that the lactose is actually *attacking* your body, and it actively fights against it like it would an infection. Depending on the severity of the allergy and quantity of allergen, that can mean that your body gets so gung-ho about fighting it off that it can potentially kill itself.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-74003", "score": 0.7286127805709839, "text": "Lactose intolerance has no connection lactic acid. Lactose is a sugar, lactic acid is an organic compound produced by your muscles in order to help alleviate the acidity that is produced when your muscles have been using glycolysis anaerobically, which happens when you've been exercising for long enough or if your muscles aren't getting sufficient oxygen. Lactic acid isn't disposed of in the intestines. When it is produced by the muscles it is shuttled off to the liver so that it can be processed to reform glucose. That glucose is often shuttled back to the muscles to be broken down by glycolysis. Lactose is processed in the intestines. The enzyme lactase breaks it down to galactose and glucose, which are then used in a wide variety of cellular processes.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-304031", "score": 0.7266848087310791, "text": "You have that backwards. All mammals, including primates, are \"likely\" to be lactose intolerant in adulthood. People in some human groups, such as Europeans, Africans, and Indians (India, not America - Native Americans are effectively 100% lactose intolerant), are likely to retain the ability to digest lactose in adulthood.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-144624", "score": 0.7247703671455383, "text": "Lactose is a sugar found in milk. From what I understand, they technically don't actually remove the lactose from the milk. I believe they add lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose, the enzyme that lactose intolerant people are missing.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-96290", "score": 0.724545955657959, "text": "Most people in the world are lactose intolerant *because* they don't drink milk. If you don't drink milk while growing up, your body slowly stops manufacturing lactase, the enzyme in charge of breaking down lactose. In areas where drinking milk is common, lactose intolerance is uncommon because we never stop drinking milk.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-79864", "score": 0.7238350510597229, "text": "They're both right to a certain degree. Most mammals stop being lactose-tolerant shortly after they start eating other food. And indeed, most humans do too. Lactose *tolerance* is mostly prevalent in people of European origin. As it turns out, milk is a good source of calcium, which is hard to get from other sources. So for those who can drink milk, it is encouraged.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-323865", "score": 0.7229523658752441, "text": "_URL_0_ > Most mammals normally cease to produce lactase, becoming lactose intolerant, after weaning[citation needed], but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. Basically, the mutation is to continue to produce lactase into adulthood.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-35963", "score": 0.7203789353370667, "text": "I can give you some [science](_URL_0_). > Young children with acute diarrhea, typically due to infectious gastroenteritis, may temporarily stop producing lactase, the intestinal enzyme that digests lactose. Thus, they may not digest lactose, the main sugar in milk, and this may worsen or prolong the diarrheal illness. I hope that's ELI5 enough. I can simplify it if you want?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-314348", "score": 0.7199969291687012, "text": "Lactose intolerance is caused by insufficient levels of the enzyme lactase in the digestive apparatus. These pills simply contain lactase. Digesting cellulose requires certain micro-organisms.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-248497", "score": 0.7197107672691345, "text": "Your intestines absorb them. Pretty much everything in your system after your stomach is liquid. Ethanol is absorbed. Simple sugars in soda and juice are absorbed. water is absorbed. Lactose cannot be absorbed without being broken down. The things that cannot be absorbed or broken down becomes poop.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-77633", "score": 0.7183018326759338, "text": "Puppies, kittens and AFAIK all other mammals can process lactose when they're young. This ability is lost after the young are weaned so only adult animals are lactose intolerant.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-98", "score": 0.7537056803703308, "text": "On a helicopter the main rotor blades are the wings, a plane has fixed wings that use the air to resist the torque of the prop that's trying to make the plane roll (this is also why single prop driven planes roll to one side faster than they can to the other)" } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-141104", "score": 0.7145528793334961, "text": "Thats not always the case. - on some helicopters the blades are angled downwards in one direction (the front, although on a Mi-24, its to one side) - on landing, pilots may immediately throttle down rpms; they've already bottomed out the collective (hence why you're down) but the blades are still rotating quickly, and whipping up debris etc. So they may reduce rpms..... slowing down the blades which may cause them to droop - the landing gear or skids of the helicoptor may be on flat ground but there may be a rise in the terrain you'd have to be careful of - radio antennae, or helmet attachments (for those in the military) further increase your height; best practice to get low existing the vehicle. - I dunno, massive whirling decapitation blades spinning at high speed only a few feet above your head? I'd duck/crouch just because...", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-134139", "score": 0.7140083312988281, "text": "You need an even number of rotors to make sure half are spinning in each direction so you don't have to worry about the drone starting to spin, and at least three so you can tilt in each direction. Four is the minimum that allows both of those.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-28422", "score": 0.7138307094573975, "text": "It balances out the torque of the blades Pretend you have one blade. When the blade spins it's going to try and spin the copter in the opposite direction. Helicopters generally avoid this by having a tail rotor that counteracts that effect. If you have two blades spinning in opposite directions then the torques from the blades can cancel out. You can adjust the direction your facing by having the two rotors spin at different speeds (so they don't exactly cancel out). If you have four blades, then you have two sets of two. You alternate blades because in order to change the quadcopters direction you slow down one pair of blades. If the blades spinning in the same direction were next to each other then slowing them down would also cause the quadcopter to tilt (because that side of the quadcopter would be generating less lift). By having them opposite each other the lift is still balanced, and so you can turn without moving in some other direction.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-286275", "score": 0.7108269929885864, "text": "There's no preventing factor. Helicopters can do [backflips and barrels](_URL_0_). Normal helicopters are not rated for these and would propably brake. Blades would hit the cabin.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-292194", "score": 0.7095562219619751, "text": "Followup question: Is it possible to use a gyroscope instead of the back rotor to keep the helicopter from beginning to rotate with the blades, or is that not a thing gyroscopes are able to do? ^^gyroscopes ^^are ^^basically ^^magic ^^to ^^me", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2071368", "score": 0.7092655897140503, "text": "Why are drones and helicopters shaped so differently? Is there a reason why drones have four or more horizontally placed propellors and helicopters one big one small one which a positioned perpendicular to eachother? Wouldn't it be more logical for the 'perfect' design for a flying, hovering machine to look more alike?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-125464", "score": 0.7091463208198547, "text": "The ELI5 version: Big fan on top pushes down, causing the helicopter to go up. The little fan in back keeps the body of the helicopter from spinning due to the torque created by spinning the big fan. Tilt the fan forward, you go forward. Tilt it left, you go left. The reality is helo aerodynamics are very complex. Source: I am a helicopter pilot", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-137859", "score": 0.7086699604988098, "text": "A helicopter doesn't actually control its lift with rotor speed, it has to do with the angle of attack of the blades. So they stay spinning because there's no reason to stop them: it doesn't affect the craft moving, and as lokil130 pointed out, it takes a minute to turn them on and off. [The only reason I know how helicopters work](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-342931", "score": 0.7086619734764099, "text": "Twin propellers cancel each others out, but I want to build a single propelled plane, but the body spins rapidly. Shade's tutorial didn't work.\n", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-82470", "score": 0.708493709564209, "text": "A jet engine has one moving part. The spinny bit. To make a turboprop, you just attach a propeller to the spinny bit. Then you get more thrust than just that from the puny jet engine running it. If you put the whole lot in a tube, you get a turbofan. Like you see on most big airliners.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-295971", "score": 0.7079148292541504, "text": "Helicopters can control the pitch of the rotor. They tilt it so that it is flat on the ground, and pitched while in flight, to provide thrust. When the engine dies the pilot will pitch the blades so that the wind spins them, much like a [pinwheel](_URL_0_). This lets the rotor gain a bunch of speed as the helicopter falls towards the ground. Then, as the helicopter gets close to the ground, the pilot will reverse the pitch of the blades so that they start providing lift. The momentum plus the reversal of the blades will provide lift for long enough that the pilot can make a controlled landing.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1865323", "score": 0.7075840830802917, "text": "Like putting the helicopter propeller in front of the plane, and maybe using just ailerons to control roll and counteract torque roll. Is that possible? Will it be hard to control? Is simple PID sufficient?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-262430", "score": 0.707007884979248, "text": "_URL_0_ and the follow up videos have a wonderful explanation of how helicopter control surfaces work. It really helps to understand helicopter rotors as spinning wings that can be angled independently from the pitch angle of the helicopter itself.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-146708", "score": 0.7057343125343323, "text": "Look into trim tabs and what they do. Prop planes will typically have a little tab that sticks out of an aileron and one side of the rudder. These are there to make fine adjustments to trimmed flight. These also offset the torque created by the motion of the prop. Also, when a single engine prop plate increases power, there is a corresponding rudder input (typically to the right) to offset the torque on the fuselage. The wings, fuselage, horizontal and vertical stabilizers also counter these forces. These are control surfaces that helicopters don't typically have.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-906786", "score": 0.7010537981987, "text": "Hey can anyone here answer this question for me.\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nDo helicopters have two active controls the cyclic and pitch, and also foot pedals to keep it moving in a straight line?\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nHowcome with modern computer systems you can't just have one control to move up and down and one to move forward, back, left, and right and then get rid of the foot pedals? I mean use the computers to do all the hard work.\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nWould such a system work?", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-128328", "score": 0.6976847648620605, "text": "The large propeller creates lift, but also creates rotation for the helicopter body (that is tried to be reduced as much as possible, but can't do 100%). That rotation needs to be counteracted, and that's what the small propeller does (by basically creating \"sideways lift\"). By adjusting the rotation speed of that propeller, the pilot can also rotate the helicopter in place.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-125421", "score": 0.6965211629867554, "text": "Drones work by quickly changing the speed of their rotors to change position and move around - but to do that the motors need to be electric. It is so far impractical to power full-sized rotorcraft in that way, they need to power the rotors through gas-turbine engines - which while having a great power-to-weight ratio, are very sluggish at changing speed. There are also issues around safety, if one engine fails the aircraft could flip - where as multi rotor aircraft have linked driveshafts allowing one engine to power both rotors - but again this would interfere with trying to drive the rotors at different speeds", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-174495", "score": 0.6965082287788391, "text": "In most choppers, all rotors rotate at the same speed all the time. A governer is fitted to the engine that gives it more power if it slows down, or cuts power if it speeds up. The controls the pilot uses (or the flight computer adjusts) adjust the pitch, or angle, of the blades. So, when the pilot increases the collective, the main rotor 'bites' into the air harder; this puts more load on the blades, which tries to turn the helicopter in the other direction. This would require him to use another control to increase the pitch of the tail rotor to remain straight.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-184466", "score": 0.6965004205703735, "text": "The blades of most helicopters are attached to the rotor by pivots. They are free to move back and fore, up and down. In flight, centrifugal force holds them outward and their lift holds them up. But because of the freedom of the blades, it is dangerous for a helicopter to fly upside down, do loops or rolls. The blades could hit each other or the tail. A few stunt helicopters have their blades attached with strong springs. Since the blades don't move around so much, they can do fancy aerobatics.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-133105", "score": 0.6949118971824646, "text": "The top speed of your everyday Helicopter is proportional to its rotor blade design, weight and rotor speed, pretty much everything you would assume. However, there are physical limits to just how fast you can go with your helicopter, even if your engine would provide power to go even faster. One of these things is called retreating blade stall. The faster you go forwards (trough air) with your helicopter, the slower the rotor going opposite of your traveling direction will cut trough the air. Eventually, if you go fast enough, your retreating rotor will go trough the air so slow that it won't create any lift anymore, leaving you with an unevenly distributed amount of lift on your rotors, which makes your costs you a lof of stability in the air.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-99", "score": 0.7936674356460571, "text": "Caveat - I mess with boats but I'm not expert or pro. In general marine equipment is made with more corrosion resistant materials,such as stainless steel. The A/C on my boat exchanges the heat in the cabin air into water that flows through the other side of the heat pump, so this is an air/water heat pump where most home units are air/air heat pumps. Also some or most marine units are 12 Volt DC power, possibly also 24 volt. I think some few are powered directly off the engine via a 'fan belt'. The reefer on my boat is three way power - 120 VAC, 12 VDC, and propane. I suppose this would be possible in A/C but I've ever heard of this." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-307143", "score": 0.7000298500061035, "text": "The big difference is that a jet may be more efficient in air - a prop *in water* is far more efficient than a jet in air. It's the same reason jet engines aren't efficient on a land vehicle - it's easier to propel yourself when you apply the motive force to a \"thicker substance.\" The air is wispy. It takes moving a *LOT* of air to propel yourself forward. Hence why propeller-driven aircraft propellers spin very fast. Water is thicker. A prop doesn't have to spin nearly as fast to provide the same motive force. That being said - on a jet turbine, you can use the power of the jet turbine itself to run a propeller, instead of relying solely on the jet thrust out the back. That's how a \"turboprop\" engine works - the jet turbine provides rotational energy which is run through a transmission to a propeller. Many modern large ships actually use a very similar process! They use a turbine engine connected to a transmission to their prop shaft!", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-164247", "score": 0.6978580355644226, "text": "Fans don't have marine-like blades to displace more air. In actuality, an airplane propeller-type fan would move air more effectively. That's why aircraft propellers look the way they do. The problem is, the noise would drive you nuts. Fans have marine-type blades because they're quiet.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-186972", "score": 0.683311939239502, "text": "In principle nothing, both a refrigerator an air conditioner is a heat pump. The difference is that one cool the inside of a smaller box you have in a house ie a refrigerator and the other cool down a house. There is a difference that air conditioner almost always have a fan to move the air and keep it cool but a refrigerator is so small os most do not have a fan. So there is a difference because of the volume they have to cool and air conditioner i often places outside so they are designed to handle rain etc. There is even walk in refrigerator for restaurants etc and they are just like a air conditioner but the temperature you cool it down to is lower.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1133084", "score": 0.6808066368103027, "text": "I know a little bit about insulation techniques for buildings and how they deal with condensation, so it strikes me that it would be much harder to deal with on a boat. I can't think of any good solution that would allow for high levels of insulation and energy efficiency without creating potential mold/fungus/rust problems. The only real solution I can think of is always keeping your hull heated to above the dew point of the internal air, which would obviously be very wasteful in cold climates for it to be say 0\\*F outside and your aluminum hull is radiating heat at 35\\*F+ just to prevent condensation.\n\nBased on what I know from land buildings, you can use spray foam, but that has gone out of style for architects keeping up with the latest building sciences insights because the spray foam is never 100% vaporproof/waterproof, it will always eventually allow moisture to wick through, and then it has a tendency to trap the moisture inside, exacerbating mold, wood rot, and in the case of an aluminum or steel hulls I imagine greatly exacerbating corrosion. But using insulators that are good at wicking water like mineral wool or some fiberglass insulation, I am not sure that is such a solution either because it would just be permanently doused in condensation, reducing the effectiveness, and also wouldnt be able to protect against frost from forming on the inside of the hull.\n\nAnd I have done some googling and it seems like most people aren't concerned about these issues, they see that heating is such a small percent of the operating costs relative to running the engines, they can even sometimes get so much waste heat off the engines that they have more heat than they can use even without any insulation. But what about for ships that might not be running their engines for long periods in cold climates? What about people living in sailboats through winter? Are there any good strategies for having good insulation without having the inside of your hull permanently coated in condensation or frost all winter, that also have good resilience against mold and hull corrosion?", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1657740", "score": 0.6782469749450684, "text": "Since both engine cooling and air condition systems use similar expansion and compression functions to cool, why does AC use a gas (freon), while engine cooling uses a liquid?\n\nEDIT: Thanks for all the answers guys. \nTL;DR, engine coolant is designed for moving heat from point A to point B, while AC is designed to cool down as the liquid flows through the system", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2312893", "score": 0.6767734289169312, "text": "I've been Googling for a while and can't seem to find the info I am after so I type in 'Air Conditioning Reddit' and here I am in the hope of solving a question I have. Please correct anything which I say if it's wrong.\n\nAs a base line from what I have read, air conditioners (I have split system) are most efficient when they're running at full speed.\n\nSo I have a large open plan living area that has two different split systems. My assumption is I am using more power if I run both at 23c (73f) and they're not working hard all the time vs running one at 21c (70f) and it's working hard most of the time. Does that sound about right?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-67190", "score": 0.6734306812286377, "text": "The fan push backwards on the boat with a greater force than the air pushes forwards on the sail (Because the air stream from the fan slows down a little before it hits the sail). So really, it ought to move in reverse and it'd move faster without the sail there at all. Equal and opposite reactions. If a fan pushes air in one direction, the fan itself is pushed in the opposite direction. Now normally you never notice because household fans don't have enough power to overcome friction and move themselves. A big industrial fan can though, and they're a menace when they get loose.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-2572118", "score": 0.671856701374054, "text": "I'm in the process of buying a new AC system. Besides efficiency, are there any advantages of the 2-stage over the single? It looks like both are equally noisy on paper. If I want something quieter would I have to purchase a variable unit? That's out of my budget unfortunately. And are both the single and two stage equal in price to repair?", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-278865", "score": 0.670900821685791, "text": "Steam turbines tend to be pretty heavy for the power they generate, don't respond to quickly changing loads well, and aren't efficient at the small size needed for roadgoing vehicles. Power plants used for electrical generation or moving large boats don't suffer from any of those problems. Electrical base load generation is a steady output load that doesn't change. Electrical plants are stationary, so the mass isn't constrained the way it is for a car; even on boats the mass won't be such a big deal. If you are wondering why use steam? The heat source doesn't matter: you can burn coal, natural gas, bunker oil, or use a nuclear reactor and that heat will drive a steam turbine. Steam can carry a great deal of power with little loss from the heat source to the turbine.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-2313476", "score": 0.6697230935096741, "text": "My dad is buying a boat in a little over a month, and he asked me to build a ventilation system for the cover so the inside doesn’t get molded since the boat will be stored outside (unfortunately). Basically what he asked is to have a solar panel connected to a fan that circulated the air under the cover. I don’t think soldering a desk fan to a solar panel laid on top of the cover will work lol, any suggestions?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-2313795", "score": 0.6690938472747803, "text": "So we pay for electric here and I want to save money during the summer months. The AC has a fan only mode and does a pretty good job at keeping the place cool but I'm wondering is it a big money saver compared to using AC?\n\nThanks", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-156123", "score": 0.6686340570449829, "text": "It works like a normal air conditioner, the only difference is the engine used to circulate the coolant burns natural gas instead of electricity, usually more practical for large commercial spaces.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-141410", "score": 0.6679731607437134, "text": "That depends on the climate you live in. Where I live both are standard on homes. In places where it never gets very hot then there's no point in installing an AC unit on a house, and the same goes for heating systems on homes in year-round not climates.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-342457", "score": 0.6632490754127502, "text": "I cant seem to get my head around that. To me it seems like any marine vehicle using sails is pretty much subject to the direction of the wind, but I know that to not be true", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-169445", "score": 0.6631565093994141, "text": "A/C uses a gas which is compressed, the heat is extracted from it using a coil and a fan, and then is allowed to expand, and it cools considerably, then a 2nd fan blows air through that coil which absorbs heat and cools the room air. Thats why the outside unit of an A/C system blows hot air, its cooling the compressed gas.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-169781", "score": 0.6630067229270935, "text": "Air conditioning is based on the principle that the temperature of a gas is related to its pressure. If you compress a gas it increase in temperature and when it expands it cools down to its original temperature. So the cycle of an air conditioner is that it use a compressor to get high pressure high temperature gas. This gas then goes though a radiator which will cool down the gas so you end up with high pressure room temperature gas. Then the gas goes though an expander so you have low pressure low temperature gas. This is then going though another radiator heating up the gas to ambient temperature again. The cycle is then repeated. The end result is that you have two radiators, one hot and one cold. By placing these two radiators in different environments you can efficiently move heat from one environment to another.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1080723", "score": 0.6623703241348267, "text": "Hey /r/liveaboard! \nI moved onto my Scanmar 25 in Denmark at the start of the summer. \nEverything has gone very well so far, but I'm starting to think more about preparing for the winter months. \nI'm a grad student without many funds, so I'm trying to come up with some heating system which is cheap to install and run. \nCurrently I only have a small electric space heater. The marina doesn't meter for electricity usage, but I don't want to rely on that fact (especially if I switch harbours). \nIt seems forced air diesel is out due to high cost of the units as well as fuel, and propane is out due to condensation created during the combustion process. \nI went to a BBQ the other day and noticed that charcoal briquettes are only 1 USD/kg and contain 21 MJ [20k btu] of energy. From some rough estimations, I should need ~8.4 MJ/h [8k btu] to keep the cabin at a comfortable temperature. \nSo this is only 0.40 USD/h in heating costs! \n\nAnyway, something like the Newport solid fuel heater is too expensive, so I was thinking to build a small rocket stove. Then I came across this Turkish kettle \nIt seems perfect actually! There is an existing deck fitting for a chimney, so I could just mount this inside with a flue damper and some heat retardant insulation. Of course also using a CO and CO2 monitor inside and having a fresh air intake. \n\nAny thoughts about this plan? You can watch this review of the stove and see what you think. \nVery interested to hear if you all think this will get me killed.. or if there's a better solution I'm overlooking!", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1868356", "score": 0.6608785390853882, "text": "I'm rebuilding my cold box on my boat (0.1 M3/105 quart volume) the old cold plates are not worth recharging. I want to use the existing pulley of the engine driven compressor for the high pressure pump of a DIY watermaker.\n\nSo, I'm considering either going with a 12V Engel Ice Box Conversion]( or an experiment with a [Thermo-Electric Coupling. \n\nHas anyone done something with a TEC in your boat applications? I'm pretty confident that the Engel will work, but not so sure about the TEC.\n\nThe Engel system is much lower amp draw (1-2.5 amps published) while my best guess at the TEC system amp draw would be 5-6 amps.\n\nHowever, the TEC might cost less than $150, while the Engel is $1000.\n\nYour thoughts?\n\nUpdate: Ordered the Engel (Shortly after this thread was started, but it takes stupid long to get stuff shipped to Guatemala). I'll update with a build report when I get 'er done.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-276565", "score": 0.6602068543434143, "text": "Automotive air conditioners are not run from the battery (except for the fans and control system). The compressor is directly powered from the engine through a belt. Yes, it does use more fuel because it puts additional load on the engine. In small, cheap cars you can even feel the difference in acceleration when the A/C is on.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-149721", "score": 0.6590279340744019, "text": "Your air conditioning is generally powered directly from the engine using a auxiliary belt/serpentine. When the air con pump is active it will put an extra load on the engine causing both a drop in engine power(relative to the wheels) and an increase in fuel consumption.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-101", "score": 0.8001298904418945, "text": "There are several reasons. The salt in the ocean lowers the temperature needed to make it freeze. Currents stop the ice from bonding, and if Ice did freeze, it is less dense and floats. But the main reason is the pressure, especially in deep water. To freeze, water needs to expand. Deep in the ocean, the pressure from the water stops it from being able to expand." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-139238", "score": 0.7595080137252808, "text": "The short answer is that the water on the surface comes in contact with the much colder air rather than the warmer ground under the pond and freezes. So the top freezes and the bottom stays warmed by the ground/soil. That's probably the likely \"easy answer\". There is also another answer though. Ice floats because it's less dense than liquid water. So you've got this sheet of ice on top of water that's creating pressure. One of the weird things about water is that the more compressed it gets, the more energy it requires to freeze, thus the freezing point gets lower. So you basically have this sheet of ice compressing the water underneath and preventing it from freezing.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-264948", "score": 0.7589271664619446, "text": "Ok... I'll try to answer as cleanly as I can. Freezing is crystallization of water. Crystallization always happens first if there is a solid surface to nucleate on, like the shores of the body of water. It then works its way out, growing bit by bit. The rate of growth depends on a huge number of things, but for simplicity, let's say it's mostly about the temperature gradient between the air, the ice, and the liquid water. Since water is most dense at ~4C, it will sink as it cools, and in doing so, it warms up since the bottom of the lake is warmer than the air. If the lake is deep enough, you get convection cells that slow down the crystal growth by not allowing the liquid at the interface with the ice to stay there long enough to crystallize. In a shallower lake, the water is more stagnant, and will crystallize faster.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-45333", "score": 0.7587965726852417, "text": "Due to the black magic of water molecule structure, it's at its **most dense** around 4'C and **less dense** at 0'C. This means between 0 and 4'C the coldest water _rises_ and freezes at the surface. If it weren't for this one innocuous quirk life probably would not have evolved past the simple pond life stage as lakes would always freeze solid. As it is you get the frozen top and the fluid bottom.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-177536", "score": 0.7579180002212524, "text": "Might be to do with supercooled water. Normally water freezes at 0 Celsius, or just a bit below. But if the weather is really quiet, there's no wind or waves, and you've got a lake with very still water, it's possible for water to actually cool past that point without ice crystals forming. Then, when the water gets disturbed enough, the process of ice crystal formation begins, and it can be really rapid. You'll see this sometimes as a fun science demonstration. Someone will have a plastic jug of water that's been sitting in a freezer but is still liquid; they tap it, and the insides turn to ice pretty much immediately.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-280368", "score": 0.7550196051597595, "text": "The pressure at the bottom of the ocean isn't high enough, but yes, water will change to ice if you increase the pressure sufficiently. It's not the same phase as the ice you're familiar with. There are actually many known phases of ice, which occur under different temperature and pressure conditions. Wikipedia has some [more information](_URL_0_), including a diagram of the temperature/pressure regions different ice phases occur at. The pressure at the deepest point in the ocean is [a little over 1000 atmospheres](_URL_1_). From that diagram, it would have to be around 10,000 atmospheres for ice to form.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-255771", "score": 0.7545475363731384, "text": "*Fresh* water is densest at 4C. As one increases salt content, the temperature of maximum density lowers, and [at salinity 24.7 PSU the temperature of maximum density equals the freezing point.](_URL_0_). The water at the bottom of the ocean is cold, often below 4C. This is mainly due to the fact the the ocean is cooled from the surface. When ice begins to form it excludes the salt, so the surrounding water becomes more dense, sinks, and stops cooling. This is one way deep ocean water forms.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-158903", "score": 0.7544074058532715, "text": "in a pond, the surface freezes first as it's closest to the cold air. the dirt in the ground is the last to freeze. liquid water that's in the middle is insulated from the cold air by the frozen ice. if the pond is sufficiently deep like 4-5ft, the bottom water never freezes because it's so insulated by the frozen ice on top of it and warmed by the ground below it.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-292221", "score": 0.7542407512664795, "text": "Freezing only happens if you have something called nucleation points, which are places where the ice crystals can start to form, such as a seed crystal or other uneven spot. If the inside of the bottle is smooth enough, and the water pure enough, the ice crystals have no place to form, even if the temperature of the water is below 0 °C. Once you open the bottle or shake it or disturb the water in some other way, there might be some small bubble of air forming, or some other kind of small spot where the crystals can begin to form, and because the temperature is below 0 °C the crystals will keep forming. Freezing releases heat, which is probably why all the water in your bottle did not freeze.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-187257", "score": 0.7536208033561707, "text": "The water freezes, leaving a colder, more dense and concentrated brine to sink to ocean floor. Under certain conditions, the column of very cold brine (which has a lower freezing point than 0c) will create a tube of ice from the surrounding the falling brine. _URL_1_ What's really neat is that there are deep sea floor currents of dense brine that travel from the poles all down to the equators, creating rivers and lakes of brine. Creatures can live above the brine lake, but if they swim into the brine lane, they die of exposure to extreme levels of salt. _URL_0_ I think eventually features in the ocean floor push these brine currents back to the surface where it warms and mixes the surrounding ocean water.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-121579", "score": 0.7530912756919861, "text": "When water forms ice crystals it forces out other solutes like salt. There's no room in the well ordered ice crystals for other stuff. This is part of the reason salt and other solutes lower the freezing point of water. Any water that begins to freeze leaves the rest of the liquid water even saltier (which, after a point, becomes energetically very unfavorable). Basically, when you boil or freeze water, the stuff that's in it doesn't come along for the ride. The oceans are salty because salt is very water soluble. Over billions of years rain has fallen and rivers have flowed over the ground, picked up some salt along the way, and carried it to the oceans. That water then evaporates to start the cycle over again but the salt stays behind in the ocean.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-241495", "score": 0.7530816793441772, "text": "As far as I know, the [phase diagram](_URL_0_) of water is the same anywhere in the universe, so it can be deep until the pressure forces it into a solid state. If you made an entire hypothetical \"planet\" out of pure water, it would have a solid exotic ice core purely because of the pressure.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-180862", "score": 0.7524476647377014, "text": "Because it’s not a blob of water that suddenly freezes. My understanding of it is that water has trouble freezing without some kind of impurity. Generally this is a dust particle or something else really small. The first droplet freezes around it, and the moist air around it freezes when it comes into contact with it. The shapes that are formed has to do with the crystal shape of frozen water I believe. This probably explains it better : _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-130524", "score": 0.7520392537117004, "text": "The temperature where it will freeze is lowered due to the fact that various salts are dissolved in it. Sweet water freezes at zero Celcius. Sea water freezes at about minus 1.9 Celsius.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-52388", "score": 0.7514570355415344, "text": "Water freezes in a pattern that leaves a lot of holes. [Here's an image.](_URL_1_) Liquid water has empty spaces between molecules as well, but not as much. There are forms of ice that are denser than water and will not float. For instance, when you freeze water at really high pressures, the crystal lattice it forms is different. [Here](_URL_0_) is one of these forms.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-183930", "score": 0.7513694763183594, "text": "Because the ground takes a long time to get below freezing; also it takes a long time to freeze large amounts of water just like it takes a long time to freeze something in the freezer.. Secondly, contaminants in the water like salt lower the freezing point of water.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-254686", "score": 0.7505616545677185, "text": "Water is generally denser as a liquid than a solid, so it's easier for the opposite to happen, but there's more than one kind of ice. The pressure at the very bottom would have to be at least 209.9 MPa, but that would be mostly ice-I*_h_* (normal ice), then a tiny amount of water, then ice-III. If you want water all the way up, then it will happen at 632.4 MPa into ice-VI. It works out to about 64.5 km, or 40.1 mi.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-147357", "score": 0.7493701577186584, "text": "If the water is very pure and is in a very clean bottle with a very smooth interior, it can become \"supercooled\" which means it's below the freezing point but remains liquid. The reason for this is that ice forms by creating crystals that start around a bit of dust, a crack or other imperfection on a surface, but if none of these exist, it cannot start the process of freezing. When the bottle is disturbed, it creates air bubbles, allowing the ice crystals to begin forming and the bottle freezes in a moment. Here's a video demonstrating the effect: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-274592", "score": 0.7482185363769531, "text": "It might be existing as a supercooled fluid. Water can exist at below freezing and not freeze if it is pure enough, cooled slowly, and without mechanical shocks. If such a fluid is given a mechanical shock, an impurity, or seed crystal of ice intoduced it will freeze (which actually release energy and warms it up.) Ever see those chemical hand warmers that are a liquid till you flick the activator, then change to white crystals, but can be boiled and cooled to make them liquid again? Those packs are supercooled fluids.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-78708", "score": 0.7475446462631226, "text": "Because the pressure of the water above stops the water from expanding and freezing. Also, any ice that did form would float up and quickly melt", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-293519", "score": 0.7469073534011841, "text": "The reason we find liquid water oceans under the ice of certain worlds is because solid water ice is less dense than liquid water, and so ice can float over a water ocean and both maintain its pressure and insulate it to retain some heat. If there were somehow a liquid nitrogen ocean under Pluto's surface, the solid surface would sink below it, and the liquid nitrogen exposed to vacuum would either freeze or evaporate.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-103", "score": 0.7370216250419617, "text": "Because politics quickly becomes political. Currently D.C. is extremely Democratic, so Republicans don't want 2 new Democratic Senators. If the situation was reversed it's likely that the sides would quickly flip and Democrats would be blocking the amendment." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-132835", "score": 0.7001169323921204, "text": "> how can a state-level law take away a convict's right to vote in a federal election? Because the Constitution says so. The Constitution gives the States power to determine who is eligible to vote, as long as they aren't violating any of the provisions of the Constitution such as not discriminating by race or sex, or by age if at least 18.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-26290", "score": 0.7000303268432617, "text": "same reason why we don't have a federal id. the constitution limits the power of the federal gov't.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-23234", "score": 0.7000012397766113, "text": "Your elected representatives exercise a lot of power. If you don't vote, you haven't communicated how you want them to exercise that power. Various \"get out the vote\" drives do attempt to target voters of certain demographics, who might be expected to vote a certain way.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-947207", "score": 0.6998686194419861, "text": "My argument is not that age restrictrion is inherently wrong and shouldn't be used, instead it's the differences in ages not making sense, as I believe it should be standardized.\n\nI'm brazilian, and in this post I'll use both Brazil and the US's laws in age restriction, that are the ones I'm most familiarized with.\n\nTo start, it's noticeable that laws restricting age tends to the age of 18, and I'm not going to say it's wrong and that it should be lower or higher, but I don't understand why, especially in the US, they vary so much.\n\nSmoking and drinking are examples - there is one more but I'll make another paragraph especially for that one - that change age restriction to the upper side. I know they may very well cause one's personal body harm, so I think that is the main argument, but why does the State say 'You know what? Someone can vote and be part of deciding the future of the Goverment, one can drive and possibly cause multiple deaths in a youngster recklessness, but he can't smoke nor drink which may only damage themselves - mostly'. Note that the argument is not about reducing one or raising the other, but it's about why the difference in them exists in the first place.\n\nAs aforementioned, driving and voting are on the lower side. Here in Brazil voting is *possible* at 16 and *compulsory* at 18 and in the US as far as I know it's 18 for everyone, and driving in the US is mostly 16 years old, but could be down to 14 in South Dakota while in Brazil is only at 18 years old restricted for the first year, doesn't matter the age. I personally don't know how many accidents happens in the US, especially with minors, but it does seem out of place to be able to do something so dangerous as driving while the person can't even vote or enter the army.\n\nI could go on with things like marriage and the military, or even go for the opposite age restriction - what about the elderly? - but that would be too long, so to finish I want to talk about age of candidacy. \nTo politics in both countries the ages can be as low as 18 or as high as 35 years old, depending on the office. I could argue that age doesn't speak capabilities - as I guess what the age restriction is for - but instead I would but the burden on democracy itself: Isn't the point of democracy for the people to decide who would rule? Why should democracy be overruled by such arbitrary decision of some elderly people who were once in the office? You could say 'when does it stop, then? Could they vote for a baby to govern?' Well, a cat managed to do it so what's the harm? haha. But seriously, I could accept the age restriction ***if it was standardized,*** you could think 'oh, that's the minimum required to be able to do things, so it's natural it would be the same for politics', but no, you should at least be 35 to be president.\n\nI don't understand why it varies, thank you for your patience.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-66776", "score": 0.6997643113136292, "text": "There is not a procedure to do so. A state could try to do so by force, and forcefully remove federal representatives from their state, the last time that happened millions of americans were killed and the southern states failed to secede, so it probably isn't a good idea.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-121741", "score": 0.6996548771858215, "text": "We live in a representative democracy not a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, each person votes on each thing. In a representative democracy, you vote in people to do the decision making. That's why we have things like congress. But also, we have the Electoral College. When you vote, your state gets a certain number of EC votes. Your individual vote is for which way your EC vote goes. This is why it's possible to have a candidate win the popular vote, but lose the election.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-183131", "score": 0.6996212601661682, "text": "It has to do with the federal government's powers. The powers of the federal govt. Are specifically defined and technically does not have the power to do (in a law) what the amendment did. Hence the amendment, expanding what the federal government was allowed to regulate and make it country wide.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-104424", "score": 0.6995438933372498, "text": "This guy Medallin got convicted of murder in Texas. As part of his appeal his legal team used the argument that he was denied certain rights. The rights that he was denied were not actually guaranteed by the US Constitution, they were rights that were spelled out in certain treaties (namely Optional Protocol, the U.N. Charter, and the ICJ Statute). To make matters even more confusing President George Bush ordered the states to review the convictions of any foreigners that had been convicted (in an effort to comply with the terms of the treaty). After a lengthy appeal process the Supreme Court decided that treaties WERE NOT binding as laws unless Congress passed specific laws to enforce them. They also ruled that the President does not have the power to enforce treaties without specific laws being passed to enforce them by the Congress unless the Constitution grants that authority.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-217191", "score": 0.6995130777359009, "text": "The 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971 lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, because activists (many students involved in the movement) protested the fact that 18 year olds were eligible for the draft and sent off to fight but not able to vote. I hope that helps a little.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-160626", "score": 0.6994903683662415, "text": "> Why doesn't America get rid of the electoral college? Because it would require a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states (38 out of 50), and I'm sure that you could easily find 12 states whose electoral power would be *reduced* by such an amendment, and thus those states wouldn't ratify the amendment.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-330852", "score": 0.6993883848190308, "text": "I swear that people in political subreddits complain about everything they can on how the elections are unfair. My main gripe is when they say that blacks are somehow discriminated against by polling hours. If they are working and still want to vote, they can request an absentee ballot and do not even need a reason in most states.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-948985", "score": 0.6993516087532043, "text": "I'm in the military and I just recently moved to DC. I've been all over the country in the past few months, but I'm a resident of Florida. Does anyone know if I can register to vote in DC today? I don't have a DC drivers license, but can I use my military ID pr anything else?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-41723", "score": 0.6993451118469238, "text": "The 10th amendment says \"if it's not in the Constitution, the states are in charge\". The 14th Amendment says \"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States\" and the Supreme Court ruled that refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples infringes on their Constitutional rights. Therefore the 10th amendment doesn't come into play at all.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-4706", "score": 0.6992735266685486, "text": "The requirements are different. Most importantly, banking information needs to be tied to the person making the transaction. If any inconsistencies come up they need to be able to make sure they have enough identification information to trace the transactions back to the person who made them. This is exactly the opposite in voting. Voting has to be anonymous. Having anonymous voting but still being able to trace the inconsistencies back is a trickier problem. It's not impossible tho. The real big issue is that an election screwing up and a country having a tyrant running it who is willing to fix an election to win is far, far worse than any loss of money a bank might suffer. Electronic elections software has way more riding on it than banking software.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-109514", "score": 0.6992223262786865, "text": "Originally, it was because doing it on a weekend would conflict with church (even on Saturday, due to long travel time) and Americans fear change. Technically yes, time off work to vote must legally be provided. This does little to help hourly employees though who would lose money due to taking it.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1749", "score": 0.6989573240280151, "text": "Often described as a \"living document,\" the Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While many argue that \"We the People of the United States,\" refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed. Edit: far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: * “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ’Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.’ These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.”*", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-2608573", "score": 0.6988615393638611, "text": "Legal status, no deportation but no citizenship, no voting rights. Do you think the left would accept this as humane and fair?\n\nThere entire argument is that it would be inhumane to break up families or uproot people. They never mention the ability to vote.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-175134", "score": 0.6988495588302612, "text": "Well you have to source it from somewhere. To be part of a jury you must be a citizen, since the US doesn't really have a good database that tracks all citizens and where they live they rely on a voluntary database that requires proof of citizenship and address. There's really no alternative that won't capture people that aren't eligible. As the other poster said DMV could work, but you don't need to be a citizen to get a driver's license, so they could be wasting people's time who aren't eligible for jury duty.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-224183", "score": 0.6987693905830383, "text": "Follow up question: the other two differences mentioned are often floated around as theoretical reforms to the constitution. How long have these two reforms been around, considering the confederacy thought they should be added?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-160031", "score": 0.6987632513046265, "text": "Well more people will be able to vote more easily, and there are some in power that see this as a con. The problem for them with this law is finding a way to frame it in a way that isn't clearly anti-voting. Unlike the voter ID laws they've been passing, which are more nuanced and harder to see as a bad thing, this seems like a pretty obvious good thing.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-104", "score": 0.7380964159965515, "text": "Nuclear Winter is not a local effect resulting from an atomic blast, but rather a hypothetical effect from lots of nukes going off. The theory is that the nukes would kick a lot of soot and dust up in to the air, blocking out the sun. The blocking out of the sun would result in lower temperatures since the sun can't heat up as much of the Earth anymore. Some of the effects are based on similar effects felt when a large volcano goes off. Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines went off in the early 90's and we only saw a slight drop in temperature (1 degree F)." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-218967", "score": 0.7011467218399048, "text": "It has been a while since I learned this but if I'm not mistaken nearly every major U.S. city was a target. The Soviet Union had several thousand nukes and there was one designated for every US city counting down based on population. To give perspective the city of Flagstaff, Arizona was on the list (Pop. 65,000) So there were quite a substantial number of cities on the list.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-454907", "score": 0.7008426785469055, "text": "Hey! I'm writing a term paper on nuclear proliferation. If anybody still has their evidence and doesn't mind sharing it I would be super grateful. Thanks in advance!\n\n~CTR", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-300693", "score": 0.7007265090942383, "text": "It is worth noting any sufficiently large explosion can create a mushroom cloud. It is not inherent to nuclear weapons. It is inherent to really big explosions.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-2610217", "score": 0.6992894411087036, "text": "I was browsing eli5 and saw a detailed explanation on how a nuclear winter plummets global temperatures, in theory. While I'm not advocating for dropping a nuclear bomb on Pennsylvania, could purposely igniting huge swaths of uninhabited land, or even evacuated land, counteract global warming while increasing overall pollution levels?\n\nPreferably not to permafrost conditions, but just a few global degrees.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2024244", "score": 0.6991303563117981, "text": "I know our Lord and savior Todd might say that the technology just isn't there yet, but wouldn't it be awesome if we had an actual nuclear winter? \n\nMaybe it can be like a 1 week event after the player base launch a certain amount of nukes , maybe like 1000 nukes. Cover the world in snow (or certain regions, like the cranberry bog) and introduce new high level content, enemies and loot. Warframe has events that become unlocked after the player base has completed enough of a certain mission type\n\nDon't want to see snow everywhere? Okay, let's make it a separate high level mode, choosing between Adventure, Survival, or Nuclear Winter\n\nI don't know, just want to see some snow in Fallout", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-292315", "score": 0.6988284587860107, "text": "There arę, at least locally. After one of tests went wrong (castle bravo? Might be wrong but iirc that one. Had to do with additional fuel breeding during detonation, pushing the yield from expected few megatons to over 15mt) local population was subjected to fallout. That has caused very high cancer rates later.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-33431", "score": 0.6978820562362671, "text": "No. Very simply, global warming is when there is so much stuff in the atmosphere that heat is trapped in. Nuclear winter is when there is even more stuff in the atmosphere and no heat can get in. In a really extreme case, global warming could become as bad as nuclear winter.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-204389", "score": 0.6968593001365662, "text": "The plan was to examine amongst other things the effectiveness of nukes on a fleet. They even went so far in some cases to place livestock on the ships to see what the effect on the crew would be. Turns out most of the ships could take a lot of damage and at least were still floating after multiple tests. But were so irradiated that it was unsafe to send anyone aboard to make repairs so many of the ones that sank did so from slow leaks. Interesting enough one of the ships that was used was the former Prinz Eugen. After the war was over the USN took possession of her and sailed her through the Panama Canal all the way to Bikini. She even survived both Able and Baker blasts and later sank because of leaks.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-280537", "score": 0.6968278884887695, "text": "At Fukishima the reactors were shutdown within minutes, that wasn't the problem. The problem there was the waste heat from the fission byproducts. Those isotopes (which are not fissioning, merely decaying) will continue to generate heat for years and years, so without some form of significant cooling that heat can eventually build up enough to cause the spent fuel to melt, making it harder to contain. Even if the spent fuel at Fukishima would have been cryogenically frozen by liquid nitrogen (or even liquid helium) it wouldn't have helped. The heat from radioactivity would have continued to build up and the spent fuel would have gotten warm then hot then melted.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-191231", "score": 0.696709394454956, "text": "The tests have been conducted in mostly a select few, remote locations. You basically bombed what already was bombed. And most tests were conducted after the nations agreed to ban open air tests. Underwater and Underground tests create less fallout. Still the tests have indeed caused a lot of ecological damage, it wasn't a global irridation, though, like thousands of actual detonations spread all over the globe at centers of human habitation would cause.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-793702", "score": 0.6965328454971313, "text": "In 1988 I worked at LANL. I went to the Bradbury Museum. It had a black wall with photos of the US above ground nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s. Each phot showed a multicoloured rainbow mushroom cloud against a black night sky. Very lovely and terrible images.\n\nI asked one of the people there why the testings were done at night. He said they were done in the day time, because it was easier operationally. Most people were awake after all. But the intensity of the nuclear light was so great that it made the day sky black by comparison. Wow.\n\n**Does anyone have links to photos of that wall?** Or can someone sent me photos? I regret never taking a photo of it. NOte that in 88 the museum was inside the lab. I leaft in 89. I read that later the museum was moved into town. So I don't know if that wall was reproduced there.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-218847", "score": 0.6954659819602966, "text": "If I may, I'd like to ask a follow-up question that has always intrigued me: Was there a contingency plan in place to conventionally bomb Hiroshima in case Little Boy did not detonate? Granted, if it were a dud, it would end up many feet below the surface, but that's still not the kind of device you'd want to hand to your bitter enemy. Thanks", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-256578", "score": 0.6952932476997375, "text": "Well yes, the Tibetan plateau was under a nice little bit of icesheet, although there is some fuzziness as to whether glacial cover reached 100% or not as well as about the limits of the icesheet. See: _URL_0_ and _URL_1_ (I know, paywalls suck, but at least the abstracts are public and outline where these guys are going...) Can't say about the other ranges except for the Rockies: the canadian part was solidly glaciated, with the icesheet stopping about midway into Washington state. There were alpine glaciers further south though.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-271621", "score": 0.6950134634971619, "text": "[SNAP-10A](_URL_0_) and Soviet TOPAZ were the only spaceborne nuclear reactors. The American version used the thermoelectric effect as /u/electric_ionland described. The Soviet version used the thermionic effect, which is basically getting something hot enough that electrons start boiling off your anode and moving through vacuum to a nearby metal plate. Neither are very efficient, although there's some hope for thermionic conversion. Nobody has put a proper Brayton cycle (steam) nuke into space yet. If they did it would look [something like this.](_URL_1_) Note the vast radiator \"wings\" needed to dump heat and recycle coolant.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-2740164", "score": 0.6949892640113831, "text": "Hi, first post in r/ufo. Lurking for a while now, but after watching the phenomenon yesterday and its reiteration of the association of UFOs with nuclear weapon sites etc, I realize now that I have great sympathy for the decision to keep this fact secret. \n\nIf we assume that this has been going on basically since the end of WWII and there has been an understanding in some parts of the military both west and east that technologically superior entities have the capability to both suppress AND start nuclear strikes at will, essentially potentially nullifying the nuclear capabilities of the main geopolitical players - we can assume that the decision to disclose this or not was made under the enormous geopolitical pressures of the cold war\n\nNow, the idea of mutually assured destruction and nuclear deterrence is arguably the reason for the cold war staying mostly cold, at least in the mind of military AND more importantly, political leadership during the time. If nuclear weapons had not existed, there is a good chance WWII would have been merely the prologue to a full out war of capitalism vs communism that could have devastated the World even more. \n\nFor me, this is the most likely reason for non-disclosure not just concerning the public but also to their own government, legislature and even other military circles.\n\nLet's assume it becomes common knowledge in government circles that nobody can reliably count on their nuclear weapons to work - conventional east/west conflict would have suddenly become a much more thinkable option on both sides!\n\nBasically, I suggest that the non-disclosure of a potential threat to nuclear capability was the right thing to do in terms of keeping the east west conflict confined to the proxy theaters.\n\nAlso, I would suggest that this is still true today with even more nations having nuclear capabilities and the loads of smaller conflicts going on with US and Russian involvement.\n\nSo if the nuclear connection is a real thing and the UFO presence over nuclear sites is some sort of warning, a show of force meant to preempt them form being used, I find it weirdly counterproductive in a sense and not acknowledging the fact probably a much smarter move than disclosing it- a deterrence that nobody knows doesn't actually exist is still a deterrence\n\nAny thoughts on this?", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-95251", "score": 0.6949084997177124, "text": "Well, I know this is going to get buried but I'll answer as best I am able. One of the side effects is actually forest fires. I read a paper a while back that if Pakistan launched all their nukes and India launched just an equal number than the resulting forest fires would create enough Ash to create winter for four years. This is equal to the time period of what wiped out the dinosaurs. It's way more than 10, but hopefully helps you to understand some of the side effects of such a catastrophe.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-62690", "score": 0.6937061548233032, "text": "Not that is publicly known of. Underground explosions create seismic waves, explosions in air create light flashes and blast waves and release radioactivity, explosions in space create light flashes. All those can be detected. If any state has a way to do an undetectable nuclear test, which is very unlikely, they've kept it secret.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1170790", "score": 0.6933875679969788, "text": "Hey guys- love the podcast.\n\nI have a suggestion for the History Nugget series. It's a story about the history of the nuclear program, and why we use the type of nuclear reactors that we do. It involves Nuclear powered aircraft, secret Nixon files, atomic weapons and a NASA engineer trying to build a moon base.\n\nEnter a man named Kirk Sorensen. \n\nThis is about a different type of nuclear reactor called a liquid floride thorium reactor.\n\nIn the 1960s, there were many different types of nuclear reactors being built. There were several variants of nuclear reactors designs that were much safer than the faulty reactors we have now. One of the types, a solid fuel reactor, had a strong likelihood of going 'boom', but- it produced Plutonium for nuclear freakin weapons.\n\nThe air force had paid to develop a nuclear powered bomber meant to stay aloft using a nuclear powered engine. This thing actually flew. It spewed out nuclear material from the engines, and probably killed everyone on board. The type of reactor was not really practical for powering aircraft, but it was a start of a better type of reactor.\n\nA reactor was built on this technology, not for powering aircraft, but for generating electricity. Oak Ridge National Labs dubbed the experiment the 'Molten Salt Reactor Experiment'. it ran for 50,000 hours in the late 1960s. It was inherently stable and roughly 200 times more efficient than a solid fueled reactor. The MSR held the promise of creating small power plants and some other cool things, (like medical particles, deep space probe fuel, and moon base fuel).\n\nThis all sounds way better than solid fuel reactors, right? Just one little problem, you couldn't make freakin bombs from it. Nixon figured this out, and killed the research into this program. Tricky Dick killed off years of research from Oak Ridge.\n\n\n\nFast forward to the 2000's. The government said- \"hey- let's build a moon base\". Nasa said \"Yeah- Moonbase!\"\n\nSo NASA assembled a team of engineers to figure out how the heck to do this. An engineer named Kirk Sorensen was responsible for figuring out how to power this thing. \"There's no coal, no natural gas, no atmosphere, no wind and solar will never work, so we've gotta go Nuclear.\"", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-218487", "score": 0.693268895149231, "text": "I would like to request clarification from experts to how the question is phrased. OP referred to a period when only the US had nuclear weapons. My understanding was that this was not really ever the case, as the Soviets were already well along in their own development by the time the bomb fell on Hiroshima. But I know that RDS-1, their first test, didn't occur until 1949. Is it reasonable to say that there was a period when only the US had nuclear weapons? Or was the simultaneous development in the Soviet Union effectively \"having\" them, even though they were a little behind? I ask because it makes me wonder about modern nuclear powers. Does a country have to have actual bombs ready to go at a moment's notice to be a \"nuclear power,\" or can they have the technology and process developed, but no actual bombs, to be considered nuclear capable?", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-180736", "score": 0.6929203271865845, "text": "A nuclear winter would be the theoretical result of massive amounts of cities and property being on fire and the resulting smoke and soot blocking out the sun. Not the nuclear bombing itself being the issue, but the resulting issue from dropping bombs on a global basis. Similar effects have resulted from large volcanic activity in the past - see volcanic winter", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-105", "score": 0.7070151567459106, "text": "How long do you want to take to accelerate? Merging onto the highway in a reasonable time takes far more power than maintaining a constant speed. There are plenty of 1.0 l cars for sale in Europe. They take about 17 +/- seconds to reach 100 kph, but they are very fuel efficient. No one would buy them here in the US because it would be frankly frightening to try to merge onto our freeways in a car that slow." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-242658", "score": 0.6716479063034058, "text": "According to the Department of Transportation in 2010 [PDF WARNING], [buses emit about 33% less CO2 per passenger per mile](_URL_0_). Note that buses are on average about 28% full, and at full capacity buses save much more. This data is pretty old so both cars and buses are more fuel efficient now, but I'd imagine the relative savings are similar, especially since hybrid or fully electric buses are becoming more common. I'm speculating now, but I'd imagine as a second-order effect increased bus ridership would decrease emissions even further by reducing traffic, meaning quicker routes with less time standing.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-55463", "score": 0.6716421246528625, "text": "If the same amount of air (and therefore fuel) is drawn into the engine on each revolution, then yes. Now, imagine you're driving at 50mph, at 2000rpm. You shift down a couple of gears, so you're doing 4000rpm. If you maintain 50mph, the throttle won't be open quite as much as before. So each revolution will draw in less air, and will require less fuel. You'll use more fuel, yes - but not twice as much.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-138661", "score": 0.6715965270996094, "text": "From what I understand, It's the way that the engines are designed to combust. Basically, they have to ignite the fuel in the right place in the right way, and different fuels' chemical makeup affects that.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1028189", "score": 0.6715232133865356, "text": "There's a large stretch (in both directions, I think) where the middle lane is two cars wide. The other two lanes are regular sized. \n\nIs it meant to be used as two lanes, which is what most people do. If it is, then why not just make it a 4 lane road (in each direction). If not, then why not just make the other lanes a little wider so they're all the same width.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-105626", "score": 0.6715212464332581, "text": "The problem with thermal engines is, that in order to increase efficiency, you need to increase the temperature of the combustion process (gross oversimplification). The problem with that is the higher the temperature of the combustion process, the more NOx is formed. Volkwagen cheated by running it's engine at high temperature during normal operation, and at low temperature during emission tests. Other technologies exists, such as solid oxygen fuel cells (basically, fuels cells with fossil fuels rather than hydrogen) could increase both efficiency and reduce pollution.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-57049", "score": 0.6715185642242432, "text": "There's long technical explanations but here's the short and sweet version. 1. Not meeting emissions requirements provided better fuel economy. (More miles driven for the same amount of burned fuel.) 2. Not meeting emissions requirements provided their engines with better acceleration/performance.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-595298", "score": 0.6714755892753601, "text": "Don't think about it legislate with emotion not common sence for common sence truck control!\n\nNobody needs that much horsepower! Its current year!\n\n when the constitution was written they only had horse and carriages. They could have never forseen gas internal combustion engines.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-35347", "score": 0.6714724898338318, "text": "Note: putting wheels on your car that are larger than your car was designed to have will affect the accuracy of the car's speedometer. Ever hear individuals with these type of car modifications complain about being frequently pulled over by the police? There is often a reason for that.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-12881", "score": 0.6714427471160889, "text": "The move to smaller engines (Inline-4s and V6s instead of V8s, etc.). Engines are being made out of lighter materials, as well. Cars are more aerodynamic, etc. The biggest affect I've found on my own personal fuel mileage is the driver. If you drive like there is a glass of water balancing on your dashboard and you drive conservatively and don't jab on the gas from a stop sign like an NHRA drag racer, then you can really improve the gas mileage.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-342074", "score": 0.6714370846748352, "text": "It lowers the top speed when I have the downforce set to high. I remember I made it a little bit harder to drift in 2015. Can someone give me a better explanation?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-2293527", "score": 0.6714235544204712, "text": "1.) How to properly come to a complete stop: Do you down shift gears until &lt;20mph and then throw the car in neutral or throw the car in neutral, from any speed or gear, and brake to a complete stop? Is riding the car in neutral at high speeds bad for the transmission? \n \n2.) In this scenario, is it bad for the car? The car is in 6th gear going 70mph. I'm reaching a red light so I throw the car in neutral. I brake and slow the car to about 35mph. The light turns green and I shift in 4th gear and give it gas. \n \n3.) Is driving at &gt;6000rpm bad for the engine? Sometime I like to hear the engine scream. But I never reach the red line which is 8-9k rpm. \n \nThanks", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-133895", "score": 0.6714063286781311, "text": "In Formula One every kilo of weight the driver has slows the car down by around half a tenth of a second putter lap, due to weight distribution. If they can't get the car to minimum weight, this is even more true. Add to that they have to withstand 5Gs through some turns, they need steering neck muscles to support their head, and excellent core strength to keep themselves in control and not get dragged around in the car.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-160776", "score": 0.6714004874229431, "text": "Android phones report the speed at which they're moving to Google. If there's enough phones on a road, it can use that to generate traffic information. True story.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-19558", "score": 0.6713968515396118, "text": "Because they hadn't worked out how to implement [gearing](_URL_0_) yet. Or in other words, the only options they had were pedals connected straight to the wheels, in a 1:1 gearing ratio, meaning one turn of the pedals equalled one turn of the wheel. When you've got normal bike size wheels, that quite severely limits how fast it's possible to go, because you're limited by how fast you can pump your feet, which really isn't *that* quick. The simplest way to get around that is to make the wheel bigger, because that means one full turn of the wheel covers more distance, so your straight 1:1 pedal-to-wheel ratio gets you going faster. That's really all there is to it. Once they discovered decent chain systems, and then sprockets and gearing and all that, then having the huge front wheel was no longer necessary.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-46466", "score": 0.6713892221450806, "text": "Once you clear the atmosphere and you're no longer butting heads with a bunch of air particles slowing you down due to friction, it's pretty easy to reach crazy high speeds. Think about driving a car where, when you take your foot off the accelerator, you don't slow down, but every time you tap it even a little bit, you still go faster. That's what travelling in space is like. Without (much) friction to slow you down, you can build up a lot of speed over the distance from Earth to Pluto.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-683948", "score": 0.6713584065437317, "text": "We have the LR AWD for about a week now, and we charged to 90% for the first time now, but shouldn’t the range at 90% calculate to about 505km? Or does the software take into consideration your driving habits and calculate your range according to your driving?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-117518", "score": 0.6713576912879944, "text": "Yes. Mostly less room for people. It's also cheaper, because you need less drive-train parts if you have a front-wheel drive car. If you have a rear-engined, rear-wheel drive car, it is very unstable without a lot of engineering. (See early Porsche death traps) Mid-engined cars are inherently very stable, but lack much practicality for every day use, and cost more, because you need more drive train parts. For most cars, front engines just make the most sense, in terms of cost, reliability, practicality, and stability.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-304682", "score": 0.6713467240333557, "text": "Speedometers work by measuring how fast your car's tires are rotating, but they can't know how big your tires are. The bigger your tire diameter, the more your car will travel per rotation, meaning the faster your real speed will be compared to your reported speed. Speedometers are designed to high-ball because if you, say, were ticketed for doing 105kph when the speedometer said you were doing 100kph, the car manufacturer could be liable. GPS-reported speed should be fairly accurate as long as you have a consistent fix.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-16362", "score": 0.6713269352912903, "text": "Automatics used to rather fuel and energy inefficient and heavy. With fuel always being cheaper in the US, it was no big deal to put bigger and more powerful engines in to the cars as the price to pay for fuel didn't matter much. Fuel in Europe has always been more expensive and the drive for more fuel efficient vehicles meant smaller and weaker cars, and thus manual transmissions. The difference in fuel efficiency in todays manual and automatic transmissions is negligible, but people are now more or less used to what they grew up with or what their parents drove. Edit: Automatics used to **be** ...", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-20598", "score": 0.6713221073150635, "text": "Couple reasons, props have a lower efficiency compared to jets at higher speeds, and jets are more cost effective on aircraft that move faster (which large planes, like commercial airlines do). Its like a V8 engine, if you're only going to go 40 mph at most, you can use a smaller, simpler, cheaper, and less powerful engine.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-106", "score": 0.7778505086898804, "text": "The idea that everyone has a unique fingerprint isnt really scientifically proven. There is a real possibility that you and someone else currently living have identical fingerprints." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1427", "score": 0.7360408306121826, "text": "First off, DNA doesn't directly affect fingerprints in the way you might think. Fingerprints are the result of chemical reactions in the womb; this is why identical twins have different fingerprints. There are way, way more than 7 billion different combinations. Many estimates put it in the 10^20 range or higher. Now, is it possible for two people to have the same fingerprint? Yes, it's possible -- but for law enforcement purposes, it's pretty much a slam dunk, because there will almost *always* be some other evidence or fact that connects them to the crime. It would be hard enough to convince anyone of a one in a bajillion chance of someone with the same fingerprint robbing the bank. It's even harder when you were known to be at the bank the day before casing it out.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-311907", "score": 0.736020028591156, "text": "Consider a 1cm by 1cm area. Now, consider each square millimeter to be a binary on/off bit. That's 100 bits, or 2^100, or 1267650600228229401496703205376 different combinations. Now, fingerprints aren't binary like that, but generally a ridge in your fingerprint can split, stop, or continue at a given point. Even constrained by the common whorl or 'U' patterns, that still leaves room for a LOT of data points where 'information' can be coded based on the split/stop/continue trinary. So even with a mere 50 data points possible, in trinary you get 3^50, or 717897987691852588770249 combinations. It's more complicated than that, because of the pattern constraints, but I think you can see how a small area can have many different, and unique, possibilities.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-293096", "score": 0.7355051040649414, "text": "Technical yes. But the difference would be so small it would require precision instruments to measure. For example my iphone 5 still has the factory anti-fingerprint coating which was probably only microns thin to start with.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-308750", "score": 0.7348970770835876, "text": "They are formed based on conditions while in the womb during one's own individual growth. Even identical twins don't share fingerprints - the exact pattern is unique, but not genetic. There would have to be some organized, uniform mechanism for the formation of a fingerprint's details in order for them to be selected for/against and over time converge to be identical or the same few patterns, and that mechanism doesn't exist.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-71070", "score": 0.7345643043518066, "text": "Actually we don't, it's an assumption based upon odds... the chance of another human having the same finger print is 1 in 64 million. The odds of winning the powerball is 1 in 175 million. So there could very well be someone out there with the same fingerprint. But then you have the same odds for every finger, it really makes it improbable that another human would have the exact same set of fingerprints and be close in proximity to the crime in question. But it is possible, just VERY unlikely Edit: I looked back at my genetics notes and I remembered wrong, it's 1 in 64 BILLION not million, apologies", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-857322", "score": 0.7338072657585144, "text": "Can something like fingerprint scanning be a computing innovation?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-321108", "score": 0.7337868809700012, "text": "No. Fingerprints are determined by the motion of fluids in the uterus during gestation. This is why identical twins (exact same DNA) do not have identical fingerprints.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-137916", "score": 0.7325077652931213, "text": "It's not only possible, there is documented evidence of it! In the 2004 Madrid Train Bombings the top fingerprint analyst in the World conclusively identified that the suspects fingerprint EXACTLY matched Brandon Mayfield, a man who was not even in Madrid at the time but still went to jail for the crime for an extended period. You can check this out here: _URL_1_ And _URL_0_ The idea that 'no two people have the same fingerprint' is an old wives tale, just like 'there are no 2 snowflakes that are the same' its just something somebody said, there's no evidence to back it up.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-123038", "score": 0.7317178845405579, "text": "The FBI has a massive database called AFIS. It contains fingerprints collected from background checks, arrested suspects, and firearm purchases. It's possible to electronically check if fingerprints match, though human investigators are needed to make the ultimate decision of whether an unknown print matches one on file.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-192270", "score": 0.7312055230140686, "text": "Fingerprints are not generated genetically. Fingerprints are generated when we are in the womb from pressures present on the fingers. 2 people can have similar to even nearly identical fingerprints as well, in fact the chance of 2 people having the same fingerprints is about 1 in 64 million but when you have billions of people on the planet, well, it becomes pretty much bound to happen.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-324481", "score": 0.7304180860519409, "text": "Fingerprints usually do regenerate enough to allow identification, unless there is severe damage to the tissue. So it is possible to intentionally \"erase\" them. I do not have information to answer if it is possible to develop a new set of fingerprints. You can check [this article](_URL_0_). PS I'm new to providing scientifically accurate answers, so please let me know if I am doing it wrong.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-19134", "score": 0.7299570441246033, "text": "Its just the pattern in your retina. It is, however, a common misconception that these are unique to you. It's pretty likely that there are other people with the same fingerprint or retina. So to answer your question, there is nothing about either that is inherently unique, but there are so maby possible variations that *most* people have different patterns than one another", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-75244", "score": 0.7296091914176941, "text": "There are 2 parts to it: * From each image, a \"fingerprint\" is extracted, something that describes the image as uniquely as possible but doesn't change when the image is manipulated (e.g. resized or changed to a different format with a lower color depth). * Have an index that allows you to search through millions of fingerprints efficiently to find the closest match to the fingerprint of your search image (the \"efficient\" part is where it gets complicated). This is the stuff of active research, many people are trying to find newer and better algorithms for this. A very simple fingerprint algorithm would be to resize the image to a very low resolution, e.g. 3x3 pixels with 6bits of color depth, i.e. you have 9 pixels and each can have one of 64 colors. And the search would return all images that are identical when resized to that format, which means they have a similar average color in each of the 9 parts that are sized down to 1 pixel.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-287617", "score": 0.7285306453704834, "text": "Yup. You'd have to burn down through all layers of the skin to the point you need a skin graft to make your fingerprints go away. You can scar them up and mess with them temporarily, but the pattern comes from the first layer of skin.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-176446", "score": 0.7265596389770508, "text": "People don't all have different fingerprints, at least to the limit of our ability to distinguish them. They just are likely to be rare enough that only one person in about 100,000 or so will share a print, meaning it is strong supporting evidence in a trial. It is not however absolute evidence identifying someone 100%.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-313407", "score": 0.7262557744979858, "text": "Not much is known about the specifics, but enough is known to answer your question. We know that there is a genetic component to fingerprint formation. For instance, a mutation to the regulatory gene SMARCAD1 can yield adermatoglyphia--a rare condition that results in no fingerprints forming. We also know that environmental factors must be at play in the womb, as identical twins do not have identical fingerprints.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-13741", "score": 0.7256867289543152, "text": "They arent completely unique, mathematically speaking. Testing for prints is based on probability. The odds of someone having the same fingerprints as you that lives in the same area as you is incredibly, *incredibly* small. Fingerprint matching is used to reduce the likelihood of the prints belonging to someone other than the suspect. It works similarly to testing blood at a crime scene. It isn't to prove with 100% certainty that it's the suspect's blood. It's used to rule out the 99% of every other possible suspect.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-324627", "score": 0.7241613864898682, "text": "[This article](_URL_0_) is about identical twins, effective clones; it states, in part: > To a standard DNA analysis, they would be indistinguishable. Yet the parents of twins can usually tell them apart by subtle visual cues, and, **while their fingerprints are generally similar, they are not identical.**", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-112345", "score": 0.7228260636329651, "text": "They aren't, but they are 99.99999999999999% unique (due to the physical limit of fingertip space). The design is decided by your movement inside the womb, as that is very rare to be identical for two people, especially within the same relative time.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-154467", "score": 0.7211100459098816, "text": "A fingerprint is just a pattern, that happens to be found on your fingers, and any two individuals are very unlikely to share the same fingerprints. So what is stored in the database is a \"picture\" of the fingerprint. Computers are really good at pattern matching, and due to the speed at which they can perform calculations the new image can be compared to all images stored in the database one by one and if the same pattern is found in the sample and the one in the database it is flagged as a possible match.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-108", "score": 0.6809734106063843, "text": "Spiciness isn't a flavor, it's a reaction to the chemical capsaicin, which irritates any tissue it contacts, not just your tongue. This is also why the area around your lips gets sore while eating wings." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-70118", "score": 0.6468620300292969, "text": "It dries out, the fridge is a very dry environment. The drying out changes the texture but also the flavour.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-39006", "score": 0.6468569040298462, "text": "When you fry foods it dehydrates the surface. This makes a kind of protective layer so that the oil can't soak further into the food and make it all gross. Its called browning. However it has to be hot enough, if you dont heat the oil up enough it will soak it as well.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-46499", "score": 0.6466728448867798, "text": "Short answer: consumption of capsicum (spicy foods) release endorphins. Like your five: eating spicy foods makes your mouth do a dance that makes you happy in your brain.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-161213", "score": 0.6464080214500427, "text": "You'll burn the outside of whatever you're cooking before the inside gets even a little warm. You have to use optimum heat/time to cook evenly through the food. Don't get me wrong, I wish it worked that way.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-245084", "score": 0.6463914513587952, "text": "That's because some of the molecules that are responsible for the banana taste are particularly volatile and are able to adsorb onto the surfaces of the bread. If you try to put the banana in a bag to isolate it from the other foods, it will still happen to some extent because the bag, even when properly sealed, is actually quite permeable at the microscopic level.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-94241", "score": 0.6463624835014343, "text": "I have not experienced hiccups after eating spicy food (And I eat it on a weekly basis) , nor have I seen or heard of this before. Could be the chemicals like capsaicin annoying the lungs.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-87010", "score": 0.6463264226913452, "text": "Stop shoving spicy food up your ass and you'll be ok.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-121829", "score": 0.6463207006454468, "text": "The trpv1 receptors in the mouth are what responds to the capsaicin in spicy foods. Due to mutations and genetics, some people's aren't as responsive to the capsaicin as others are. Though, you can become desynthesized over time to the effects if you eat spicy foods. These receptors also respond to the ethanol in alcohol, especially hard liquors.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-24150", "score": 0.6462947726249695, "text": "Some foods get better as the ingredients have more time for the flavors to meld... the meat absorbs more of the spices and other flavors instead of just being coated in them and same for other ingredients.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-177283", "score": 0.6462242603302002, "text": "If it's in a microwave it's because microwaves target water molecules and the heating of the water molecules is what actually ends up heating your food. This is why dryer foods usually end up being cold still even though other contents with more moisture are scolding", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-262771", "score": 0.6461458802223206, "text": "Spiciness, as in what you \"taste\" in peppers, is not a taste. It's actually a reaction between [capsaicin](_URL_2_) and the [trigeminal nerve](_URL_1_). Similarly, it's why you wouldn't call \"minty\" a basic flavor -- similar reaction, same nerve. What capsaicin does to the trigeminal nerve is that it tricks the pain receptors into responding. Responding in such a way that your nerves believe they have warmed up, as in being burned. **EDIT** for a bit of further clarification, \"spiciness\" would qualify as a _sensation_, not a taste. Though, it does impact subjective perceptions of ~~taste~~ [flavor](_URL_0_).", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-3605", "score": 0.6460976004600525, "text": "pain is bad mmkay. it's how your body lets you know something's going wrong with it. spice is the plant's defense, so it wont get eaten by animals, since they're not stupid enough to eat it twice if it burns their mouth for half an hour after.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-128231", "score": 0.6460752487182617, "text": "Certain chemicals, including wasabi and spicy peppers, cause a reaction in a person's body's cells that is similar to high heat. It's a function of TRPV1 and what passes into the cells: _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-123418", "score": 0.6460301280021667, "text": "Reason # 1 : Food spoils more quickly in hot climates. Spices are preservatives. Reason #2 : Not many edible and spicy plants in colder climates.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-275727", "score": 0.6457245945930481, "text": "The esters that are responsible for the smell and taste of bananas are small and non-polar, so they're volatile and can pass through plastic. Wrapping the banana in foil might be the trick.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-321125", "score": 0.645641565322876, "text": "Birds don't sense spicy the way we do. Capsasin makes us taste 'spice', but to animals like birds that don't have a capsaicin receptor, they notice nothing. It's a way for plants to encourage certain animals/insects to carry their seeds further. Spiciness will keep a squirrel from grabbing the seed and dropping it right here, while allowing a bird a better chance to send their seed farther", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-299131", "score": 0.6456260681152344, "text": "I've answered this question before _URL_0_ Somewhat boringly the answer is that it is mostly just regular ol' air as pepper/chilli fruits are gas permeable. There is a small contribution of some additional volatile chemicals that are outgassed by the fruit tissues.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-319438", "score": 0.645520031452179, "text": "Any cook will tell you that stirring cools things down. In this case, I expect that stirring transfers the hot water from the bottom of the pot to the surface more efficiently than convection, so the water loses heat faster and momentarily dips below the boiling point.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-98782", "score": 0.6454615592956543, "text": "Your skin has both heat and cold receptors. Based on the way they work, extremes of either temperature trigger the “wrong” receptor, giving that sensation. It’s more common with cold things feeling hot, but both occur. Slightly related is that some chemicals trick those receptors into firing. That’s why spicy food is hot.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-181280", "score": 0.6454461216926575, "text": "You know how your mouth burns when you eat chili peppers? That's because the spicy stuff fools the brain into thinking the mouth is actually on fire. With mint and similar, instead of hot it's faking cold.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-110", "score": 0.7145463228225708, "text": "US copyright has a Fair Use clause, which a minor reference like the ones you are mentioning fall under. You don't need to pay royalties for something like mentioning \"I saw something like this on Star Trek once!\" or \"This is like Episode 79 of the Original Series, Turnabout Intruder! They got bodyswapped!\" As to when you cross the line of fair use, that's subjective and really you have to use your best judgment. _URL_0_ has more info." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-2354069", "score": 0.67870032787323, "text": "Greetings, /r/legaladvice!\n\nI come to you with my idea of creating an MCAT content review book to help me study for the MCAT exam. I generally make study guides to study for exams, so I thought why not just connect the bullet points with sentences to write the material in book format?\n\nAs I am currently an undergraduate student, I will be writing this book with the knowledge of the material I have obtained from my subject courses at my University, and will be using my [copyrighted] course textbooks as reference materials (as well as online resources when needed). In terms of how I would [legally] need to cite these works-- **would a bibliography-style approach [i.e., I referenced these works to make this chapter] be [legally] sufficient?** I would of course cite any direct quotes or paraphrases appropriately, but I didn't plan on citing generally known-to-be-true facts (e.g., the formula for this scientific concept is _______).\n\n**Does anyone here have any experience with Fair Use / Copyright law, as to how it applies to Exam Review Books (e.g., those published by review companies such as Kaplan, Princeton Review, Barron's, etc.)?** ***If these books were not published for-profit* (I do not plan on publishing for-profit), could they be covered under Fair Use?** **How are these publishers able to sell the books for-profit?**\n\nHere is fair use, reproduced below for your convenience:\n\n&gt; Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— \n\n&gt; (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;\n\n&gt; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;\n\n&gt; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and\n\n&gt; (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.\n\n&gt; The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.\n\nSource: #107\n\nI am tempted to say that my potential work *should* be considered a transformation, since it combines many different materials together, but this is contradicted by the fact that it still follows the original works' goals \"to educate\". Please advise!\n\nWith regards to my intentions: I **do not** plan on selling this work. I was planning on making the book as a freely available source for individuals who would like to study for the MCAT, but may not otherwise be able to afford many study materials. With this in mind, I would also like to [possibly] ask for donations to expand the project following my publishing of the first edition of the review book. Do you think this would still be considered a non-profit [since donations would be completely optional] work, and thus [possibly] fall under fair use?\n\nAlso, to satisfy LocationBot, I am located in Virginia, USA. However, I am planning on publishing online, so I suspect that US law would be more applicable than just VA law? Thanks for the help everyone!\n\n**tl;dr: I would like to self-publish online an MCAT exam content review book for free, possibly asking for donations; would this be covered under fair use (even though I will be referencing many of my course textbooks)?**\n\nEDIT: emphasis on questions. sorry for the long post!", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-2357224", "score": 0.6782677173614502, "text": "I know that this probably sounds like a dumb question, but...Is it considered copyright infringement to reference a known copyrighted character from pop culture? For example, poking fun at someone for behaving in a similar typical manner as a famous comic book character(captain america being a boy scout, wolverine being a grumpy loner, etc).", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-76454", "score": 0.6777052879333496, "text": "fair use. Taking a work under copyright and modifying it or using parts of it or basically doing something to meaningfully alter it does not count as a violation of copyright. This \"fair use\" exception is also why people like LPers and media reviewers are able to use content from the work they're reviewing.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-9151", "score": 0.677424967288971, "text": "Copyright does not protect function of a source code. Basically, if you write an algorithm to carry out task A, you can copyright it. However, that only prevents people from copying your code verbatim. If I write a code that runs the same algorithm, I do not infringe your copyright. In the case, Google copied a bunch of Oracle's APIs. Google's specific implementation code was not the same, however, they used the same declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization. The district court said that those elements were functional and not protected by copyright. The Circuit court reversed the district court decision because how the APIs were structured wasn't entirely functional. There were many ways to implement the function of the APIs. Because Google copied the structure, they infringed the copyrights. It is a little more complicated than that, but that's the general gist.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-53018", "score": 0.6770763993263245, "text": "Not terribly much. If you do notice someone copying your work, you can submit a DMCA notice to their provider who will take it down. But there's no magic button you can push to stop people from copying your content.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-2211772", "score": 0.6767623424530029, "text": "Is it legal to print a piece of sheet music in public domain (eg. Beethoven) from a sheet music sharing site such as Musescore and use it for personal use even if the license says its “Attribution”? If not, how do I credit the arranger/ composer?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-1124614", "score": 0.6760976314544678, "text": "Hello,\n\nI'm helping to create a menu for a business and I would like to include some icons.\n\n has been my best source of icons so far. However, I'm unsure on how I can credit the authors. As I currently work at a restaurant, I would prefer not to have the credit on the page. Therefore, would it be okay to have this information stored on a text file for reference? If a customer wants to know the author of a icon; they can ask and we can inform them.\n\nI'm probably overthinking this, but I don't want to cause any problems for the business.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-661113", "score": 0.6760269999504089, "text": "There are references all throughout the program, but unfortunately I have no idea what it's referencing.\n\nThanks for letting me know (:", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-1651", "score": 0.6758337616920471, "text": "Libraries own, and allow use of, only one copy of a book at a time. They have the right to do this because they physically own one copy of the book, which is the right to use one copy of the book. Because objects. Google also owns only one copy of each book, but is making snippets available to possibly thousands of people simultaneously. The argument, in its simplest form, is that this is copying the book, which is illegal.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-70947", "score": 0.6756240725517273, "text": "If they are released under the same title, pretty much the same content and sold under the pretense that they are the original. Then they violate copyright.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-127059", "score": 0.6754117608070374, "text": "You're not talking about copyright, you're talking about trademark. Trademarks are only registered to specific industries. A well known example is Apple Corps vs. Apple Computer - Apple Corps (the record company) wanted to sue Apple Computer (the computer company), but Apple Computer didn't infringe on Apple Corps trademark because they operate in separate areas (music vs. computers). [TESLA does have a trademark](_URL_0_) but it only applies to vehicles (and everything around them such as electric batteries) and certain merchandise like mugs and clothes. This means that a mattress company called Tesla will not infringe on this trademark.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-461703", "score": 0.6747062802314758, "text": "Hi there, folks. First I want to say thanks for the wealth of information already available on here, it's been really valuable reading for a newbie considering jumping into the pool. \n \nI'm nearing the end of my first fairly lengthy story that I might actually publish, and I'm beginning to get a little concerned about something I did a while back without giving it much thought. In the middle of a conversation, one of my characters quotes a single semi-famous line from an old novel. The quote itself is used to make a point, and then the other person calls him out on it and the fact that they both know the reference is used as an opening of sorts (i.e. \"see, we're not so different after all!\"), and the conversation builds from there. \n \nI didn't think anything of it at the time, but now I'm starting to wonder whether I'd be risking copyright infringement issues. I'm not trying to pass the line off as my own work, but I'm not sure that's enough. The work is still copyrighted in the US (the author's \"only\" been dead for 60 years), and while I've seen plenty of movies and other books doing similar things with quotes, it occurs to me that they may have been doing so with permission - permission that I'm assuming would be costly and/or difficult to secure for use in smut. I've done a little bit of reading up on Fair Use, but it's all pretty vague. This obviously fails some of the criteria, such as being non-commercial or educational (except maybe as an educational example of what not to do for a first-time author? :P). About all I have going for me is that the quote is only one sentence long, and in no way demeans the source. \n \nOn the one hand, removing the quote would cause a domino effect that would require significantly reworking a long passage of the text that I'm really happy with in its current form. On the other hand, as a newbie in the field with no real legal resources, I have less than zero interest in picking a fight with a major publisher. I've tried Googling it a bit, but have been unable to find anything definitive. Am I right to be concerned, or is this something that's fine and done all the time and I'm just being paranoid? \n \nThanks!", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-88011", "score": 0.6740683913230896, "text": "The first-sale doctrine basically cedes the distribution rights to whoever you sell a work to. But the copyright holder retains reproduction rights. You can sell a thing you buy, but you can't copy it.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-232317", "score": 0.67376309633255, "text": "Depends on the type of e-book. If it's a kindle book, you can cite a location number.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-35642", "score": 0.6734968423843384, "text": "Date published can most usually be found on the copyright page of a book. That page will tell you when the work was copyrighted - and if the book is a first edition, the copyright date will be the same as the date published.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-2408463", "score": 0.6734023690223694, "text": "Hi guys. \n\nSo I was curious about the ideas of registering a copyright trademark in America and its validity in other countries. Is there any resource or website I can use that can help me check something like this?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-38270", "score": 0.6731860637664795, "text": "If you're going to use something from a published work, even if you wrote that work, you still need to properly cite it.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-43809", "score": 0.6730996370315552, "text": "Copyright only applies if they used it *without* permission. Bob Dylan gets a slice of whatever Adele makes on \"Make You Feel My Love\".", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-75852", "score": 0.6730915307998657, "text": "the answer is yes, they pretty much all come from some altruistic pirate. someone has a legit copy and uploads it or buys the real thing and scans it. with a few exceptions where trial software is full version but limited time or feature crippled and can be hacked into activating without buying it. For books someone needs to buy it at least once.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-859223", "score": 0.6728228330612183, "text": "I've been researching this for a little while and gotten no definitive answer, so I figured I'd come here.\n\nSay I see song X, and I want to use it as a background track for a YouTube video. Unfortunately, the YouTube audio library tells me that the rightsholders to song X have the right to put ads on my video and receive all of the ad revenue. Being someone who a) would like the choice of whether or not to put ads on my video, and b) would appreciate receiving the ad revenue if I choose to do so, this is not a great situation.\n\nLuckily for me, a quick search through the Creative Commons database yields several covers of song X that have CC BY licenses. This means I'm able to remix and adapt the cover for any use, even commercially, as long as I provide a notice that the song is used under this license. You would think this means that I could use it, right?\n\nUnfortunately, there are two types of license that apply to the cover artist: a mechanical license, which gives the artist the right to sell the cover; and a sync license, which gives the artist the right to synchronize the cover to video. It's the latter that worries me, as I don't know if syncing song X's cover to my video would require me to purchase such a license (or, more likely, get my control over the video's ads taken away by Content ID).\n\nCan anyone here help me on this?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-111", "score": 0.7583589553833008, "text": "People have made it so. Words can be given such power based on how they're used in the culture. I remember when Austin Powers 2 came out (it was called Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me), and that was seen as quite vulgar for British people. In the US, Shagged is a cute word (like using Poop in place of the word Shit). Just remember that it is how it is taken, not how it is intended. You could be using cunt like the Aussies do in friendly conversation (referring to their friends), but someone who isn't used to hearing that can still take offense to it." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1441375", "score": 0.7199298739433289, "text": "Hi askfeminists, I have a bit of a weird question. Solely for curiosity. \n\nSomeone posted screenshots of Scottish Twitter users, and the use of the C-word was thrown around a lot, sorta like the N-word in AAVE. I've seen it used in context of Australian vernacular slang as well. \n\nI'm from the US and I'm of the understanding that the C-word is never used under ANY circumstances, period, even with close friends. At least it's not used by anyone who wants to be decent, but that's just me. \n\nIs it simply just the difference of the word in Scotland and Australia and its context therein? I figure it's the same reason that \"bloody\" or \"wanker\" doesn't mean much in the US but in the UK/other Commonwealth countries, they're very loaded terms. \n\nThanks in advance for your time and opinions!", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-33385", "score": 0.7181473970413208, "text": "One theory is that it boils down to prejudice against vulgar language. Notice that the rude words are mostly of old English origin, words like shit, cunt and dick, whereas the polite terms are of French or Latin origin, such as faeces, vagina and penis. England's elites used to speak French or Latin. They were deemed the \"polite\" society. The poor were deemed to be vulgar, hence \"rude\" or impolite.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-11319", "score": 0.7180571556091309, "text": "We use it casually in the UK too, when I moved to the U.S. I quickly discovered how easy it was to offend an entire store full of people when addressing my friend as a cunt on the phone.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1172634", "score": 0.7162045240402222, "text": "Is it a taboo word like in the anglophone world?\n\nEDIT: I'm referring to the word \"nigga\"", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-23140", "score": 0.715316116809845, "text": "Most of the 4-letter taboo words in English come from Germanic languages and were considered crude to the Romance language (French, Latin) used by the aristocracy, as the last poster explained. In some languages the harshest swears are phrases that invoke religious figures like Jesus and Mary. Nearly every society has words that are considered taboo and used to emphasize, ridicule, or express disbelief. I read once in a book about language that if we allow 'swear words' to become acceptable we will invariably invent new ones.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-52338", "score": 0.7135265469551086, "text": "People say angry things sometimes, and they tend to use words for things that are unappealing or imply weakness: *shit, asshole, fuck you, bitch* etc. Those words tend to be tainted by their association with angry speech (in linguistics we call it pejoration), so they become \"bad\" words. The next generation acquires these words with the stigma built in: we as a linguistic community agree that these words should be avoided in polite speech, and you can't just change the way everyone uses words.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-158658", "score": 0.7100065350532532, "text": "In French Canada, the worst (most offensive) cuss words are still religious in nature. They are called \"sacres\" and considered much worse than the body function related ones. _URL_0_.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-63706", "score": 0.7093811631202698, "text": "Well, in some sense, words are defined by what meaning people ascribe to them. So, a word is a cuss word or otherwise vulgar because people ascribe to it a meaning or connotation of vulgarity. Bad words are bad because people believe them to be bad / insulting. But if we dig a little deeper, cuss words tend to have one of three basic origins - sexual, scatological, or blasphemous. The first category includes your F-word, the second one contains s**t and related, and the last one has your hell and your damn and so forth. Why these particular origins? Because that's what was considered \"unclean\" or taboo, especially from a historical setting. Those topics, even today, aren't exactly the paragon discussion topics for polite society, and to associate an action or a person with something unclean is to, in effect, call the other person unclean or otherwise insult them.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-67821", "score": 0.7085257768630981, "text": "It isn't. The word itself isn't overly offensive like every other curse word. It's the aggressive delivery that offends people. I could say \"fuck you, fuck off and every other kind of fuck\" to my friends and family or even a crowd and they would laugh it off. I could say \"Go away\" in the tone that many people use \"fuck you\" and it would be deemed more offensive than just uttering the word fuck you. People just associated it as a bad word because our parent say that it's a no no.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-937707", "score": 0.706118643283844, "text": "Which insults/ slurs do you think are gendered the way it's used? how bad are each of them?\n\nI would say bitch is more gendered than cunt for example. When you call a man a cunt, or a woman a cunt, you mean the same thing. If i call david cameron a cunt, george bush a cunt, or hilary clinton a cunt, the meaning doesn't change based on gender. \n\nWith bitch however, saying it to a woman seems to imply that she's annoying/ complainy etc., but using it to a man seem to imply that he's a coward or not a proper man. The meaning depends heavily on gender and you use it differently. Whereas with cunt, although the origins may be to do with women, the way it's used doesn't really depend on gender. \n\nWould you disagree? (disclaimer, i'm a brit. from what i understand in the US it cunt may more gendered in how it's used, is it? or is it used the same in america)", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-137075", "score": 0.702985405921936, "text": "Why is any word a swear word? Polite society says so, and thus it becomes so. Non-polite society couldn't bloody well care less, so they use it to add impact to conversation, until it gradually drifts into far more common usage and becomes accepted. I'm an Australian in my early 50's, and it was a second tier swear word in my younger days, but by now it has drifted into pretty much everyday use to the point where it is not unusual to hear it used in advertising shown in prime time. Pseudo polite people won't use it but will hardly blink if they hear it used. It probably sits somewhere around 'damn' in the U.S.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1173055", "score": 0.7026877403259277, "text": "In Australia if someone is a top bloke you call him a good cunt. Or if someone does something for you they are a sick cunt. Of course you wouldn't say this to your parents or in a formal setting, but if your with your mates and no one can hear it's a compliment. Is this the case in America?", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-86028", "score": 0.7022585272789001, "text": "Typically these words are crude terms for things we've culturally decided is not appropriate for children. Why did we decide this? I have no idea; people are weird. That being said, parents hate it when your swear in front of children because *they repeat everything*. Like a sugar-crazed parrot. Then they don't understand why they can't say it, because even their little child minds understand that curse words are a pretty stupid cultural construction.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-209765", "score": 0.7018230557441711, "text": "If we divide curses into three main categories (blasphemous, sexual, scatological) then in the early modern period (1500-1800) blasphemous oaths are more common relatively than they are today. So 'By God,' 'God's blood,' 'God's wounds,' 'God blind me,' and a wide, wide variety of religious profanities are much more taboo or offensive than they are today. Cunt, fuck, and swive (basically a synonym of fuck) are the primary sexual profanities. One of the interesting things about profanity is that the taboos shift: in 1960 'By God' was innocuous but 'Fuck' was unacceptable, today fuck is increasingly acceptable but racial or homophobic slurs are much less so. Indeed, you could say that those slurs are becoming or have already become the new profanities-- you more often hear the euphemism 'n word' than 'f word.'", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-264812", "score": 0.7008506059646606, "text": "It's got a lot to do with what language is dominant. Before the Norman invasion of England, 'shit' and 'fuck' were not considered rude; they were words like any other (and fuck is not an acronym; it comes from old Germanic words meaning \"to hit\" or \"to strike\"). Once the Normans were in power, French became the language of the nobility and what was English at the time became the common or 'vulgar' language. To use English at court or in polite company became rude and socially ruinous. It wasn't until many years later that English was considered a language worthy of literature or polite society. Many \"bad\" words are just old English words that were popular in the pre-Norman days.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-51318", "score": 0.7003329992294312, "text": "It's a curse word over here, plain and simple. It's used as a derogatory term for a female.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1400565", "score": 0.6997813582420349, "text": "(I've chosen to use uncensored terms in this post that may be offensive and upsetting to some. My intention is to foster discussion, and these words are used in the context of this discussion, not as pejoratives.)\n\nRecently, I've come to the realization that a lot of commonly used English profanity is misogynistic and degrading to women, or promotes the idea of sex as a form of violence.\n\nThe most obvious example is the word bitch, which dehumanizes women by comparing them to dogs. Another obvious example would be the words cunt and pussy; used as degrading terms for female genetalia. These terms are often used by men to demean women who behave in ways that men deem aggressive or \"masculine\". At the same time, men use these words to target other men who behave in ways that they deem \"feminine\" or \"weak\". These words promote hateful attitudes towards women on multiple levels, as they are used by misogynists to \"put women in their place\", as well as to promote the idea that the most disgraceful thing a man can do is behave like a woman, thus implying that to be a woman is distasteful or pathetic.\n\nOther profanities used to demean women are words such as slut, skank, hoe, and whore. These words are used to insult women by condemning them as sexually promiscuous, promoting the idea that a woman's value as a person is determined by her relationships with men, and that it is morally wrong for a woman to have many sexual partners. Notice how no equivalent of these words exists for men? These words are almost exclusively used to target women. The use of these words reinforces the societal double standard that it is acceptable for a man to have many sexual partners but if a woman does the same she is worthless and morally lacking. \n\nAnother commonly used profanity is the word fuck. This word is more complicated, as it is often used for emphasis (ie. \"This is fucking awesome!\") or to express disappointment (ie. \"Oh, fuck!\") However, this word is also used in a manner that promotes the idea of sex as violence (ie. \"Fuck you!\" or \"Get fucked!\") This is relevant to women in that sex as violence and a mechanism of power and control (rape, sexual assault, etc.) has historically been used almost exclusively by men and directed primarily at women.\n\nI'm aware that what I'm saying is by no means a new idea, and has been explored my many prominent feminists in the past. However, I think that it is important to critically examine the ways in which our words and actions reinforce the current dynamics of oppression. I'm not trying to suggest that women should remove all profanity from their vocabulary. That could also be problematic as men have historically condemned women who swear as \"unfeminine\" and some women may view swearing as a subversive act. This is their choice, and it is not my place to be judgemental. I am also aware that many radical feminists have also already removed many of these words from their vocabulary. (I do hear them frequently used by certain liberal feminists.) Some women also choose to reclaim these words as a way to assert control and remove the stigma that has been associated with them. \n\nMy question is, how do we move forward in a way that is respectful? I have personally chosen to make a conscious effort to stop using these words and to initiate a discussion about their use when I hear men utilize them. I question whether it is possible to reclaim these words when it is still socially acceptable for men to use them to demean us. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? \n\nTL;DR: Lots of commonly used swear words are mysogynistic. Should we stop using them or try to reclaim them?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-96169", "score": 0.697523832321167, "text": "It's based on the societal standards of the country... in America violence is fine while nudity and swearing is not. In England it's the opposite where swearing and nudity is fine on TV but it's censored for violence", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-190355", "score": 0.6957839131355286, "text": "Most societies will have words that are “taboo”. I believe cross-culturally taboo words usually deal with sex or bodily functions (eg. “fuck” or “shit” in English), but I may be wrong. We speak differently in different social situations. You generally wouldn’t speak to your boss of college professor the same way you speak to your best friend in private. As we learn language, we also learn what language is appropriate in different setting (casual vs. formal). While it is usually acceptable to swear in a casual setting, it’s not expected in a more formal setting. For example, when I give a presentation in front of my coworkers I speak very differently then when I talk to my friends, both in tone and in the words I choose. So, people who swear in formal settings tend to stand out as odd, and might be considered uneducated because they have not learned the “proper” way to speak in these settings.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1438535", "score": 0.6953420639038086, "text": "I'm not an American, from a country without the issues the US Faces, \nI always see the word Nxxxxx and Nxxxx being thrown around (well meaning and mean spirited alike) online and in forums etc, but it seems to carry so much more weight in the US compared to some places where it can be used almost interchangeably with words like \"bro\" \nIf anyone could help me get a better grasp of the history and weight behind the words that would be cool.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-112", "score": 0.7374141216278076, "text": "In the 60s and 70s, the US had a **lot** of fatalities as a result of teenage drunk driving. Waaay more than any other country did. Really, there were two options available to them: raise the drinking age, or raise the driving age. I think they made the right choice." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-98537", "score": 0.699424684047699, "text": "In addition to the other comments here, there are some important differences between the US and Europe/Australia that foster the popularity of frats/sororities. First of all, in the US the legal drinking age is 21. Kids enter college around 18-19. By joining a frat or a sorority, they'll often be invited to off-campus parties without having to worry about being carded (or wearing a silly wristband). Also--- compared to Europe (and possibly Australia), US kids are likely to go to college hundreds of miles away from their home city. Going to college is seen as a major transition into adulthood, a time to leave the nest. Many kids are not likely to commute from home unless they have to. So when they start, they often know no one and it can be quite a shock! For many people, a frat or a sorority is like a second family and there is a lot of bonding that takes place. P.S.: In the US, we often use college and university interchangeably.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-176916", "score": 0.6990731954574585, "text": "Two possibilities: 1) You're under the age of 27 2) You're still drunk when you get up, and everyone knows drunk people can go all night... Or day...", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-217191", "score": 0.6989894509315491, "text": "The 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971 lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, because activists (many students involved in the movement) protested the fact that 18 year olds were eligible for the draft and sent off to fight but not able to vote. I hope that helps a little.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-539671", "score": 0.6974027156829834, "text": "Trust me I'm not wanting to go there myself. I'm just not sure why suddenly a birthday happens then people go mental over somebody turning 18 versus them months before 18. I can't find any papers claiming scientific proof to confirm 18 is the best cut off age.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-1938066", "score": 0.6972352862358093, "text": "Hey r/canada, lately i have been hearing from friends that the legal drinkig age in canada will be raised to 21. I cant find anything to support this. At first i thought it was some viral hoax but i keep hearing about it. Does anyone know for certain what the situation is with this rumour?", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-70050", "score": 0.697216808795929, "text": "I think it mostly has to do with tolerance. When you first start drinking, it takes a lot less to get drunk. You also, presumably, have access to less alcohol. Now that you're all grown up, it takes more alcohol for you to reach a state of inebriation, and you have significantly greater access. You may also be less careful as you get older and lose your fear/respect for alcohol. You may not be eating properly or drinking enough water. Also, some people just genetically have greater susceptibility to hangovers than other people. This isn't any different when they are young, but as you get older, the hangover becomes less worth it and feels maximized.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-61492", "score": 0.6967363357543945, "text": "In reality, you don't have as many rights as an adult. Even though its not constitutionally correct, that is how it is. The same issue arises with new student drug testing or locker searches.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-190783", "score": 0.6963037252426147, "text": "I think only Northern Europe countries make distinction between beer and hard alcohol in regards to age, Italy is 18 for everything. Also drinking itself isn't illegal usually, it's selling/serving alcohol to minors, if parents buy for them nobody will care.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-1592361", "score": 0.6955784559249878, "text": "My boyfriend currently lives in the states (he's from Boston) and is 23. Whenever I visit him, it's always a pain in the ass to drink, since I'm only 20. I'm from the uk, so obviously have been legally able to drink since I was 18, so, yeah, it sucks.\n\nI've been planning a trip over there this summer, and have been looking into travelling *after* my birthday in early july so that I'd be able to drink\n\nThen I remembered that US and European date presentation is completely different.\n\nIn the US, it goes Month/Day/Year, whereas in the UK, it goes Day/Month/Year. \n\nThis means that if your birthday is the fifth of November in the Uk, (05/11/1990), someone reading your birth date would register it as the eleventh of May, 1990. \n\nDoes anyone have any idea if this is practical? How widely known amongst alcohol purveyors is it that European dates are the other way around, and would it be worth a try?", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-1576170", "score": 0.695412814617157, "text": "Once you're 16 you should be able to apply for an adult license. It would be similiar to your driver's license, but allow you to obtain a driver's license, have sex, gamble, purchase recreational drugs etc. \n\nIf you never pass this competency test you don't get access to these things regardless of age or maybe granted it at 21-25. It shouldn't be hard, but maybe just a list of scenarios and competency questions to show you can perform responcible agency. \n\nI only say this because development, intelligence, responsibility and maturity, tend to range for young people. I feel like some 16 years olds act like adults and other 25 year olds are still children. \n\nThis way it would allow people to obtain adulthood, when they feel ready, in a given range. While also not blindly giving it to children who may not be there mentally. Any thoughts?", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-44210", "score": 0.6950629353523254, "text": "Why can you fight and die for your country at 17 (with parental permission) but can't drink until you're 21? Why are we prescribing children powerful antipsychotics and amphetamines, but imprisoning people for smoking something that grows naturally in the dirt? Because the world is a strange, strange place.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-187095", "score": 0.6946967840194702, "text": "Because you don't need to clarify that you were out drinking alcohol from 8 30 til after midnight. No one makes an occasion out of drinking any other substance.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-71124", "score": 0.694666862487793, "text": "In the USA, it is legal to discriminate against people for being *too young.* It is usually not legal to discriminate against people for being *too old.*", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-287772", "score": 0.6944946050643921, "text": "Hey folks! Please keep this on topic. No debates about the drinking age, no personal experiences. We're here to learn from the people with the knowhow on this topic. Thanks!", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-96486", "score": 0.6942472457885742, "text": "Americans love an excuse to get drunk, and the liquor industry loves excuses to boost sales. I'm pretty sure we make a bigger deal out of St. Patrick's day than Ireland does for the same reason.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-1911817", "score": 0.693605363368988, "text": "Alcohol is legal for 21+, why not younger? Can we say anything about scarcity? Would it benefit the sale of heroin if it were legal, but only to people 30+?\n\n\nps. go fuck yourselfs. all of you :D", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1055295", "score": 0.693490207195282, "text": "I don't see the point. Yeah I guess some venues and clubs are 18 plus, but why not just get a O21? It has double the perks and you can use it more often because of that. \n\nThe only reason I see to get an U21 is if you don't drink. Maybe you don't look 21. That shouldn't matter as long as you have a good id. Think of all the O21 year olds who look 17. They have a real id and they get in, as long as your fakes good you will too.", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-201305", "score": 0.6930745244026184, "text": "To add to OP's question, 17 seems to also be somewhat common for eligibility for military service.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-56975", "score": 0.6917877793312073, "text": "It certainly wasn't always 18. I believe, surprisingly, the age of majority at various times and places has been as old as 25. Getting married was often the point at which you were considered an adult socially; in Italy until recently or still (I have not been there in a while) a man might live with his parents, in his same boyhood room, until he found a wife and in my experience, he was treated very much like a kid even if he was 30 by his parents if not legally.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-222839", "score": 0.6915977597236633, "text": "It hasn't been. Different cultures have different ideas about when adulthood occurs. Were you thinking of a specific culture?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-114", "score": 0.7720605134963989, "text": "Typically each twin controls a different part of the body. Like the twin girls Brittany and Abigail Hensel. They give the appearance of being one body with two heads, though they have two of each organ above the waist. They have two arms, each controlling one. And from the waist down, they have one body, with each controlling one half. So each controls a leg, for example. There doesn't appear to be any part that both of their brains controls. So they coordinate with each other so that they can walk, but they each have their own body parts they use. In some cases of animals with two heads, only one head \"works\". The other head doesn't seem to have any reactions to stimuli so it's vestigial." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-151205", "score": 0.7228315472602844, "text": "From the wiki article about the pair on the front page right now: > Each twin controls her half of their body, operating one of the arms and one of the legs. This means that as infants, the initial learning of physical processes that required bodily coordination, such as clapping, crawling, and walking required the cooperation of both children. While each is able to eat and write separately and simultaneously, activities such as running and swimming must be coordinated and alternate symmetrically. Other activities as diverse as brushing hair and driving a car require that each twin perform a sequence of separate actions that coordinate with the other. So the TL:DR here is that one head controls one side, the other head controls the other side. Hope that helped!", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-244688", "score": 0.7162604928016663, "text": "To my knowledge there has been no known case in humans (or even animals) in which a single head has a complete and working second body. There are many cases of supernumerary body parts, but that is usually limited to a single bone, limb, or organ. These, along with conjoined twins, are a result of a zygote attempting to split (as it would with normal twins), but the split being incomplete. There are cases where a single head is present, but there are usually two faces and/or brains if there is viability. As to whether it is possible, I don't believe it could naturally happen given the nature of fetal development. Since much of the brain is \"software\" (neuronal pathways aren't hard coded genetically) theoretically the capability to control a second body *could* be learned, though it would more like learning to swim that intrinsically controlling the body.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-153175", "score": 0.7086941599845886, "text": "Conjoined twins aren't a regular phenomena, so there isn't really a set of rules as to how it'll work out. It's pretty much a case-by-case thing. I will point out, though, that it's not really \"one body\". It's two distinct bodies that are fused together. Each brain controls it's own body, even if those parts are fused to another body.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-319029", "score": 0.6948975920677185, "text": "They process both images independently, which allows them to track two independent objects at the same time, this is called monocular tracking. They also have a binocular vision, where both eyes are used to create an image. Usually they use it to focus on prey. It is also believed that they can split their attention of the left and the right [brain] hemispheres, but I think there is no scientific backing. They probably have a preferred eye, like humans, where they process more on the main eye and the other works sort of like the peripheral vision. If any undesired movement happens on the secondary eye's view, they can switch the focus between the eyes.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-256135", "score": 0.6915611624717712, "text": "Interesting question. I don't know the answer, but (this I know) we have been able to make tadpoles develop two heads by centrifuging the embryos in early development. The point of entry of the sperm creates one of the developmental axes and gravity creates the other through varying concentrations of RNAs and proteins in the cytoplasm. (This is conjecture) If the flexible reptilian eggs are resting on peak, gravity could cause a ring of high density cytoplasm, which, relative to the point of entry of the sperm, would create two symmetrical lobes in the developing embryo, leading to a two-headed animal.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-256136", "score": 0.6842424869537354, "text": "I hope you don’t think it’s unhelpful of me to point out that it’s actually two snakes with a conjoined body. I point that out just because when you think of it that way, you’ll likely realize that you have heard of and likely seen conjoined twins that are mammals (even humans). I don’t know about whether it’s more common in reptiles though, watching for responses.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-137896", "score": 0.6817169189453125, "text": "It depends on the development of the animal. In some cases, the 'second head' can be parasitic, and not have much contribution to the rest of the body. In others, the development can lead to circumstances where both heads are able to exert control, which often results in clumsy movement or complete uncoordination. Insofar as awareness, I'm not sure what you mean, they can occasionally see the other head, and will even sometimes fight among themselves. They don't \"share thoughts\" or anything however, assuming the brains are separate. As to the latter question, I think that would again depend on the development of the animal.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-247892", "score": 0.6816384792327881, "text": "It depends on where and how they are conjoined. If they're conjoined at the hip through a very narrow bit of tissue they will have fully independent nervous systems. If they're conjoined at the chest they might each control an arm and share what's below since their spine is fused below a certain point. There's even a pair of conjoined twins that have interconnected brains and can see through each others' eyes.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-86094", "score": 0.6808971166610718, "text": "Mammals are a lot more elaborate and have a more complex developmental and birthing cycle. All the problems that arise from that severe of a conjoined twin development are usually fatal, although there have been exceptions. They're also usually fatal in reptiles, but their relative simplicity and mass-production breeding lets a few more examples slip through with major deformations. You usually only see survivors in captivity or in odd cases where mobility is not impacted. The same mutation could presumably occur in birds and fish (I do recall seeing photos of a two headed shark fetus) as well, but the severely impaired mobility would kill any that survive development pretty quickly.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-255050", "score": 0.6758440732955933, "text": "There are limited examples to draw from. Most twins conjoined at the head aren't developmentally normal, or are totally separate people who don't share a brain connection, and therefore get separated. There is one example, though, the Hogan twins, who can supposedly pass even visual information to each other through their interconnected nervous systems. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-103826", "score": 0.6749342083930969, "text": "[This has happened in humans](_URL_0_). In that case, they each control half the body because the nervous systems are well separated. Whether that's the case in other animal examples depends on how well defined each head's nervous system is and how the body is attached to them. There have been examples where one head appears to have full control, cases where they're split, and cases where the heads aren't fully separate and effectively have one brain stem that controls the body.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-255049", "score": 0.6742092370986938, "text": "For most conjoined twins, I believe that the majority of the nervous system is separate. [Craniopagus](_URL_2_) twins seem to usually not share much if any brain material, although wikipedia notes [this set](_URL_0_) who share brain material and can pass thoughts between them. The [Hensel twins](_URL_1_) apparently each control an arm and a leg, and I can imagine that this is similar for twins who have separate spinal cords or even spinal cord fusion. I have to imagine that these kinds of cases are so rare that few, if any, have been studied. I'm looking through pubmed cites and I can't find anything in the academic literature. I'd be interested in reading anything if anyone can find anything.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-178020", "score": 0.673855721950531, "text": "I had no clue. Looked it up. They fly normally, lift their front legs over their head and grab the ceiling, then flip the rest of the body up. Then they have sticky glue secreted on their feet to stick. Study showed the walk using three legs so they don't have to work so hard to dislodge all of their feet when walking. The More You Know. 🌈", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-53803", "score": 0.6732227206230164, "text": "The list of people who \"have two heads\" is VERY VERY VERY VERY SHORT. So short, in fact, that's better to look at them on a case by case basis. [Seriously, there's exactly four people (so two cases) known alive in the world right now, plus one deceased set of twins from the 1800s](_URL_0_). In the case of Brittany and Abigail, the only adults with this configuration, they control the body half and half.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-35555", "score": 0.6707010865211487, "text": "Bilateral symmetry. The creatures you are referring to often have a form of bilateral symmetry. This means when they are forming, they have two halves form and then merge together. This is why there are two eyes, ears, etc. you can see this at a cleft in the chin, a hair lip.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-185836", "score": 0.6666668653488159, "text": "Long answer short, *yes*. They can be all of the above. Some twins can even share senses, like a pair of twins in Canada who can see through each other’s eyes and have conversations with eachother in their conjoined mind (A Thalamic Bridge connects their Thalami, which is how that is accomplished). Conjoined twins are quite remarkable, and offers us a totally different glimpse into how brains can function.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-370152", "score": 0.662534773349762, "text": "For example, what if one twin wants to go north, but the other wants to go south, are they just stuck, or does one twin control the legs entirely?", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-147974", "score": 0.6611864566802979, "text": "It is not entirely understood, but having more than one head (polycephaly), occurs in many organisms. However, one theory says that reptiles are more suspectible to enviromental factors (and that is why scientists have been able to make two headed tadpoles), and that may be the reason why it seems to be more common. However, almost all the time, a two headed organism (including a reptile) doesn't even develop or dies within minutes in the wild. In captivity, however, multi-heades animals can live much longer, and that is why you see them more. If you look there are many cases of two headed and even three headed non-reptiles including cows, pigs and even humans. These animals, if you notice, are ones that humans look after so we would notice and record when polycephaly occurs, but for more wild animals they would die so quickly that it would be very rare to find.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-3583", "score": 0.6597667932510376, "text": "They do it by simultaneously manipulating the moment of inertia of their front and back haves. SmarterEveryDay has an excellent video with slow-motion explaining this [Cat Physics](_URL_0_)", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-653406", "score": 0.656745970249176, "text": "I recently adopted 2, 3y/o dragons, a boy and a girl. They often bob their heads at each other and then one will basically run on top of the other to lay on top and they’ll bob their heads at each other some more. Are they trying to... you know? Or is it a territory thing?", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-115", "score": 0.8339380025863647, "text": "1. AK-47's distance between the sight and post is very short which makes it so that for longer ranges, it is extremely difficult to line up an accurate shot as you are more likely to be misaligned with your eye to the sights. 2. It uses a relatively low velocity round, meaning it arcs more and spends more time to get to the target, making it deviate more from environmental conditions 3. Its feeding mechanism uses very large and heavy moving parts which reduces accuracy dramatically from recoil. 4. It has a more significant recoil upon firing due to its type of ammunition, making subsequent rounds less accurate. 5. It operates on a lot looser tolerances, while making it more reliable, also reduces its overall accuracy. 6. [Its gun barrel flexes more than other guns during recoil.](_URL_1_) Compare that with [this](_URL_2_), Or [this](_URL_0_) 7. The barrel isn't inline with the stock, making recoils want to push the gun upwards." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-139782", "score": 0.7818880677223206, "text": "The AK is by no means \"versatile\". Pretty much the only thing it has going for it is reliability. It's inaccurate and has a very short effective range. These are not characteristics that people seek in a military rifle. Most rifles produced today seek to find a balance of range, accuracy, stopping power and reliability, and therefore don't resemble the AK in design since the AK does two of those things well, and does the other two horribly. That said, some countries have tried to adapt and modernize the basic AK design. Israel's Galil. Finland's Rk62/76/95 series rifles. Not to mention Russia's own continued development of the AK design. The AK isn't the super-weapon it's cracked up to be. Weapons designers know that most of the AK characteristics arne't something you want to emulate in a good assault rifle.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-153843", "score": 0.7712024450302124, "text": "I'm sure there are people more knowledgeable than I am but I'll try to keep it as ELI5 as best as possible. The tolerances(spaces between moving parts) in the AK are loose. There's lots of room for gunk and dirt to get in there and the gun will still fire and cycle when the trigger is pulled. With loose tolerances, failure to properly clean and lube the weapon won't hinder it from firing like the M-16 from the Vietnam era.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-1521089", "score": 0.7668004035949707, "text": "So, I recently got out of the service, and subsequently been sucked into weapons as a hobby. I started out with a Mossberg 590, added a Savage 110, and now I want to get an AK. You have really, really helped me out before here on this subreddit, so I was hoping to tap into that expertise again. \n\nI've been reading AK threads here like hell, and I can basically see a few options for my particular needs. I want an accurate, reliable weapon good up to 400m. My first solution would be to slap an ACOG on an Ak74 for the 5.45 accuracy and be done with it (one of the AK's from Arsenal, just so I can get the most accurate weapon for my money). \n\nHowever, many people make some good points for AK47's and the 7.62x39mm round, and others even say I should just get an AK variant chambered for 5.56. I mean, to me, this sounds great. Accuracy of 5.56 and dependability of the AK rifle platform, right?\n\nSo guys, for a guy looking for an accurate rifle (and one who has been in combat, and wants a rifle that would perform just as well under tough conditions as well as holding a good shot group out to 400m), what should I do here? \n\n-AK47: Is there a way to get a good, accurate reliable 7.62 rifle?\n\n-AK74: 5.45 round, cheap ammo. But does the 5.45 match up to the 5.56 or should I just go for the 5.56?\n\n-Ak74 in 5.56: Don't see a downside to combining two good things.\n\nBy the way, like I said, I want to get an ACOG to put on it, just because I'm familiar with it. Any good rail systems?\n\n(Just for reference, I have no experience with civilian variants. I hear people talk about WASR, Bulgarian stamped, etc, I have no idea what the fuck the difference is.)\n\nSo ideas? And if you suggest a rifle, can you suggest a good company who produces said rifle? My price range is about 1300$, but I can flex.\n\nWhatsup with this .308 AK variant I hear about? Would that be more realistic for consistent 300m shooting?\n\nBy the way guys, I'm happy to report I've found a great substitute for my ACOG problem! I'm going to try for a PSOS 4x24!", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-1521745", "score": 0.7642003893852234, "text": "First time post and small caveat, I know nothing about firearms and have no combat experience. \n\nIn numerous videos (especially those of the SCW) you can see assault rifles being fired at targets hundreds of metres away to the point where they are almost small dots in the distance. \n\nMy question is, how do they expect to hit anyone at that range and distance? Is there a ‘spray and pray’ element to this sort of combat? Is there some luck involved?\n\nI don’t know how an Ak47 compares to an American military issue gun (M16?) so I wonder if there is a visible difference. \n\nApologies of this is poorly worded but I’ve been curious about it.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-42551", "score": 0.7623008489608765, "text": "It takes 15 minutes to learn a person who have never seen a gun before to use and maintain a AK47. For an M16 rifle you need the better part of a week. The AK47 is altso cheap and easy to make so in very little time and for very little money (relative) you could ship ten thousands of AK47 to a conflict area. Its altso solid enough to use as a shovel, it does not mind beeing wet inside, sand and dirt makes it laough, its ammo will punch through brick walls and threes, you can run over it with a truck and it will just blow its nose and you can take a boltcarrier from an russian AK made in the 50's, a romanian reciever from the 80's and a chinese magazine made today and put together a frankenstein gun that will work flawlessly... None of these things can be said of the standard M16", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-143170", "score": 0.7558966279029846, "text": "Because of the [angle of the case](_URL_0_). Most cases are angled somewhat (so a long magazine will have at least some angle), but the angle on that case is quite steep. The steeper angle makes feeding in less than ideal conditions likely to work and is one reason (among many) that the AK-47 has a reputation for being ultra reliable even in awful conditions.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-62122", "score": 0.7508007884025574, "text": "The AK-47 is the original assault rifle designed after WWII and adopted by the Soviet army in 1949. It is a 7.62mmx39mm assault rifle. The AKM is a refined variant of the original AK-47. It was introduced in 1959 and is basically just an improved version, optimized for mass production. It is also about a kilogram lighter, has slightly improved accuracy, and reliability issues with the original design were addressed. It still uses the same 7.62mm cartridge. The AK-74 was adopted as a replacement to the AK-47 by the Soviet army. It possesses many of the same design features as the original AK-47, but it is chambered to use a smaller 5.45mm cartridge. Using a smaller cartridge helped to improve the weapons accuracy and reliability, while still retaining approximately 50% of the same parts as the previous AKMs.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-2219869", "score": 0.7501535415649414, "text": "Imagine being mad that a gun is OP because it doesn't have first bullet inaccuracy. Why do people cry and want to make the game more RNG? If AK had no first bullet inaccuracy this sub would scream \"NERF THE AK!!!!!!\"", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-47530", "score": 0.7481405138969421, "text": "The AK-47 is ridiculously simple. It has only 4 main, parts, their production tolerances are very high so it's inexpensive to make, and dirt/grime/residue won't cause it to jam. For all of its stupid simplicity, it still fires accurate enough to hit something 300 meters out, fires fast enough to be deadly at close range, and fires a bullet large enough to do a lot of damage. There are guns that can fire faster than the ak-47, that are more accurate than the ak-47, that have better sights, or are lighter, or whatever else, but hardly anything else is as: 1) Effective 2) Inexpensive 3) Durable enough to withstand years of service in shitty environments with minimal spare parts and still work.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-507927", "score": 0.7435370683670044, "text": "I'm Australian and we don't really have/know about automstic weapons.\n\nWikipedia says on the page for ak-47's that the effective travel distance is further when the gun is im semi auto mode than when it is in auto\n\nmy reaction was that the muzzle velocity depends only on the gunpowder levels in each shell\n\nIs this a question of thermal dynamics far beyond my high school science? my only possible explanation is that the heat of the previous ignition causes the barrel to be slightly wider, meaning the bullet doesn't take a path thar is quite as direct. \n\napologies if this question seems stupid to Americans.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-1828174", "score": 0.7424414753913879, "text": "I’m looking at getting 1 AK47 that I would prefer be a good user out of the box. I don’t know about modding or replacing anything on them and I’m not too interested in it...yet. Would like a good solid rifle around $600 if that’s a realistic price", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-1551460", "score": 0.7419642210006714, "text": "This is a genuine question. The M16A2/M4A1 is expensive, complicated to manufacture, and, compared to the AK-47, a bitch and a half to maintain.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-66427", "score": 0.7397346496582031, "text": "The AK-47 is an incredibly simple weapon. It has very few moving parts which makes it reliable. Yes, it absolutely will fire underwater, covered in sand, mud, dirt, you name it. So simple construction, and reliability make it a desirable weapon. Its really that simple.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-648894", "score": 0.7371197938919067, "text": "The American red dot on the rifle is too strong. Nuff said. The maps are not balanced to reflect this. American's, at this stage, are simply better. \n\nSquad is an amazing game but playing as Russian or Militia, especially on large maps, is a genuine third-world experience. \n\nYes, it's slightly less realistic to assume that the AK's would have red-dots available, but the gameplay suffers. The Russian's don't even officially use AK74's anymore, so the realism aspect is a poor argument. \n\nThis is a request to please fix this glaring balance oversight. Red-dots should be a feature available to all rifles. Or none.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-1550047", "score": 0.7366424798965454, "text": "The Ak74u is just a mini KN. But it also is better than the HG 40 in almost everyway. Was the HG always meant to be bad", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-206741", "score": 0.7364227771759033, "text": "Locally? Of course. Long term? Too hard to get ammo. Also the distinctive sound would be a problem in a firefight when pretty much everyone involved is firing at sounds. Firing an AK is just another way to get your guys to shoot at you. Now special forces sometimes deliberately used AKs for that very reason. I read one account of a tactic a team would use to have one man with an AK. When breaking contact he would fire, and the VC/NVA would stop firing, thinking they were shooting their own guys.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-116799", "score": 0.7363096475601196, "text": "Unlike many other guns, you can drop it, get it wet, etc. It's relatively cheap to manufacture and easy to use, plus extremely effective. They are (now) also very widespread; it was also used a lot by Russians in trading illegal arms. Fun Fact: (most people don't understand the name) A: automatic K: designed by Mikhail **K**alishnikov 47: designed in 1947", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-1520161", "score": 0.7362551093101501, "text": "How accurate are you with AK-47s and M16s? \n\nIt is interesting to know the statistics.\n\nAnother interest: do you often shoot \"towards the target\" and not \"the bull's-eye\"? For example, shoot suspicious bushes.\n\nBetter write the exact percentage in the comment. For AK-47 and M16 separately.\n\nView Poll", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1520003", "score": 0.7356895208358765, "text": "I am looking to purchase my first AK and I have read that some companies make unreliable firearms. What AK would you recommend me to buy so that I can put lots of rounds through it on the range? Thanks in advance!", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-231937", "score": 0.7354127764701843, "text": "It's really not that simple. NATO's first standardized rifle round was 7.62x51mm, aka 7.62 NATO, used primarily in the M14, FN FAL, and G3 and is considered a full size rifle round. The Soviet round you're likely referring to is the 7.62x39mm M43 that the AK-47 and its variants are chambered in, and is considered an intermediate rifle round. NATO as a whole didn't make the move to 5.56x45mm (an intermediate chambering the Americans started adopting in the 60s) until the 70s and 80s, around the same time the Soviets as a whole picked up 5.45x39mm round for the AK-74. The Soviets also continued using 7.62x54R as a full size rifle round during this entire period, and NATO countries continued using 7.62x51mm in a similar capacity (for sniper and marksman rifles, as well as medium/general purpose machineguns) even as they adopted 5.56x45mm as an assault rifle round.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-116", "score": 0.7193416357040405, "text": "Memories enter the brain first as short term memory, that is then transformed into a long-term memory. This is evident because the majority of short-term memories that we experience are lost before they ever make it into what we will call \"long-term\" storage. When alcohol is consumed it affects your ability to take short-term memories and transform them into long-term memories. This is why you only may remember small bits and pieces of the night, these are the select short-term memories that were allowed to settle into long-term ones without the interruption of alcohol. As the level of alcohol drops, the number of memories that make it into \"long-term' storage increases." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-27588", "score": 0.6833711862564087, "text": "So our brains work primarily on inhibition, shutting things off, one of the first things to go when we are tired, drunk or whatever, is our ability to exert inhibitory control. This means we can't shut off impulses, stray thoughts, etc.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-41332", "score": 0.6832269430160522, "text": "You aren't any more sober but you're focused so you feel more sober. A breathalyzer would prove you were the same amount of drunk.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-7657", "score": 0.6830741763114929, "text": "Someone actually told me the answer to this but I was highly drunk at the time and don't remember", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-77573", "score": 0.6826078295707703, "text": "Your short term memories are not being converted into long term memories. You can be somewhat coherent at the time of a blackout, you just won't have an recollection of it. It is similar to how you can be driving and suddenly realize you don't remember the last 20 miles. Driving in boring and routine, and if nothing noteworthy occurs, those short term memories won't stick. You are aware and alert the whole time, you just don't remember.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2224857", "score": 0.6824750900268555, "text": "Had a party on Thursday and I had sex with a girl. She initiated everything. We made out a lot in the club. She didn't seem drunk at all, yes she was buzzed and horny but not drunk.\n\nWe went to her home (she asked me to come with her). When we got there her roommate was in the house and she said like: \"Shit my roommate is here, wait a minute\". Eventually we went inside anyways and we got to her room, she closed the room and we had sex. After that we hold eachother for a while and eventually had sex again.\n\nNow she texted me and asked: \"Do you remember everything that happened that night?\". I did. But I lied to her and said: \"I don't remember everything, no.\" Before I get some kind of rape accusation. I feel bad too, I don't have sex with \"blacked out\" girls. That's not my thing.\n\nWhy does she say this? Does she feel ashamed? It confuses me.\n\nWe are meeting again next week.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-799734", "score": 0.682039737701416, "text": "It's so weird. It's like there's something sneaky about alcohol where it can suppress your own assessment of how excessive your drinking may be. So, as you're slowly drinking more and more, it's simultaneously silencing the alarm bells that should be going off, distorting your picture of what's really happening.\n\nI'm pretty spooked by this realization. Is this a phenomenon others have experienced? Is it part of how a dependency can begin to take hold before you're even aware of it?", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-2254909", "score": 0.6819750666618347, "text": "Alcohol tends to make me very foggy headed without some caffeine, which in turn makes me much more anxious. I’ll sort of freeze up and not know what to say in social situations. A few times I’ve got drunk with my friend without having had any caffeine and I went really quiet and it got very awkward because I just couldn’t think straight.\n\nAnyone else experienced this?", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-158167", "score": 0.6819367408752441, "text": "Probably the alcohol is absorbed in the food in your stomach and you don't get the full effect as quickly. Or you might have drank more coffee and the caffine may mask the drunk effect somewhat. Its not the alcohol having less effect overall, but more other factors hiding the effect or extending it so it isn't intense but longer lasting.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-124961", "score": 0.6818766593933105, "text": "Hangovers are a variety of many factors, including dehydration, lack of proper REM sleep, inflammation from the immune system (you're putting poison into yourself), and acidosis. Why you may not feel it could be a wide variety of reasons. It's hard to say exactly which of the consequences of alcohol produce specific responses. But it could be that you have more liver enzyme, which means you metabolize alcohol faster, and thus have less swimming in your blood, or it could be that you do not initiate an immune response to the poison. Some people believe that there's a gene in some people which prevents acetylaldehyde (a metabolic by-product of alcohol) accumulation in the blood. Acetylaldehyde is much more toxic than pure ethanol, so a body that quickly eliminates these products is not going to be as affected.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-508685", "score": 0.6817787289619446, "text": "Ok so last night I was plastered and I made phone calls and cried and other stuff that i really dont remember. I do remember this one embarrassing fuck up that I cant get out of my head because it is majorly stupid and I'm ashamed and horrified. I remember I was drinking outside my home and I went for a little walk and finishing my walk I was talking to myself on my way back and then I remember that the neighbor girl who I hadn't spoken to in for most of my life I would like to befriend her. My intoxicated brain has what I believed was the most brilliant fucking idea ever which was to TAP at her window and calling for her so we could hang out. I don't know if she was awake or not or if she woke up bcecause of it and I dont remember what happened next but I woke up in my bed so yeah. I have no clue what to do I want to apologize to her because that's fucking terrifying where a shiffaced guy wants to talk to you and his best attempt to do it is by knocking on your damn window. If she wasnt awake then I'm glad she didnt get a glimpse of it and I still would feel guilty and want to apologize and if she did I want her to know that I messed up and apologize.\n\nI hate having the thought of her being upset of being at home and scared bc the neighbor is a total scary dipshit weirdo. How should I approach this shitty situation???", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-141601", "score": 0.6817132234573364, "text": "Short answer is that the alcohol or the chemicals you ingested mess up your sleep cycle. Someone more in the know than me will have to give you the science behind it.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-163053", "score": 0.6815017461776733, "text": "This is a paraphrased answer from one of my past neuropsychology professors: \"it's like your brain accidentally misfiled a short term memory in the long term memory folder.\" Not sure how scientifically accurate that statement is, but it made sense at the time and that's how I've thought of it ever since.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-88673", "score": 0.6813600063323975, "text": "There's fluid within tiny tubes in your ears, and these tubes have hairs on them. Your brain pays attention to these hairs and how the fluid moves them in order to figure out where you are in space and how you're moving, but it also uses what your eyes see. Normally, your eyes and ears tell your brain the same thing and there's no problem, but when you're drinking, the density of the fluid in those tubes changes. This confuses your brain because now the fluid is moving those hairs in a way that doesn't match what your eyes are telling you, so you feel disoriented.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-296373", "score": 0.6809880137443542, "text": "Your eyes converge to varying degrees depending on how far away the object they are focusing on is (you can easily test this by focusing on your finger and moving it back and forth in front of your nose.) When you get drunk, the very fine control of the muscles of your eyes gets a little sloppy, so they don't converge the right amount and the result is a double image (similar to what you might get intentionally crossing you eyes and looking at a distant object.)", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-147483", "score": 0.6809656620025635, "text": "Your vestibular system gets messed up because of alcohol, and tells your brain you're moving. Your eyes tell your brain you're not moving. Your brain gets confused, decides it has been poisoned (which it has), and tells your stomach to vomit.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-97991", "score": 0.6808562278747559, "text": "Does this happen completely randomly, or does something trigger it? I think I know what you're talking about, but the only time I black out is if I'm getting up.", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-127155", "score": 0.6807011365890503, "text": "It is called the \"rebound effect\". When alcohol is in full effect, it makes you sleepy. Your body and brain try to counteract this, in a process called homeostasis (kind of a \"let's get back to normal\") by encouraging wakefulness (via glutamate release). It doesn't do much when the alcohol is active. But when it wears off? Those homeostatic processes are active, and you pop up awake, a \"rebound\" wakefulness from the previous alcoholic stupor. > These studies found that particularly at higher alcohol doses, increased wake periods or light stage 1 sleep periods occurred during the second half of the sleep period (Williams et al. 1983; Roehrs et al. 1991). This second-half disruption of sleep continuity is generally interpreted as a “rebound effect” once alcohol has been completely metabolized and eliminated from the body. _URL_0_", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-47319", "score": 0.6806118488311768, "text": "Alcohol smooths out rough edges and lowers inhibitions. You probably are better at certain things because you are trusting your own decisions more and not overthinking situations.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-2036657", "score": 0.6797446608543396, "text": "This problem began a few years ago when it was brought to my attention from my closest friends that I become a raging bitch when I am blackout drunk. It doesn’t happen every time I drink only when I am blackout beyond return. I am never violent with people when I drink, but I say the most terrible and hurtful things that I would NEVER say when I am sober. I never remember any of this happening I am only aware of what the people around me have told me. The things that I have said are so mean that my friends started calling it my alter ego because it is not the person I am when I’m sober at all. It is not an every time I drink occurrence and my friends are great with dealing with it by just ignoring me or laughing at me because they know I don’t mean anything I’m saying and won’t remember it in the morning. \n\nThe last few years I have really gotten it under control by handling the amount of alcohol I drink better but you know we all have those nights where we just have one too many. It is something that my friends are able to deal with but the real problem started happening when I got into my relationship with my current boyfriend. We have been dating for almost a year now and there have been two occurrences where I really feel like I hurt my relationship. One night consisted of me getting completely belligerent and telling him “You really are a loser and nobody likes you, including me.” Amongst other horrible things. The second time I broke up with him but thankfully he didn’t take it seriously and stayed with me the whole night. I don’t remember any of these things and he has to tell me what happened the next day. My friends are good at dealing with this situation when it happens, but it is hard for my boyfriend to hear those things coming from the person he loves obviously. I don’t consider myself an angry person at all and I definitely don’t have anger problems. I am just so confused where this side of me comes from. \n\nIt literally breaks my heart when I hear what I’ve said to people and him when I drink because I genuinely am not a mean person. I am extremely kind and empathetic when I’m sober and it really hurts me to know I am this terrible demon when I drink. I don’t know really what I am asking for from posting this I am just hoping I can get some advice with how to deal with this. I am open to anything. I understand that not drinking alcohol would be the best solution, but it only happens once I am belligerent. I am usually very good at controlling myself but sometimes I have one too many drinks and I would love some advice on what to do in those situations as well as what I can say to my boyfriend to make him feel better about all this. Thank you so much for reading if you’ve gotten this far and a future thank you for the advice given!!\n\n*** For those who already commented, I didn’t post this to be called an alcoholic. I am not an alcoholic. I don’t drink everyday and I don’t even drink every week. I am a 100 lb girl in my 20s and in school. I also don’t get blackout every time I drink this has happened twice in the past year. I’m not downplaying my actions and take full responsibility for them but I don’t need hate from people on the internet I already hate myself enough over this. Thanks!", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-1356918", "score": 0.6796781420707703, "text": "I don’t even know where to start with this. \n\nI don’t drink what I consider is “a lot.” I drink MAYBE one day a week. My fiancé likes to drink and brew beer and wine. Sometimes, I’m fine when I drink. Sometimes, I’m really, really not okay. \n\nSometimes, I black out. This can happen after 1 drink or after 5. I never really know when/if it’s going to happen. When I black out (obviously I have no memory of this) I get extremely violent and angry, I hallucinate, I try to hurt/kill myself, I laugh and cry irrationally...I’m a monster. I talk to people who are not there. And after this happens, I am depressed for weeks. I can’t get out of bed. I have constant heart palpitations, tunnel vision, and general anxiety. \n\nMy fiancé is pretty much done with me. He videotaped this last episode. \n\nI’m worried my problem isn’t just that “I had too much to drink.” I’m worried there’s something wrong with my brain. Why am I psychotic? \n\nI’ve been to therapy for my depression and anxiety before. I’ve tried Zoloft, lorazepam, Xanax, prozac... \n\nThis is a vicious cycle. I’m fine for months, then it happens again. \n\nI’m looking for advice and insight. I can’t live like this anymore.\n\nEdit: I haven’t taken medication in a year.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-117", "score": 0.7196060419082642, "text": "Your ears are sensitive through a wide ride of volumes. When it is very quiet, you hear faint noises you are unaccustomed to, which can be disconcerting. Background noise hides those sounds with ones more familiar to you, restoring your comfort level." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-1650110", "score": 0.6832846999168396, "text": "Whenever I hear people being loud, I start to worry that a fight’s about to break loose even though it sounds like they’re having fun and I get extremely anxious. I’m thinking it may have to do with the fact that my older brother used to get my parents so mad that they’d start yelling and throwing things which would scare the everliving heck out of me. I was only 10 when he started his rebellious phase so I think that’s why I was impacted more by it. Thankfully, he doesn’t live with us anymore but even now my parents still argue about politics and stuff. Though it’s always harmless little debates and it never gets violent, I still feel very anxious. Even the tv in my living room has started to set me off because of how high the volume is. Can anyone else relate? If so, any tips on how to overcome this?", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-41847", "score": 0.6831107139587402, "text": "Being physically close to other mammals makes us feel secure for a number of reasons, boiling down to the fact that it means we're protecting each other. Connection, companionship, intimacy are all relaxing because there is safety in numbers, and because it might indicate we are receiving protection from someone more powerful than us, or that we are protecting someone weaker who we have an evolutionary interest in, like offspring or a younger sibling or even someone pregnant with a future relative of ours.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-74410", "score": 0.6830435991287231, "text": "Having covers or blankets over you is similar to the feeling that you had when you were developing in your mothers womb. The feeling makes you comfortable and snug/protected/safe", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-871757", "score": 0.682445764541626, "text": "Common example from my youth: The whole family would be watching a movie in the basement and I would get cold and want to go get a sweater from my room on the second floor. Something about being on the second floor completely alone knowing that my whole family was two floors below terrified me. My parents used to make fun of me because they could hear me sprinting full speed up the stairs to my room and back and I would be panting when I returned.\n\nI'm 30 now, but I experienced this fear weekly as a kid and honestly, still feel it sometimes when I visit my parents' place.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-2660200", "score": 0.6823878884315491, "text": "During school, i always excuse myself once per day. Not to do my buisness but because it feels safe in a bathroom. No one is gonna enter the room, you are alone and no one is gonna disturb your rest. \n\nThe fear i used to have is surpressed, and i always make the most of it.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-32724", "score": 0.6822470426559448, "text": "Your blood rushing around. The object blocks out outside noise and amplifies the sound of the blood.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-28680", "score": 0.682150661945343, "text": "I suffer from the exact same thing, and I refuse to watch scary movies because of it. I've found that being around someone at night is very effective. If she isn't scared, neither am I. All of my fears go away, and I can sleep peacefully. Sleeping while holding a pillow or a stuffed animal doesn't really work, so it's not just touching something. It's the loneliness. Feeling alone at night makes me more scared, and I'm more likely to 'see' things. For the times you are alone, a night light and some white noise (I recommend a big Galaxy-brand fan from Wal-Mart, they make a good amount of noise but not so much that you can't sleep).", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-1891749", "score": 0.6820694208145142, "text": "During the holidays, I was in my room wrapping gifts for my friends. All of a sudden, I realized how paranoid and fast my hands were moving. I caught myself trying to wrap all of the presents in front of me super fast. I also don’t hear actual voices of people but I feel like something/someone is trying to “rush” me. I’m in my room alone and I have plenty of time to wrap my gifts. I don’t why I feel like I have to act quick and had a strong feeling that I had to wrap these presents perfectly. \n\nWhen I experience this “fast feeling” I try to listen to music to calm down. However, the music I hear plays 1.5-2x fast and I start to freak out. I really want to know what this is.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-995019", "score": 0.6819175481796265, "text": "This is a part of why I'm so used to being alone and it doesn't bother me. I'm used to having a lot of privacy. I still live with my parents because there is nobody besides my parents to bitch about it. It's easy to just live there.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-322375", "score": 0.6818997263908386, "text": "Nerves can become sensitized and experience after effects. Also, you're used to hearing noise. Dead silence is something the nerve endings don't necessarily know how to interpret and they try to hear \"something\". I couldn't find the studies I was looking for to answer this, but this study on [the brain creating sounds](_URL_0_) kind of illustrates the point. Anyway, there was a documentary I watched once where they put people by themselves in a sound-proof room, they could hear their heart beats, their breath moving in and out, their clothes rustling, etc and it drove them nutty for the time they were in there. There's also electricity in \"empty\" rooms, there are insects, there's wind...something that your ears can pick up and try to translate.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-727972", "score": 0.6818908452987671, "text": "I grew up in a really strict household where I was never allowed to make a peep, and now I live on my own. My apartment complex has “quiet hours” after 10pm, and I have a lot of anxiety around what exactly that means, because it seems really vague and I was never given any real specifications. Do I have to tip toe around my house and keep the TV on super low volume? Or does it just mean no loud music and running around the apartment?\n\nUpdate: Thank you so much y’all, this has already helped me feel a lot more comfortable living in my house. I seriously appreciate it!! &lt;3", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-160659", "score": 0.6815275549888611, "text": "You have Tinnitus, my friend. It is one of the least debilitating diseases in the world, so don't worry. It only means that when it's quiet you may hear a high-pitched sound.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-2062824", "score": 0.6813414692878723, "text": "The forcing of the alert sound has a chilling effect on people who will leave alerts on altogether. \n\nI was super upset last night when I was meditating before bed with my headphones on when I received a heart-attack inducing sound blasting noise. I have tinnitus and my ears were ringing for hours. \n\nSince you can't turn the sound off but still have alerts on, it will cause less people willing to receive the alerts. That seems dumb.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-2642426", "score": 0.6811312437057495, "text": "It doesn't necessarily scare me anymore, but the noise just makes me super uncomfortable. When I hear it now, I get goosebumps and my eyes water. It's not even the actual warning that scares me, and its usually a test.\n\nThis is the noise I'm referring to.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-76806", "score": 0.6810681223869324, "text": "Another factor not mentioned in the comments is that some music is different and dissonant on purpose, not fitting into the rhythm or the harmony of the normal music, making you feel a sense of unease. They feel different and wrong, like it doesn't belong there. This appears in classical music as well, but it's usually used as a passage, with complementary notes played straight after. Meanwhile, using such notes gets you ready for complementary notes that are not going to come, if that makes any sense. It's the heart and soul of horror: suspense. It the same as when in a horror movie a protag explores a dark and creepy place and you expect a jumpscare and never get one, anticipating it more and more.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-2644235", "score": 0.6808724999427795, "text": "Personally I hate it, because any slight noises made by neighbors will make my blood boil. I always leave the TV on and have my earphones on. What about you?", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-1650915", "score": 0.6804783344268799, "text": "TL;DR at bottom\n\nSo I 15m find it easier to sleep with some kind of white noise on, let me make this clear that when I play it no one else in the house can hear it but me. \n\nNow my mum discovered this and gave me a talk about how “it’s scientifically proven that you get the best quality sleep in absolute silence.” And her evidence for this was a motivational speaker/ life coaches Tiktoks on how you should go about your day. \n\nAnd this wasn’t just an recommendation either she told me I’m NOT ALLOWED to have it on anymore. Not just for the noise but also because having absolutely any electronics on at night at all is “disruptive to your sleep quality.” \n\nI ignore this because I believe it’s bs what helps me sleep helps me sleep. And I didn’t think she’d actually enforce it. \n\nBut she comes into my room the next morning and sees it on. and proceeded to lecture me about how disrespectful it was that even if I don’t believe her she my mum, I live in her house, I’ll follow her rules. \n\nSo now I can’t have anything electronic in my room at night at all, and she went in a bit of a rant about how “she’s getting too soft if I think I can go against what she says like that.” And she’s going to start “cracking down harder.” \n\nTL;DR mum says sleeping with noise bad, I do it anyway, AITA?(it affects no one but me, absolutely no one else can hear it.)", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-81818", "score": 0.6803969740867615, "text": "It's probably your perception. Studies show that when your parents/wife are at home, your ears are the most sensitive part of your body.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-1245718", "score": 0.6803157329559326, "text": "Hey there. I am in my early 20s, still in university, and living with flatmates. I am NOT looking for a diagnosis here, but for some advice, so let's get straight into it: \n\n\nI get extremely easily started. Every time one of my two flatmates walks into the kitchen (behind me of course) the sound or movement behind me scares me extremely bad. No, I do not have a breakdown, but I do go in full fight or flight mode for one second before realizing what I'm doing and laughing about it. Loud noises startle me as well. Extremely easily. Loud noises make me jump in the air and get all alert. The people around me usually don't really pay as much attention to these sounds as I do. They definitely don't get as startled as I do, if they even get startled at all. I also partly blame this \"alertness\" for my lack of quality sleep and therefore lack of concentration some days. \n\n\nI suspect that all of this has started 7-8 years ago during a very traumatic experience. I got woken up by a loud noise outside my room at night. I am not going to go into the details of what that sound was, but to say the least, that experience has traumatized me good. I've had problems sleeping at night because of the anxiety that it would happen again. That kept going for at least one to one and a half years. With time I worked around it and got to a pretty normal level I'd say. So normal that I wouldn't say that it affects my life so much at this point (or maybe I'm missing something?). My reactions to loud noises or getting surprised by people walking in the room (or me just thinking that someone is walking into the room) aren't as extreme as they were a couple of years ago. Nonetheless, this behavior has persisted and I am not sure if it is PTSD or some other form of a trauma related disorder. Or if it even is a disorder. We kind of have a running joke with my flatmates about me getting scared when one of them walks behind me and they usually have learned to be a little more noisy when walking out of their rooms so that I can hear them coming my way :) That way I know what to expect and I don't get startled. \n\n\nAnyway, should I consult my psychiatrist about this (as I'm already seeing one for ADHD/Depression)? Or isn't a psychiatrist the right person to talk to about this kind of thing? I am curious if any of you have similar experiences that you could share, or at least some useful advice.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-105743", "score": 0.6803091764450073, "text": "Anxiety can produce adrenaline. Adrenaline causes your blood to pump faster, which means your heart has to work harder, which could make it seem \"louder.\" I don't think it's actually louder, it's just more blood being pumped all throughout your body, which you very well may be able to feel if you're paying attention. It's most likely the blood in your head that's near your ears and brain that you're detecting, but it is happening everywhere too. Basically, it's the difference between a floating down a lazy river and white water river rafting. Your heart is the pump that drives the water (blood).", "topk_rank": 19 } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-118", "score": 0.7655711770057678, "text": "When the water ends up in the oceans, it slows down the cycling a lot. Water in aquifers (the stores under the ground that we access when we use wells) and water on Earth's surface are the cheapest to use. We have been either polluting these (surface) or using them too fast for new water to filter in. We have also allowed a lot of water to go to the ocean(storm water runoff from developed areas) , rather than slowly go into the aquifers through the ground. So the result is we are using aquifer water faster than they are getting refilled. When that water is depleted, all water will become more expensive. We will still have it, but it will either be salty, polluted, or far from where it needs to be, and all of the fixes for this cost money. Sorry if this isn't too coherent, I haven't finished my first cup of coffee for the day." } ]

[ { "id": "corpus-19499", "score": 0.7262491583824158, "text": "We can. It's just way more expensive than building a freshwater reservoir. Salt water has to be boiled into steam and then the steam is cooled into purified drinking water. That requires a ton of energy.", "topk_rank": 0 }, { "id": "corpus-316618", "score": 0.722711980342865, "text": "This is just speculative, but my guess is that it has an evolutionary basis. Presumably, when our ancestors were near running water, it meant they had freshwater to drink, and their bodies did not need to hang on to water and keep recycling it.", "topk_rank": 1 }, { "id": "corpus-66856", "score": 0.7201381921768188, "text": "We're not concerned with preserving water, but preserving cleanm usable, or drinkable water. If we can't clean it as fast as we use it, we run out of usable water.", "topk_rank": 2 }, { "id": "corpus-311340", "score": 0.7189257144927979, "text": "What you're wasting is clean water. It takes energy to take water from the environment and make it fit for human consumption, so that's what you're wasting.", "topk_rank": 3 }, { "id": "corpus-300391", "score": 0.7175493240356445, "text": "It’s hard to make salt water into fresh water. Think about how corrosive and bad for metal salt water is, then make an enormous factory (made of metal) to filter and pump it. Separating the water from the “other stuff” which is salt as well as organic matter, trash, sediment etc is exceptionally energy intensive. We have a problem with energy right now so this becomes very expensive. Lastly, once you make all of this fresh water you have a big pile of salt. Way too much to sell as sea salt (organic and artisanal, gluten free. Whole Foods loves it) so you throw it back into the ocean, making the water around your plant saltier. This is bad for the environment and makes your job harder. Consider that we CAN do this, the problem is making enough fresh water to be helpful without absolutely destroying the environment or going bankrupt.", "topk_rank": 4 }, { "id": "corpus-16766", "score": 0.715206503868103, "text": "The problem comes when the water usage exceeds collected rainfall in a given area, thus the amount of fresh, drinkable water for that area decreases faster than it is replenished. This is basically what happens in a drought. If you're in an area that receives a lot of rain, it's unlikely to matter as much. But living in somewhere that experiences a drought, you need to conserve fresh water until sufficient rain comes again. You're right that it's never gone forever. But if it ends up in the ocean, it's not very useful to people. Or if it rains far from where your local reservoirs are, it doesn't help your region.", "topk_rank": 5 }, { "id": "corpus-81321", "score": 0.7130488753318787, "text": "Assuming we still want to use water, the alternative would be to use salt water. And the biggest issue is infrastructure. You would need 2 sets of plumbing. One to handle fresh water for sinks, faucets, hoses, etc, and the other for salt water. This is prohibitively expensive since each house, apartment, pump station, treatment plant, etc. would need to support that. Also, there would need to be more pipes put in place to pump the saltwater to landlocked areas.", "topk_rank": 6 }, { "id": "corpus-68867", "score": 0.7130298018455505, "text": "It isn't hard at all; you can boil seawater on your stove top and collect the condensation on the lid of the pot- that is fresh water. It is extremely expensive to produce enough fresh water to run a city- it takes a lot of energy. Reverse osmosis plants use much less energy to produce freshwater. But those plants are expensive to construct, and there is a hidden energy cost in producing the miles of pipe and membrane to construct the plant.", "topk_rank": 7 }, { "id": "corpus-47557", "score": 0.7122576236724854, "text": "Because when water is in the aquifer, its collected over millions of years. When we use that water up, it won't restore for millions of years. We use it for agriculture the most. A very large percentage of our water is used there. Only about 3 or 4 percent of water is freshwater, and even that's trapped up in glaciers. We're using water at a faster rate than it replenishes.", "topk_rank": 8 }, { "id": "corpus-59159", "score": 0.7119075655937195, "text": "Water we use to bathe, shower, drink, cook with, etc. is all water that has been filtered, processed, and otherwise tinkered with. Yes, it all goes back to the water cycle, but there are costs involved with getting the water to your home in a sanitary state. The less you use, the less water needs to be processed in your area. Particularly in regions with various water problems or droughts it becomes quite an expense to ensure that everyone is getting enough clean water. So they don't want you running your lawn sprinkler 10 hours a day just because you want perfect looking grass.", "topk_rank": 9 }, { "id": "corpus-96906", "score": 0.7114428281784058, "text": "Water treatment isn't free. It costs money to build those plants & energy to operate them. If you're in a place that's got clean water shortages, you can still deplete your clean freshwater supplies faster than nature completes the water cycle to bring it back to you.", "topk_rank": 10 }, { "id": "corpus-292884", "score": 0.7110739946365356, "text": "There are a number of ways in which energy can be used to produce fresh water (desalinization, for one example). Whether or not this can solve a future fresh water crisis depends on whether or not we have enough available energy.", "topk_rank": 11 }, { "id": "corpus-785", "score": 0.7105939388275146, "text": "The source of your clean water and the location where your wastewater ends up are rarely the same. Water treatment plants can recapture SOME wastewater, but the rest is lost, dumped into the sea (where we don't get drinking water from) or downstream for the very reason that we don't want sewage in our water supply. It depends greatly on where you live, but commonly fresh water comes from snow melt and rainfall replenishing natural or man-made aquifers, and not being drawn from a river.", "topk_rank": 12 }, { "id": "corpus-37320", "score": 0.7101745009422302, "text": "It takes a lot of energy/effort to clean water well enough before it can be introduced to the natural water cycle again. In addition it also takes energy/effort to clean and prepare water until it's clean enough for us to use.", "topk_rank": 13 }, { "id": "corpus-98928", "score": 0.7089999318122864, "text": "all water you will come in contact with on a daily basis has living things in it. genuinely pure H2O is difficult enough to get that even chemists put up with this nonesense. once the water stops moving, the cultures are better able to grow, which is why green crap doesn't come out of your sink.", "topk_rank": 14 }, { "id": "corpus-297072", "score": 0.7077242732048035, "text": "Water doesn't run out because of the [Water Cycle](_URL_0_).", "topk_rank": 15 }, { "id": "corpus-265514", "score": 0.7066132426261902, "text": "It's not that your wasting water so to speak. You have answered the question yourself. It's the energy it takes to move the water from the treatment station to your house. It's also the energy and chemicals it takes to treat the water. Also, in many parts of the world, there is only a finite amount of supply for water, ie. dam capacity is limited so if there is a drought then you are also wasting water. Edit: Damn spelling", "topk_rank": 16 }, { "id": "corpus-143897", "score": 0.7065443992614746, "text": "We're not saving water per se, we're saving *usable* water. 97.5% of the water on the planet is salt water, so that's pretty much unusable for most things that humans do with it. Other water might be foul, or otherwise unsafe for consumption.", "topk_rank": 17 }, { "id": "corpus-70739", "score": 0.7064335346221924, "text": "It does. A little bit. Temporarily. Remember that when you consume water, it's not gone forever. The molecules don't disappear. You lose water through natural processes of urination, sweat, breathing, etc. All of that water is eventually returned to the ocean through various forms of reclamation. It's also important to remember that the oceans are big. Really big. Only about 2.5% of the world's water is fresh. So you aren't likely to have any noticeable effect on the oceans by storing freshwater in bottles.", "topk_rank": 18 }, { "id": "corpus-269871", "score": 0.7041202187538147, "text": "Sea water is very very dirty in comparison to fresh water we mine from other places. Essentially we let nature do most of the cleaning though the water cycle, then we just put on a final polish. Both financial and energy costs make it not really viable to do it all on our own.", "topk_rank": 19 } ]