Datasets:

LLukas22

/

lfqa_preprocessed

like 0

Did slavery play a significant role in Texas secession from Mexico? If not, what changed in the next 25 years?

**TL;DR** - It stemmed from existing social pressures all across Mexico, annexation by the US meant the rest of the South's institutions and the Planters gained super strong influence. Sam Houston was alive in 1861, and was vividly and vibrantly against the Confederate Cause, viewing it as antithetical to what he fought for in the Texas Revolution. Slavery was not the driving factor for the secession of Texas from Mexico, although it was a social pressure that was present. According to the Texas State Historical Association, in 1836 (the Texas Revolution taking place 1835-1836) the population consisted of about 30,000 Texians, 5,000 Blacks, 3,500 Tejanos, and 14,000 indigenous persons. This makes about 10~11% of the population as Black, a significant majority of whom would be slaves. In 1847, two years after annexation, this ratio becomes about 28~29%. These would be mostly concentrated around the Anglo farming communities in the East and North, which would be politically influential and would become adapted to the Southern way of life in short order. However, to look at the Texas Revolution, we need to go back to the beginning. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the Napoleon of the West. (Terminolog: "Texian(s)" = White Texan, "Tejano(s)" = Mexican Texan, "Criollo(s)" = White but born in colonial lands, "Peninsular(es)" = White and born in Spain, "Empresario(s)" = Colonial contractor hired to bring people) Santa Anna was of *criollo* origins, privileged as a 'continental' Spaniard (compared to 'peninsular', from Spain proper) under the colonial system. When revolution broke out among the *mestizo* masses, he, like a great many criollos, fought in the name of the Spanish Crown to put it down. His senior officer was a *peninsular*, even more privileged than Santa Anna himself, and during this war he witnessed brutal counterinsurgency tactics such as mass summary executions. This was also some of his first experience fighting Americans, defending Spanish territory from sympathetic American agents. When the Spanish homeland fell into troubles, a royalist officer decided to switch sides with an agreement to establish himself as the emperor of Mexico and guaranteeing the privileges of the peninsulares and criollos, with Santa Anna following his lead from then. Mexico's independence was gained later that year. This first emperor proved to be unpopular with the republican masses that had led revolution in the first place, and he tried to shut down republican efforts by closing the national congress and replacing it with a new institution that served solely him. Here's where fates turn, for Santa Anna conspired in revolution against this emperor he had once supported - he conspired, at least, for the purpose of restoring the congress. He won, and the emperor abdicated and was sent into exile, only to be executed in 1824 when he returned to Mexico once more. Later that year, 1824, the First Mexican Constitution was drafted and officialized under President Guadalupe Victoria. Victoria had been part of the revolution since the beginning, and was responsible for establishing diplomatic missions and recognition with his neighbors, as well as abolishing slavery. He resolved the economic crisis facing the nascent country, invested in all sorts of infrastructure, and helped to foster a new national spirit. Victoria's federal constitution and governance style was well-received in the borderland regions, such as The Sovereign Free State of Coahuila and Texas, or just 'Coahuila y Tejas' if you're pressed for time. These border states, which were underdeveloped and lacking in population that was integrated with Mexican society, were free to govern themselves, and conditional immigration from the United States was encouraged to help fill them out a bit more. An early Texian rebellion formed with the Republic of Fredonia, in modern Nacogdoches in Northeast Texas (remember the geography I talked about earlier?). This rebellion was started by one Haden Edwards, an *empresario*, on the land he had himself settled. Nearby Cherokee also joined the rebellion, inspiring a white-and-red flag standing for settlers and natives together. As inspiring as they may sound, Edwards was a bit of a jerk - a Virginian of wealthy stock who tried to invalidate land titles that had already been established in the area granted to him, and rejected the elected captain of his militia (which he created by obligation, as part of his empresario contract) in favor of himself. He called for a new mayoral election, but the established residents claimed that it was rigged and appealed to a higher authority, which overturned it, which Edwards did not agree with. With tensions between established settlers and newer ones rising by the day, Edwards's contract was revoked, and he was expelled from Mexico. Without any compensation for his efforts and personal investments both in time and money, he refused to comply. After the newer brand of settlers began to face a few evictions and arrests, the local government was overthrown, and Edwards looked for support among both his previous settlers and among nearby Cherokee, to whom he promised officialized land titles to a *very significant amount of land* while they had been neglected by the state government. He sent word to other empresarios to try to gather support, but none came. The whole affair was essentially bloodless, though the Cherokee chiefs who had promised support were executed by their fellows as a show of support for Mexico when the time came to reestablish order. Although this was, by all accounts, a fairly minor incident, it also had the impact of a butterfly effect of sorts. The rebellion led to a Mexican federal inquiry into the state of Tejas, which under a different president led to passage of new laws unpopular with just about *everyone*, both the established and the new. The election of 1828 was a bit crazy, with the fact of Victoria's resignation in the following year looming over everyone's heads and the direction of the country up in the air. Santa Anna and Lorenzo de Zavala, a figure who will play an important part later in our story, both supported the same candidate. Although Santa Anna was most typically a classic Criollo Conservative, Zavala was a Basque criollo, and his family had for that point been colonial, rather than peninsular, for over a century. Zavala, contrasting to Santa Anna, had been involved heavily with the Mexican Revolution in its early days, and had been among those who drafted the Constitution. For Santa Anna, this is possibly because the candidate in question, Vicente Ramon Guerrero Saldaña, had been a hero of the nation and one of those who ruled interrim between the fall of the empire and the new republic's founding. Moreover, he supported plans to strengthen the Mexican position, such as abolishing the means by which Spain kept trying to invade by invading Cuba. For Zavala, it was clearly his liberal ideology that was a draw. As a fun aside, Guerrero Saldaña was of African descent. Guerrero Saldaña ultimately fell short, losing the presidency to one Manuel Gomez Pedraza. Pedraza was a criollo, a close friend of the now-dead emperor, and was a royalist during the revolution. Santa Anna did not take his victory well, and organized a rebellion - one which Zavala was forced into joining while the Conservative government plotted against him. Zavala, being based quite close to Mexico City and with some fair amount of support, was able to help turn the tide, and forced Pedraza out. Guerrero Saldaña was appointed in 1829, and instituted sweeping liberal reforms in public education, land title, and re-abolished slavery. After a bit of murmuring, and though Stephen F. Austin seemed to have nothing but praise for Guerrero Saldaña, the Mexican governor of Tejas sent a request to the federal level to allow an exemption for Tejas - Saldaña's own words: > The serious inconvenience apprehended by the execution of the decree of the 15th of September last, on the subject of abolition of slavery in that department and the fatal results to be expected, prejudicial to the tranquility and even to the political existence of the state, and having considered how necessary it is to protect in an efficacious manner the colonization of these immense lands of the republic, he has been pleased to accede to the solicitation of Your Excellency and declare the department of Texas excepted from the general disposition comprehended in said decree. In short, while the emancipation of slaves was a big gesture for him, Guerrero Saldaña exempted Texas because, in his eyes, the effective colonization, development, and economic health of the land came before such a gesture. That he only made such an exemption for Texas is due to the fact that it was a borderland territory surrounded by hostile tribes and had a very small non-native population, and so prioritizing its development and stability had been a long-time goal of the federal government. Though, I must point out that these murmurs were not rebellion-worthy, as Austin wrote: > I have the satisfaction to inform you that there was never the slightest break in the good order of this colony on account of the decree of September 15, because these inhabitants have placed the most blind confidence in the justice and good faith of the government While slavery had played a significant part in the Texan economy at the time, particularly in the northeast regions, they were not terribly upset and uppity over its abolition, and the people were quite content under Guerrero Saldaña's rule. One reason that the prospect of abolition might not have had as violent a result was that Guerrero Saldaña had promised compensation to former is slaveholders to ease the financial and economic burden that the process would incur both privately and publicly. Sounds great, right? Well, not quite. More to follow in Post Part 2.

After his term as president, John Quincy Adams ran for a seat in the House of Representatives and held it for 17 years. How unique was it for American presidents to run for "lesser," public offices after being president?

There have been very few Presidents who served in public office after the Presidency. JQA is *by far* the most famous of them, due not only to the mere length of his tenure in the house, but also due to the tenacious reputation that he earned while serving, where he became of the leading voices of abolition within Congress, fighting against the Gag Rule, the annexation of Texas, and participating in the famous legal case concerning the slave ship *Amistad*. He was the only former President to go to the House after, but not to Congress, joined in that by Andrew Johnson, although roughly opposite in terms of honor, Johnson serving a mere few months in the office in 1875 before dying in July of that year, and leaving no legacy to speak of. There were a few others who had notable post-presidential political careers in highest level of government though. The next most obvious would be William Howard Taft, who was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by the next Republican, President Harding, in 1921, 9 years after he had failed to win reelection. It is often said that this had always been his true ambition anyways, and it is generally agreed that not only did he *enjoy* his time on the bench a great deal more than in the White House, but also that he was much better at it too, establishing himself as an able and forceful leader of the Court through the 1920s, generally seen as consistently conservative in how he kept the court directed, as well as being a strong advocate for legal reform from Congress, resulting in the creation of the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges and the passage of the Judges' Bill. The final former President to highlight would be John Tyler, who I'm going to focus on here because conversely he is the most obscure on this count! After the Presidency he returned home to Virginia, and he did attempt to keep his reputation burnished, but didn't seek major office. With the decline of the Whig party, he began to turn toward the Democrats. In 1860, with deteriorating national situation, he attended the 1860 Democratic Convention, and although he didn't campaign for it, "entertained the delusion" that he might perhaps be offered up their Presidential candidate, under the impression that he would provide a unity candidate for the entire south to coalesce around. The odds of this were, in fact, nil, and he in the end became a supporter of Breckenridge, the more hardline candidate, announcing his impression of the situation to be "*live or die, survive or perish.*" Nevertheless, he wished not to see the Union perish, even if he feared it might be impossible to avoid, and as the wave of secession began, he was a supporter of the Crittenden Compromise, which had hoped to over a means to ensure slavery had stronger protections to alleviate concerns over Lincoln's election, but of course in the end failed. He continued to try to position himself as a force for compromise, offering to head a conference of the six slave and free states closest to the border, but this too didn't prevent the march to war, even if serving in the Virginia delegation gave him further chance to feel like he was trying. He saw a few other honors in the period though, being picked by Virginia to head a delegation to Pres. Buchanan to discuss the crisis, as well as to later meet with Lincoln on the eve of his inauguration. His return to public service continued further with his selection to attend the Virginia convention for secession, where he was considered one of the most honored members, and by that point had shifted to being pro-secession, and by the vote on the 17th, had become one of the vocal proponents, and afterwards gave a public speech comparing their coming struggle to that of their revolutionary forefathers With secession a done deal, he finally returned to public office, standing for election to the Confederate Congress, and being chosen by Charles City County to represent them in the House. Congress wouldn't meet until February, 1862, so he spent the intervening months negotiating the official terms for Virginia's entry into the Confederacy, as well as the agreement to move the capital of the wannabe nation to Richmond, from Montgomery. He traveled to Richmond to begin his new position... and died a month before the Congress convened, passing away on January 18th, 1862. In the United States, his passing received perhaps the least notice of any former president, the traitor's death going without comment from Lincoln and the government, while in Virginia, a 150-carriage funeral procession and great mourning accompanied his passing. **Sources** Burns, Kevin J. “Chief Justice as Chief Executive: Taft’s Judicial Statesmanship.” *Journal of Supreme Court History* 43, no. 1 (March 2018): 47–68 Crapol, Edward P.. *John Tyler, the Accidental President*. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012. Waldstreicher, David, ed. *A Companion to John Adams and John Quincy Adams*. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2013. ETA: Formatting and some clarity

how does your bac scale with your alcohol tolerance?

The original guy who determined the blood alcohol scale (one of the first doctors who worked as a medical examiner in NYC in the early 20th C) developed it through animal testing, using dogs. He used it to find the minimum level at which the dogs became drunk. However, he did test it to see how tolerance affected drunkenness, and found (as you have noted) that dogs with higher tolerance would behave normally even at higher blood alcohol levels. So, BAC is the same no matter how you behave, but becoming accustomed to drinking does affect how BAC makes you behave and affects your organs. If you are interested, read The Poisoner's Handbook by Deborah Blum -- it's SUPER fascinating. There's also a good PBS documentary about it.

why does food poisoning happens if heat is supposed to kill bacteria/parasites?

1) Food poisoning is often caused by the toxins bacteria produce as waste. Heat does not destroy these toxins, so if they have already reached a level that is dangerous to humans cooking does not do any good to prevent illness. 2) Contamination can occur after cooking has ended.

Could it be possible for a species to have one sapient sex and one non-sapient sex (e.g. the Kzin)?

I don't see why not. There are lots of species that exhibit extreme [sexual dimorphism](_URL_1_), or where one sex is radically different than the other. edit: in a totally unrelated note, after reading the article, TIL that there is a evolutionary biology theory called the [sexy son hypothesis](_URL_0_)

stomach growls

when your guts are 'more empty' what they are filled with, instead of a semi-solid mass (food), is gas and liquid. This gurgles more noisily when your intestines engage in peristalsis, a coordinated movement of the muscles that line them, in order to stir up and progress their contents.

why is the toyotoa pickup present in many wars and insurgencies in africa and the middle east? is toyota intentionally producing old models and selling them in the middle east and africa?

Toyota builds good cars that last long enough to make it to the used market and get bought by these groups

why is laundry detergent and fabric softener such a popular item to steal in order to exchange for drugs?

_URL_0_ Excellent article that gives more detail: * Everyone uses it, and want to keep to one brand, so someone in better times gets used to using Tide, all of a sudden can't afford it, either steals or buys it on the black market, rather than buying something cheap. * Since everyone uses it and sales volumes are huge, most stores weren't locking it up at all, and there are literally hundreds of bottles for the taking, so easy target for thieves. * It's all but untraceable once stolen. No serial numbers or databases like phones, car stereos, or TVs.

why do small bugs (gnats etc.) seem to hover around and fly into my eyes far more often than everywhere else on my person?

From what I've heard gnats like to lay eggs in the eyes of animals. (Warm, wet, eggs stick easily) and that's why they do it. Could be wrong though.

Why does water evaporate off of ceramic quicker than plastic?

Most likely because of higher thermal conductivity. When water evaporates, it cools, which makes it less likely to evaporate. On ceramic, the material can transfer heat back into the now cooler water faster, but in plastic it can't, so the water has to wait longer to get enough thermal energy to fully evaporate.

how do food flavors transfer to other foods despite being in wrappers?

Because taste is a function of smell. It isnt the taste that transfers, it is the scent which you interpret as flavour. Strong smells are caused by particles in the air and they can adhere to other foods easily. For instance, put some strong soap next to some light flavoured food and you will have soapy tasting food. It is not the flavour of the soap, but the smell you are tasting.

How did the Kowloon Walled City come to exist? Why did the British and Chinese agree to remove it?

In 1842, when the British won the First Opium War, they had China over a barrel and could set their own terms for surrender. One of the terms of the Treaty of Nanking was that Hong Kong would be ceded in perpetuity. The whole reason Hong Kong mattered at all was as a natural deep draft harbour, and the treaty reflected this - only Hong Kong Island itself was mentioned. In 1858, realizing that their needs were growing, Britain leased Kowloon up to Boundary Street, and in 1860 the Convention of Peking made the lease permanent. As Hong Kong grew, so did the need for land - and meanwhile the British position of power had weakened. in 1898, Britain leased the New Territories for 99 years. Dealing from a slightly stronger position meant China was able to get another small concession - a small military outpost - a fortified village, really - was excluded from the lease. From 1899 to 1945, the KWC was almost empty and treated no differently from any other part of Hong Kong, but in 1945 China re-asserted its rights to it. Squatters and refugees pored in, and after a brief confusion the infamous "anarchist enclave" was established. China was nominally in control, but generally only cared about the KWC for political gain and negotiation. As the end of the 99-year lease drew closer, Britain and China entered into negotiations - starting in 1982 - to see what would happen when it came to an end. By 1985 it was clear that the end of the lease would mean Hong Kong was returned to China - which made the KWC unnecessary as a negotiating chip. Between 1987 and 1992, the 33 000 residents of the KWC were relocated, and in 1993 it was demolished - replaced by a memorial park. Sources: * Girard & Lambot - City of Darkness * Pullinger - Crack in the Wall & Chasing the Dragon * Portisch - Kowloon Walled City

why don't we have malaria in the northeast united states? we have lots of mosquito's, why don't they carry malaria?

There used to be malaria (plasmodium parasite) in the southeastern US states. In the 20th century the government worked to eradicate malaria by draining mosquito breeding sites, killing the larvae, using DDT on the walls of houses, providing people with mosquito nets etc. Malaria must be transmitted to the mosquito from a human host, and through their effort it was eventually eliminated. e: [There are the right type of mosquito \(anopheles\) for transmitting malaria still in the US](_URL_0_)

Why does the discovery of this LQG (Large Quasar Group) which is 4 billion light years wide, seem to threaten Einstein's Cosmological Principle?

The CP is that the universe is homogenous in every direction and there's no privileged point. Any extremely large structure would violate that principle because it's clearly different than the rest of the universe On the humongous scale of the unverse, imagine the galaxies spread out like static on a mistuned TV. Pick a spot, how would you explain to another person, relative to the features on the image, where that spot is? It would be impossible, however if there's a cluster of white dots (galaxies) around the lower left corner, you could describe the spot's location relative to that location. Not sure the find is big enough to violate the CP. It's not 100% exact, but close as you can see here: _URL_0_

Why is Freud so popular today?

Oh boy, one that I can actually answer! I will try to be thorough enough for this sub's standards. For the record, I have a Master's Degree in Clinical Psychology, my thesis was written on in-group/out-group formation through auditory processing, and I specialize in adolescent Bipolar Disorder and ADHD. I also have a BSN and am certified as a Psychiatric Nurse. So, to briefly answer your question before I explain: Yes, Freud's ideas on hyper-sexualization (and honestly most of his ideas on sexual development and sexuality in general) are considered incredibly outdated and not terribly scientific^1. In fact, Karl Popper (who is regarded by many as the progenitor of modern scientific thought/philosophy) famously used Freud as an example of pseudoscience in his work *Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge*^2 (Popper essentially considered most of Freud's theories to be the pinnacle of pseudoscience, since many of them could not be falsified). However, Freud remains influential to this day for several reasons. First I will explain his impact on modern psychotherapy and psychological/psychiatric science. Then I will discuss why he is such an important historical figure for the fields of psychology and psychiatry. As /u/stev0supreemo mentioned, Freud has also been studied heavily in a literary context, but I'm not as familiar with that area so I won't touch on it too much. So, Freud's ideas are, as previously discussed, absolutely insane by modern standards. A lot of it seems like he just made it up himself based on what he saw and thought, and there is definitely some truth to that^3. Im not even going to go into the Oedipus Complex or his stages of psychosexual development because... well because I don't want to. Much of Freud's early work focuses on far more than sexuality and the unconscious mind, and he was actually one of the earliest people to correctly dismiss lack of oxygen during birth as a primary cause of cerebral palsy. However, Freud's biggest contributions that still remain today are most relevant to the practice of psychotherapy and our understanding of unconscious drives. Freud identified, described, and/or synthesized quite a few phenomena of which many are scientifically testable and still widely taught today. Among these are words you're no doubt familiar with: Id, Ego, and Superego (these are...less testable), Libido, Repression, Transference, Countertransference, Projection, and many more. His work on the unconscious and dreams is really hit or miss in terms of scientific validity and empirical support, but there are some aspects that are testable and have been supported by evidence (e.g. he proposed that particular traumatic events or life stressors could manifest themselves in dreams, and there is considerable empirical support for this idea though not necessarily for the deeper interpretation of those dreams)^4. I'll touch a little more on this in the section where I talk about his historical significance. His biggest contribution to psychotherapy was probably his advocacy for psychodynamic therapy. He specifically championed a type of therapy called Psychoanalysis that is still practiced today, but psychodynamic therapy is the more general practice of talking to patients, forming a dialogue, listening to them, and helping them work through their issues. I know this seems like a no-brainer now, but back then it was pretty revolutionary (I mean, why would you talk to a crazy person?). There are arguably others who "invented" this therapy, and I will leave that debate for more qualified historians (read: actual historians) than I, but Freud undoubtedly popularized the method. He also provided the basis for what many consider the prototypical "therapist-patient" relationship, with practices such as trying to remain objective and not judge the patient, maintaining confidentiality (though he was less than stellar on this front), and providing analysis and recommendations where appropriate. The details of modern psychoanalytic practice and how the current practice differs from his original work is way too complicated for a single post (and I was trained in different methods), but a lot of his original techniques were the original basis for modern psychotherapy of all disciplines. So to summarize, again, Freud's theories, ideas, and his techniques vary wildly in terms of how well they stand up to scientific and philosophical scrutiny, but they undoubtedly had a massive impact on how psychology and psychiatry are practiced today. However, in my personal opinion (which is shared by others, like Ernest Jones^5 and David Eagleman^6) is that Freud's true impact is a historical one. That is to say: Freud was a freaking *rock star* in his day. Psychiatry was a well established field by the time Freud came around, and Freud didn't invent the concept of psychotherapy, but Freud brought psychology into the mainstream. He gave lectures at universities around the world, he promoted his ideas and his works in sold-out talks. He was invited to speak and participate in events and research in almost every relevant scientific area. His work was so popular that it radically changed the fields of psychiatry and psychology forever. People devoted their lives to either proving his theories or to disproving them (Neo-Freudians like Karen Horney and Alfred Adler essentially founded their entire fields of work on disagreeing with Freud). The idea that the unconscious mind is the primary driver of human behavior (rather than the conscious mind, which Freud believed was important but only a small part of the human psyche) was not a new one, but it was not a mainstream idea until Freud made it so with his works, such as *The Interpretation of Dreams* (1899) and in *Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious* (1905). This idea touched a huge variety of fields, including criminal justice (can criminals really be responsible for impulsive acts if our unconscious is so influential?), philosophy (how much agency do humans really have?), medicine, and more. His works were (and are) dense and honestly written with an air of authority and certainty that is totally in contrast to how we would expect modern scientists to present their findings. But Freud’s *ideas* were accessible to the common man, and they seem to make sense on a basic level. Freud was certain of his theories, and was famously bad at taking criticism (When somebody pointed out that Freud’s beloved cigars were a bit phallic, he replied, “*sometimes a cigar is just a cigar*”). But his charisma, confidence, and authority sold a lot of people, and his popularity overshadowed almost all of his contemporaries. Like I said, he was a rock star, and without him, I don’t think psychology would look anything like what it is today, for better or for worse. Sources: 1. Grünbaum, A. The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique. University of California Press, 1984, pp. 97–126. 2. Popper, Karl. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963, pp. 33–39 3. MacKinnon, Donald W.; Dukes, William F. (1962). Postman, Leo, ed. Psychology in the Making: Histories of Selected Research Problems. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 663, 703 4. Stevens, R. *Freud and Psychoanalysis* Milton Keynes: Open University Press 1985 p. 96: "the number of relevant studies runs into thousands". 5. Jones, Ernest. Sigmund Freud: Life and Work, vol. 1. London: Hogarth Press, 1953, pp. 94–96. 6. Eagleman, David Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain Edinburgh: Canongate, 2011, pp. 17

Why are there so many volcanic eruptions recently? Are they somehow connected or is it a coincidence? Or is it just new media coverage?

The current level of activity is normal. On average, there are usually ~20 volcanoes in some stage of erupting at any given time. The recent news worthy eruptions (e.g. Hawaii and the recent one in Guatemala) are not connected. So the short answer it's just the coverage and/or the fact that these two eruptions are happening in populated places and that both are being filmed a lot by locals (mostly safely in the case of Hawaii and **really** unsafely in the case of the Guatemalan eruption, you should never be as close to a pyroclastic flow as some of the people shooting video are). As for the rates, couldn't find any particularly good plots, but you can check out [the smithsonian](_URL_0_) weekly eruption report to 1) get a sense that there are lots of eruptions going on that aren't making the news and 2) if you go back into the archives, which span ~18 years, you can get a somewhat qualitative sense that this number of currently erupting volcanoes isn't particularly odd. As a side note, this is not quite real time, so this is the summary for last week so it doesn't yet include the eruption in Guatemala.

Why not use Gorilla-Glass for cutting boards?

Hard surfaces like glass ruin the edge on knives. Cutting boards are wood and plastic to allow better and faster chopping and slicing motions while avoiding bending of the blade edge. Don't use glass (or stone or ceramic or anything hard) cutting boards.

why do rich people have credit cards?

It makes more sense for rich people to have them. They can afford to hit all their payments. Credit cards aren't supposed to be for buying shit you can't afford.

How far did Nazi Germany's anti-Slavic sentiment extend? Did it encompass all Slavic peoples? Were certain Slavic peoples seen as better or worse than other Slavic peoples?

The short answer to this question is that different Slavic groups were not seen as equal in the eyes of Nazi leaders. However, this was largely due to necessity and logistics rather than true, unabashed ideology, especially as the Second World War progressed. Due to the nature of my expertise, the following answer will be focused on German interactions with Czechs. Despite the exclusion of an in-depth discussion of German interactions with other Slavic groups, I believe Nazi policy towards Czechs and Sudeten-Germans within the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia to be the perfect example of the belief that some Slavs could be treated differently or "better" by the Reich. One thing that should be noted at the start of this, is that even ethnic Germans outside of the borders of Germany-proper were often ostracized by Nazi occupation. Most Sudeten-Germans especially had a particular identity that did not seek to build connection with other Germans in Austria or Germany, but rather sought to create a unique identity that was tied to the natural landscape of the Sudetenland specifically. This was supported by "Heimat," or "homeland" groups, which heavily attempted to spacialize Sudeten-German nationalism. Heimat lead hiking and excursion clubs, as well as natural history and preservation groups "nurtured the idea that [Sudeten] German achievements were inscribed in the [Sudetenland's] landscape” (Glassheim, *Cleansing the Czechoslovak Borderlands*, 27). Heimat activists especially sought to build this identity especially in opposition to a Czech identity that was supposedly based on "modernity" and industry, as well as “alienation from the soil, denationalization, and godless socialism” (Glassheim, *Cleansing the Czechoslovak Borderlands,* 33). With this being noted, as I've mentioned in [other answers](_URL_1_), Sudeten-German nationalist parties, such as the Sudetendeutsche Partei, were decidedly Pro-Reich, but this does not mean that the Sudeten-German identity was not one completely unique of a wider Pan-German identity that the Reich desired to create. Additionally, historian Tara Zahra has done great work in showing that most of those who lived in interwar Czechoslovakia, both German and Czech, were often more anational, and the lines between what constituted a "German" and what constituted a "Czech" were often blurred, with many being able to speak both languages, as well as widespread "mixed" marriages. This uncertainty of exact ethnicity within Czechoslovakia is especially pertinent for understanding the absurdity of Nazi racial policy within the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia during the Second World War, as Nazi policy wished to enforce strict racial policies in a place where ethnicity had characteristically been uncertain. On the topic of resistance to occupation: many Czech patriots had been disheartened by former President Beneš's capitulation to the Munich Decree in 1938, and Czech Communists had been absolutely mortified by Stalin's signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (a metaphorical deal with the Devil [Hitler] in the eyes of Czech Communists). These facts, combined with the lack of a tradition with armed resistance or partisan warfare among the Czechs (as opposed, for example, to the Yugoslavs), meant that Czechs practiced traditional, open resistance against Nazi occupation comparatively less than other occupied Slavic groups. Where Czech resentment existed, it was usually directed at Sudeten-Germans rather than Reich Germans. Often, many Sudeten-Germans who could, did not initially opt for Reich citizenship due to fear from social and economic boycotts that Czech patriots might call for. Additionally, although Reich Germans occupied high ranking positions within the Protectorate's administration, Sudeten Germans usually occupied entry level bureaucratic positions and therefore were often the ones to deal face to face with Czech dissenters. Czech resistance was mostly manifested in subjective, less concrete, or otherwise less measurable ways than open armed conflict or "traditional" resistance (although resistance groups, such as the Ústřední vedení odboje domácího, or ÚVOD, did exist). Czechs often practiced intentional incompetence at their jobs, especially if they worked in a war related industry, such as steel or weapon manufacturing, in order to sabotage the war effort. Other actions that were deemed "acting nationally," such as making a point to speak Czech rather than German, or telling jokes that undermined the perceived authority of the Reich, were popular ways to resist Germanization that were more ambiguous, harder to notice, and thus harder to punish than more "traditional" ideas of resistance. Cited below, Mastný's *The Czechs Under Nazi Rule* is a great work on Czech Resistance. Hermann Göring, among other Reich officials, especially tied their expansionist goals not to ethnicity but rather to an economically strong, industrialized "mitteleuropäische," and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia would be integral to achieving this, especially as Czechoslovakia had been the 10th largest industrial producer per capita in the world during the interwar period, and 70% of Czechoslovakia's industry was located in the Protectorate (Bryant, *Prague in Black*, 77, 78). The revocation of Jewish property in the Protectorate was enough to justify the ideological reversal of "Czechification" of the Protectorate, and Reich officials allowed non-Jewish Czechs to largely participate in the working economy, with 84% of the Protectorate's industrial managerial roles filled by Czechs in 1941. (Bryant, *Prague in Black*, 84, 85) Especially as the war situation became more dire for the Reich, the original goal of repopulating the Protectorate with Germans changed into a goal to make the Czechs "German." To conclude, economic necessity, along with the lack of cohesive and constant resistance compared to other occupied Slavic countries, meant that Czechs were afforded a better status in the eyes of the Reich. However, that is not to say that Czechs did not suffer. This answer's intention is not to belittle the suffering of Czech Jews by the Reich. Furthermore, we should not forget other horrendous acts committed by the Reich against Czechs, such as the [Lidice Massacre](_URL_0_). There is always a great deal of difficulty that comes attached to writing about these topics, not only in an emotional sense, but also because we should strive to avoid attaching collective guilt or innocence to groups. Collaboration and resistance are often grey areas, and harder to define than people would ideally enjoy. Finally, I find it easier to differentiate between different "German" classifications in the Czech language rather than English, so I apologize sometimes if in the above post it is unclear whether "German" refers to either a Reich German or a Sudeten-German. A great book to read for this all, heavily referenced in the above question and cited below, would be Chad Bryant's *Prague in Black.* His chapters "A Hopelessly Mixed People" and "The Reich Way of Thinking" are especially relevant. *Works of Interest:* Brandes, Detlef. *Die Tschechen unter deutschem Protektorat; Teil 1: Besatzungspolitik, Kollaboration und Widerstand im Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren bis Heydrichs Tod: (1939 - 1942)*. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1969. Bryant, Chad. *Prague in Black: Nazi Rule and Czech Nationalism.* Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Glassheim, Eagle. *Cleansing the Czechoslovak Borderlands: Migration, Environment, and Health in the Former Sudetenland*. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2016. Mastný, Vojtěch. *The Czechs Under Nazi Rule: The Failure of National Resistance, 1939-1942*. New York & London: Columbia University Press, 1971. Zahra, Tara. *Kidnapped Souls: National Indifference and the Battle for Children in the Bohemian Lands, 1900-1948*. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008.

how did "cheater boxes" (cable descramblers) allow you to watch premium tv channels for free?

Way back when, television was an analog signal. More accurately, it was a *series* of analog signals that your 100%-analog color television could use to produce a picture. You have three signals for color (your TV only looked at one if it was black-and-white) and a "timing" signal that indicated when it should start drawing a new line. The "vertical hold" was a sometimes-manual synchronization to that signal. "Scrambling" was really just that. Some of the signals were inverted, some of them were switched. But, fundamentally, you couldn't *add* in junk or actually do significant *math* to obscure the signal, because televisions simply didn't have the ability to un-do that and produce a working picture for your paying consumer. Likewise, before relatively powerful integrated electronics became available, it wasn't economically feasible to give a customer a powerful computerized set-top box just to watch some television. So your "encryption" was a scheme with only a few variables. Throw off the synchronization here, swap a color field here, and it would make the picture "off" enough to be unwatchable. But, likewise, once someone figured out your mechanism, they just had to create a relatively simply "decoder" to bring that signal back. TLDR: Analog encryption wasn't terribly complicated, but it was analog, so it required *hardware* as opposed to something digital, which might be more complex, but also could be done with a wider variety of hardware. Nowadays, everything is digital (because computing power, even for high-definition video, is so cheap) so analog encryption/decryption isn't a thing.

what causes hair to have a terminal length?

And why does my beard stop at a certain length?!

When the Berlin Wall went up, what did the average citizen, who supported the East German government think?

I'll take your second question first. The East German government, under Walter Ulbricht, officially called the Berlin Wall *der antifaschistischer Schutzwall* ("Anti-Fascist Protective Barrier"). When you remember that it was common for Eastern-Bloc politicians to casually refer to the capitalist west as "fascist," this accurately sums up the Ulbricht regime's justification for building the Wall: It was necessary to protect the GDR from the West. This was framed not merely in terms of military protection and counter-espionage, but also economic and demographic self-preservation. In the years before the erection of the Wall, the GDR hemorrhaged capital, both human and economic. Lured by the *Wirtschaftswunder* ("Economic Miracle") of the Federal Republic and West Berlin in the 1950s, and the strength of western currency, several million East Germans committed *Republikflucht* ("Desertion of the Republic"), fleeing to West Berlin or West Germany. Many of these refugees were young, educated, and skilled - precisely the sort of people that East Germany needed to stay. The unguarded border between East and West Berlin made such desertion exceedingly easy: One had, in many cases, only to walk across the street and report to the West Berlin authorities. This became the only widely available method of flight after 1952, when the East German government sealed the German-German border. In Berlin, traffic across the sector boundaries was an everyday reality. Many resident East Berliners held jobs or studied in West Berlin. West Berliners, for their part, would often cross into East Berlin for cheap shopping, since their Western Deutsche Mark was worth so much more than the Eastern Mark. The Ulbricht regime - not without reason - understood this situation to be a lethal threat to the survival of the GDR. His presentation of the problem, both to the broader public and to the GDR's Eastern Bloc allies, was a mix of truth and lies. He talked about the out-flow of goods due to commerce in Berlin, and of the "trade in people" - a less-than-convincing attempt to portray the refugees as kidnapping victims, when they were not being portrayed as venal traitors who stole an upbringing from the GDR before fleeing it for pecuniary reward in the West. Building the Wall, from this perspective, was like cauterizing a wound. And a similar medical analogy was deployed by Ulbricht himself. He justified the wall by describing the sort of people it was intended to hinder in an August 28, 1961 article in *Neues Deutschland*, the official paper of the ruling Socialist Unity Party of East Germany: "Counter-revolutionary vermin, spies and saboteurs, profiteers and human traffickers, spoiled teenage hooligans and other enemies of the people's democratic order [who] have been sucking on our Workers' and Peasants' Republic like leeches and bugs on a healthy body." The people of East Berlin reacted in much the same way as the people of West Berlin, though their reactions were understandably more muted. First, there is reason to believe that they understood even in advance of the Wall's rise that it was coming. In the days and weeks before the border closure, the number of refugees reporting to West Berlin's processing centers rose dramatically. This was, in part, spurred on by the East German government itself. On June 15, 1961, Ulbricht famously declared at a press conference that "no one has the intention of building a wall." ("*Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten.*") It has long been speculated that this statement was a dog-whistle to the people of Berlin, indicating that the East German government definitely intended to build a wall. Ulbricht's play here was to force the hand of the Khrushchev government in Moscow, which had opposed the building of a wall, by inciting more East Germans to cross the border, rendering the border situation even more unstable and untenable. After the border was actually sealed on August 13, 1961, there were some dramatic scenes in along the border as East Berliners attempted last-minute flights into the West. Nurse Ida Siekmann became the first casualty of the Wall on August 23, when she jumped from her window on the Bernauer Straße - the front facade of her apartment building was the border between the Soviet and French sectors - to her death on the pavement below. Others successfully dodged through gaps in the barbed wire that, initially, was all that constituted the "Wall." Groups of East Berliners observed the construction mostly from afar, since the builders were guarded by *Volkspolizei* and *Kampfgruppen der Arbeiterklasse* ("Combat Groups of the Working Class" - East German paramilitaries). Some of those crowds became vocal in their disgust and anger, but this came to little and was never as open or virulent as the activity of enraged West Berliners on the other side. There was certainly no repetition of the June 1953 strikes and protests that had so nearly toppled the Ulbricht government. In the ensuing years, many attempts were made to rush through, slip past, tunnel under, or fly over the Wall, but there was no organized, massive attempt on the part of East Berliners to protest or damage the Wall or its protectors. Whether this was a function of the repression of the East German government, self-control and acceptance on the part of the East German people, or genuine enthusiasm for the Anti-Fascist Barrier is hard to say. It was likely a combination of these factors, in grossly unequal proportions. Especially after the initial shock of the separation wore off, Berliners on both sides of the Wall acclimated to its existence in many ways. Whatever the proportion of acceptance to enthusiasm in the 1960s, how much popular support for the Wall remained by the end of the Cold War was clearly demonstrated by the crowds who cheered its fall to the echo in November of 1989.

If air can both heat things up (friction) and cool them down...

Air/wind doesn't have any special heating/cooling properties. It follows the same laws of heat exchange equilibrium that everything else does: If you put something a room with warmer air, it'll get warmer. If you put something in a room with colder air, it will get cooler. But your car engine has something in common with your body: it produces heat while it's working. Accordingly, the air immediately surrounding your body or engine is hotter than the air in the surrounding environment. When you turn on a fan and feel cooler, all that's happening is that the fan is dispersing the heat cloud that's surrounding your body (the opposite of what a blanket does: trap the heat cloud so that the heat builds up). So the answer to your question is that moving wind across a thing doesn't have any special mechanism for cooling that thing down. But if that thing has a bunch of heat already around it (as anything that produces heat will), blowing this cloud away can keep the temperature of the object from getting out of control.

Why don't we use deuterium in hydrogen powered cars? Wouldn't it be safer?

It would be equally safe but much much more expensive.

Why did the Roman Pilum(Javelin) die out?

The javelin was a weapon peculiar to Mediterranean warfare, especially for Latin/Italian, Iberian and Celt-Iberian peoples (Sanz 21). The use of javelins (not always the *pilum*, later the *spiculum* and earlier a different type, but javelins are all basically the same in function) remained a mainstay of Roman infantry warfare for basically the entire Roman period. We keep digging them up even in the late Empire (Bishop & Coulston 200). Indeed, missile warfare became in some ways more prominent rather than less in the late Roman period, with Germanic groups also using javelins (such as the *ango*), and there was an increasing trend toward training recruits in various types of ranged warfare, also including archery and slinging (Rance 251-3). Javelins did not go away with the 'fall' of Rome either, and throwing spears (again, the Germanic *ango,* which was based on the *pilum*) pop up in the Merovingian period, though it appeared to fall out of use by the 7th century AD (Halsall 164-5). Archery became perhaps more significant in this period, as it certainly was later (166). I see no reason why any great developments in warfare (tactical or technological) should be responsible for this gradual fading away of the Mediterranean sword-and-javelin style of fighting. In my view, fighting styles shifted over time for reasons as much to do with society and culture as with technology and tactics. Perhaps the intermittent disappearance and re-use of phalanx-like tactics at various stages of European history might fit this bill: it's not as if shield-and-spear ever stopped being an effective weapons combination.* I think it is perfectly explicable by the massive shift over time in the culture of Western Europe, and the role of the javelin could be in many ways readily filled by archers and the multi-skilled soldiers of the early Medieval period (166). There is a tendency by Westerners to view changes in and the relative effectiveness of different military tactics and fighting styles from a 'technological' standpoint. For instance many casual observers tend to obsess over the exact size and shape and capabilities of the *gladius* and *scutum* in explaining Roman success and ignore the fact that the Roman army in the Mid-Republic was a highly trained, highly motivated force with hugely superior manpower reserves to its enemies. I suppose the point I am making is that shifts in military equipment and fighting styles do not necessarily have to be tactical or 'Darwinian' in any way, but can reflect changes in societies, cultures and approaches over time that are not necessarily 'superior', just different. *I am of course aware that the Romans beat the Macedonians and Seleucids, who had all-but-perfected the classical phalanx, but tactics, generalship and superior Roman resources are important factors in this. Libyan (and Carthaginian) spearmen performed usually very well, even against Roman legionaries, in the Punic Wars for instance. Later on the Romans began to re-adopt spear-based fighting styles once more, though the performance of the Mid to Late Republican Roman legions clearly demonstrate that the Mediterranean style of fighting could, well handled, deal with any enemy (though I'm not factoring the fluctuating dominance of cavalry warfare in the ancient to early modern periods in here). The reasons for the use and re-use of spear tactics are probably as much to do with the quality of recruits and training, and cultural shifts, as any 'tactical' necessity. Sources: M.C. Bishop & J.C.N Coulston, Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (second edition), Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006. Guy Halsall, Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450-900, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2003. Philip Rance, "Battle" from The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare (Vol II), New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Quesada Sanz, F. ‘Not so different: individual fighting techniques and small unit tactics of Roman and Iberian armies’ in P. Francois, P. Moret, S. Pere-Nogues (eds) L’Hellenisation en mediterranee occidentale au temps des guerres puniqes. Actes du Colloque International de Toulouse, 31 mars-2 avril 2005. Pallas 70 (2006) 1-25.

Are the ocean floors scattered with bones?

I saw an excellent infographic a while back illustrating a "whale fall"--what happens to a whale's body after it dies. I'll look for it. In the meantime, here's an article that goes more in depth about it: [Whale fall](_URL_1_) edit: My mistake, it wasn't an infographic. It was this [video](_URL_0_). Quite beautiful, actually. One whale can support a community of organisms for 50-75 years after death.

why water completely damages a cell phone when submerged.

Electronic circuits are designed to only allow electricity to pass through certain parts at certain times. That's how your phone works. It's a set of boolean functions (1 or 0/true or false). Electricity passes through chip, and it makes a decision such as "and/or". If it's 'and', it sends the signal one way, and if it's 'or', it sends it another way. After it does that, this step is repeated through other logic gates that have other functions that aren't and/or (not/or or any of the many other variants). Once you submerge it into water, it doesn't follow this designed 'trail', and the phone short-circuits. Because water is conductive, the electrical signals go wherever they can, and electronics can't handle that. To make something of a comparison; It's the same reason you get in a line when you're shopping. Imagine if all the customers just threw all their items onto the counter at the same time and talked over each other. The cashier wouldn't know what to do. That's what the submersion is.

Why didn't the Muslims, Indians, Chinese, etc launch colonial efforts on the scale of the Europeans? Or more specifically, what caused the massive rise in colonial efforts in Europe?

There were many economic factors such as competition. The Ottoman Empire had risen to prominence leading up to period of European colonization. They controlled many of the trade routes to the east, and Europeans would have had to pay to use them. So, while it was obviously an economic risk to send ships out into the unknown, the conditions of the time made it a worthwhile gamble and there was a snowball effect once resources started coming back from the New World. In the absence of an empire in Western Europe, there was great competition between powers which sped up the race to colonize. China was already powerful during this period (Ming dynasty). You had the Mughal Empire in northern India, Ottoman Empire, etc. I am not trying to say that these established powers did not try to expand using new strategies, but just think about what risks an internet start-up can take today compared to an established company like IBM or Microsoft, and the kind of disruptive economic growth happens as a result. In addition to the economic factors, you must consider the geographic advantage that European countries had at the time. They were better positioned to send out expeditions than any of the powers in the east. It was not as feasible for, say China or Japan to send ships over the Pacific Ocean because of the long journey. They could and did take ships other places, but these places often had established powers and were not nearly as easy to conquer as the Americas proved to be. Meanwhile, after Gibraltar fell from Islamic control towards the end of the 1400s, European ships were able to get safe passage out of the Mediterranean Sea and then further west. This brings me to the most important factor in this period of colonization, and the reason why the Americas were a desirable place to colonize: The vast majority of Native Americans were killed by germs that the Europeans brought over. This effect streamlined the process of domination in a way that the Eastern powers could only dream of. The Mongol Empire certainly dominated Asia in dramatic fashion years before this period of European colonization, but they failed to conquer Japan in two separate campaigns. Just think of what they could have accomplished with the aid of these killer germs!

Why is there only a fixed geostationary orbit?

I like to think about this mathematically: If we require that the satellite is undergoing uniform circular motion, the gravitational force must supply all of the centripetal force: F = GmM/r^2 = mv^2 /r (M is the mass of the Earth, and m is the mass of your satellite) which we can solve to get a relation between r and v, our possible values of orbital radius and velocity for uniform circular motion: v^2 = GM/r This is the relation that tells us we can still have uniform circular motion if we increase the radius, we have to decrease the velocity, and if we decrease the radius, we have to increase the velocity. There are an infinite number of uniform circular motion solutions to the system: each possible pairing (r, v). Now we want the satellite to be geostationary/geosynchronous. This means that we impose another requirement, that the period of the orbit is 24 hours: T = 2 pi r/v = 24 hours Well, this constitutes another relation between r and v, with its own infinite family of solutions (r, v). Combining these equations gives us 2 linearly independent equations with 2 unknowns, which is a system of equations with only one solution. Thus, there is only one possible set (r, v) that gives us geosynchronous orbits.

How do we know what we know about Custer's last stand? Are our sources exclusively native? Custer has a reputation as a reckless general and a political opportunist- how much of this was contemporary, vs after the fact? Should he have seen it coming? What were the battle's lasting repercussions?

This is kind of a Thanksgiving version of an answer since I am not at home, don't have access to my books and am writing purely from memory. Should it happen that I have the time and energy to more adequately address *all* of your questions at some later date --like maybe tomorrow?-- I will. With regard to whether or not Custer should have seen it coming, the answer is definitively yes. Virtually all of his scouts (an assortment of Crows and Arikaras as well as some old time traders like Charley Reynolds and Mitch Bouyer) repeatedly told him --as the 7th cavalry progressed from the Yellowstone, down the Rosebud and up to the divide separating it from the Little Bighorn-- that there was sign of thousands of horses and travois having passed through the area and converging on the Little Bighorn. All of the scouts would also have been very aware that the Lakota were holding a great council, as they traditionally did every year, and would have known that they had moved it to the Little Bighorn (or "Greasy Grass" as the Indians knew it) from the Black Hills under pressure from gold-seekers and a US government policy of official indifference to their treaty rights, which is just to say that they would have had one more reason to be hostile. The scouts would also have known that among the thousands of warriors camped along the Greasy Grass were a handful of known "hostiles" such as Crazy Horse, Gall, Sitting Bull, American Horse and Two Moons, a Cheyenne war chief who'd seen his wife and children killed by Custer's forces on the Washita in 1868. Custer would have had zero reason to expect anything less than a fight to the death from these men, and while the 7th Cavalry did contain a number of new recruits, many of its veterans would have known that they could expect no mercy from the hostiles. According to several sources I've read, the Arikara and Crow scouts who did not flee immediately before the battle (there were a handful who wisely got the hell out of there) began singing their death songs in the predawn hours as Custer deployed his forces. The upshot is that Custer had plenty of warning that he was walking into a deathtrap and, given his experience as an Indian fighter, certainly should have known better. As for why he did not, there are several possibilities. One is that he was relying on his past experience, as on the Washita, which told him that an early dawn attack against a sleeping Indian village could yield good results if it were conducted with speed and aplomb. Another, concomitant factor, may have been his refusal to acknowledge the actual numbers of Lakota and Northern Cheyenne camped along the Little Bighorn. While Custer certainly knew that he was taking a big chance --he had high political ambitions and felt that a great victory could propel him, ultimately, to the presidency-- it's not clear that he recognized that he was taking on 3-5k (possibly more) Lakota and Cheyenne warriors even though, had he listened to his scouts, he clearly should have. Ultimately then, no matter how one slices it, Custer had access to plenty of good intelligence as to the disposition and numbers of the Lakota and Cheyenne camped along the Greasy Grass and definitely should have known that he had zero chance of victory.

the difference between an hmo insurance plan and a ppo insurance plan, or different insurance plans in general, i suppose.

Ok. **HMO** = Health Maintenance Organization. It's where you have one doctor who oversees your general care: your Primary Care Physician [PCP]. Your PCP is the one you see most often, and who is most familiar with your situation. The PCP determines if you need to see a specialist for lab work or additional services, and will write a referral to those other physicians or facilities. If you go to one of them *without* a referral, your insurance pays considerably less (if at all) and you have to pay out of pocket. HMOs tend to cost less per month, and have a lower deductible. (A deductible is an annual minimum amount that you have to pay out of pocket before the insurance kicks in for certain types of treatment) **PPO** = Preferred Provider Organization. Unlike with an HMO, you do not have a PCP. Instead, there is a list of preferred providers within the network that you may visit as you see fit without being penalized. You can also typically see a doctor who is not on that list and still be covered (tho' not as well). PPOs give greater freedom to see who you want, but tend to cost a bit more per month and frequently have a higher deductible than HMOs. **Indemnity** = Pay for service. Indemnity plans are mostly a thing of the past, tho' some people might still have access. They let you see any provider without penalty, and do not require you to get referrals or select a PCP. They might require you to pay for the services you receive out of your own pocket, and then the insurance company will reimburse you afterwards. And there's typically a deductible involved.

how come when stars explode, they gush their matter out in 2 dimensions?

Doesn't that image [look familiar](_URL_0_)? The spectral matter is chasing the magnetic field.

Why did Vladimir I of Kievan Rus embrace Byzantine Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism?

Adding to the question, I just today read ("The Western Heritage since 1300 AP* Edition), that not only were there Catholic and Orthodox representatives plying for religious control of Russia, but there were also Jewish and Muslim representatives too. Was there any reason to choosing one over the other? Were Jews and Muslims stigmatized like they were in the rest Europe?

how come humans seem to be the only animal that require whiping their ass after shitting?

You might not like the answer. Other animals don't need to wipe because they can reach around and clean themselves with their tongue. They still clean themselves as needed, I'm surprised you haven't seen the dog doing it.

how are doctors incentivized to be better and compete for careers in the toughest specialties within healthcare systems that are socialized?

Countries with public healthcare still have private practices which you can pay money to see. There's a basic service provided by the government, but nobody is stopping patients from purchasing more extensive coverage on top of it. You also have to keep in mind that hospitals are still competing with each other, so they will pay more to have good doctors. Yes, everyone's healthcare is subsidized, but a hospital with better doctors will have more patients and thus make more money.

How much of ancient history are we missing?

Well, "history" is the study of text, but generally that means that it only goes back as far as there has been written word (and myths and oral histories etc). In Western Eurasia, this goes back to the Sumerians in about the fourth millennium, although one could argue that you still can't really do "history" for some time afterwards. However, we can extend our knowledge of past societies far back before that with archaeology, the study of past material remains. Archaeology can tell us a great deal about the societies it studies, such as economies, political structures, and religions. Now, to answer your question, the period you are curious about is called the "Neolithic" which is a word essentially meaning "new stone age" and is a period of time after the development of agriculture and before the use of metal. [Çatalhöyük](_URL_0_) is southern Turkey is probably the most famous Neolithic site in the "Fertile Crescent", but an important thing to remember is that there is no "one thing" happening at this time. You are asking about the entire surface of the earth, a whole bunch of things were happening, and the spread of agriculture around the Black Sea had about as much to do with what as going on in Florida as the Lapita settlement of Tonga had to do with Homer. As a side note, please disregard the Ancient Aliens nonsense in the other response.

how in boxing a person can get cut when punched by someone wearing gloves?

Friction. Even with gloves on, often times glancing blows still carry enough force to cause enough glove-to-skin friction to split the skin open. This is why you see boxers and fighters put Vaseline on their cheeks and eyebrows.

why are some people coordinated and some people not? what in your brain determines how coordinated you are?

***Hand-eye coordination*** is quite complex, involving *several regions of your brain* dedicated to processing visual information, motor control, proprioception, eye movement, et cetera. Generally speaking and without getting into details of human neuroanatomy, this kind of **coordination requires your** ***brain*** **and your** ***body*** **to communicate well with each other**, so they both have to work well. Your ***genetics*** influence your *potential* to be faster, stronger, smarter than others, so that's a start, and there is a *relationship between motor skills and intelligence* (intelligence isn't actually one single component, but entails many qualities, such as visuo-spatial intelligence). But genetics isn't everything. Humans are born to learn language, but if we trap a human in a dungeon forever, he won't learn anything. ***Coordination*** is related with how efficient your *neuronal wiring* is and *how fast your neurons fire*. The human brain is ***plastic***, which means it can *reorganize itself* to a certain extent (more so when you're young rather when you're older), for example to heal itself, to remove useless cerebral connections to become more effective or to reorganize regions to become more specialized in something (ex. learning a language - which is why it's easier to learn a language while a child). *Like a muscle, you can train it:* typing is an easy example, you're learning a complex sequence of rapid finger movements and with daily practice you learn to be very quick and efficient. While you're practicing, you're stimulating the brain into changing its cortical excitability (how easy it is to make neurons fire) and reorganizing itself, reflecting you learning how to type and making you better at doing that. ***Summing it up***, some people are born with a better body and a brain that is more efficient at processing and coordinating its information and transmitting everything to the body and backwards, but depending on your physical activity, you're not only making your body stronger/faster but you're also stimulating your brain into getting specialized at "throwing punches" (therein the importance of repeating the same punch several times while learning martial arts).

how is america not totally collapsing because of debt and the dollar bill losing value?

The US is in *such* a better financial position than it was just 7-8 years ago. No one's talking about the banks and financial system collapsing this time. Almost all countries have debt. Debt isn't a problem unless other countries stop believing you can pay it back eventually. The dollar is neither particularly strong nor particularly weak right now, compared to long-term historical values.

At the time, did people think there would be a WW2?

Marshal Ferdinand Foch, the man who accepted the german armistice famously stated in 1919, ["This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years".](_URL_0_) He was correct, WWII began 20 years and 64 days later. He was not the only one who shared that sentiment. Winston Churchill avidly spoke about rearmament during the 1930s, but for the most part the general public did not.

how does the government keep increasing the debt ceiling? are they simply pushing the debt onto the future generation?

The debt ceiling is an artificial limit on debt. It has no effect on actual interest rates or the borrowing power of the US. It is simply a red tape tool used to cause debate about spending every few months. Because it was created by congress, they can also raise it. This is like you saying, I'm only going to eat 6 more times. After that 6th meal, you can then tell yourself that you'll raise the total amount of meals by 3 to a total of 9. You will do this every day, adding 3 more meals to the total amount of meals you will ever allow yourself to eat. The US gains debt whenever it spends more than it collects. (taxes, funds, tariffs) The US also gains debt whenever someone buys a US backed bond. These bonds are an investment in the US and accrue interest. The money gained from these bonds pays for whatever our taxes don't. Each year we pay the interest on these bonds. Whenever someone says the US owes debt to China or to Social Security, it really means that those groups own bonds. The only thing they can do is essentially collect the interest off the bonds or sell the bonds. Currently US Bonds are the safest and most secure investment since US is very unlikely to default anytime soon. Because the interest rate on the bonds is so low, it actually makes great financial sense to grow our debt by investing more into the US. So long as the money spent grows the economy at a rate higher than the interest rate on our debt, the US profits. If we were ever to pay off our debt, it would be a later generation, but paying it off any time soon would actually hurt us and make it even harder for future generations.

Why must an electric charge be moving to experience a force inside a magnetic field?

> But what if the external electron is stationary? In that case, wouldn't the electrons inside the conductor undergo length contraction because they have a velocity relative to our external electron, resulting in a net negative charge? Shouldn't that also exert a force? A steady current in a wire implies that the wire has an overall neutral charge. What this thought experiment is trying to demonstrate is that for a neutral wire with a steady current, performing a coordinate transformation results in the wire no longer being electrically neutral leading to an electric force. Since both reference frame has to agree on the interaction between the wire and the test charge, the magnetic field manifests itself in the rest frame of the wire. That also implies that the external test charge has to be moving to experience this force, or there wouldn't be a charge imbalance from the rest frame of the test charge.

why jeremy corbyn is being described as a 'threat to national security'

If you say something is a threat to nation security or something similar you will automatically mobilize a huge segment of conservative votership against someone. It's nothing more than a cheap political move, but it will probably work.

Do "non-water rainbows" exist and (if yes) what do they look like?

The main difference between different liquids boils down to their indices of refraction and their dispersion. Changes in the index of refraction would alter the size of the rainbow arc, while changes in their dispersion would change how wide the actual rainbow band is. If the dispersion is negative, it would also flip the order of the rainbow (Red would be on the inside, and violet would be on the outside).

Would it be possible to use MagLev technology for faster/ cheaper Space Shuttle launches?

This is definitely possible; a more practical arrangement would be a straight track running through a tunnel angled through a mountain range pointed along your desired orbit. You probably wouldn't want to use magnetic levitation exactly either, rather a sled propelled through electromagnetic propulsion. There are a variety of interesting hurdles to overcome with such an arrangement. For example firing a projectile down the tunnel leaves a lot of air to move out of the way to allow passage. What do you do with it? It can't escape out the end fast enough so it would compress at the front of the projectile, stealing energy from the launch and perhaps damaging the payload. Engineering vents in miles of launch tunnel increases costs, and due to being underground probably won't exhaust to the surface. The benefits to such a launch system are interesting. While it would require similar energy as a rocket launch the energy can be obtained and spent in a different way. You could for example use electrical energy from hydroelectric generators rather than chemical rockets. You don't have to carry as much fuel along with the payload thus increasing the load or decreasing the vehicle size. Drawbacks might include throwing launch sleds into the plains beyond the mountain range, and your launch tunnel melting and requiring regular maintenance.

When a new language is discovered, how do people start deciphering it?

Ooh! I can answer this one. Sort of. I studied linguistics at university, and Field Methods is one of the major aspects. So, while I can't talk about the historical aspect, I can talk about the modern approach. I can't imagine there's much that has changed there aside from the rigor of the method (you'll see what I mean in a bit). The first step is to build a lexicon - a list of words. If the language is a living one, that's easy enough: the translator simply points at an object either in the abstract (on a map, for example) or in real life and tries to get the native speakers to name it, then records that name (this, of course, has been lampooned by Terry Pratchett when he talks about mountains that are named "Mountain", forests named "Lots of Trees", and even rivers named "Your Finger You Fool"). Once a substantial enough lexicon has been built, the idea is to start looking for patterns - phonetic (sounds), morphemic (units of meaning), lexical (higher units of meaning), and semantic (socially-contextualised units of meaning). From there, the patterns are tested. The translator will try to generate their own sentences with the information they have at hand. They *want* to get it wrong at this stage, because they will learn more in being corrected than in getting things correct. This process will go on and on, hopefully with multiple translators to correct for any confirmation bias or blind spots (some languages, for example, have a women's version and a men's version, so you'll need both genders translating to get both versions). Ideally, this process will go on for generations, because languages are, no kidding, *huge*. Hundreds of thousands of words, *millions* of permutations, *billions* of potential interpretations. And this doesn't take into account how some words simply do not gloss well. Look at r/DoesNotTranslate for some great examples. Problems, of course, arise with languages that no longer have any living speakers. We can't test the language, so we're left with huge gaping holes in our knowledge. Furthermore, no one's there to correct us if we go off track (by, say, misapplying a minor word, such as the difference between "educate" and "elucidate"). Historically, recorded language also tended toward the more formal, with graffiti being a major exception. We therefore miss out on a whole lot of colloquial stuff too.

- how do we perceive color?

if you are british you can watch this _URL_0_ its an episode of horizon that explores how people see colour. in recent research there's evidence that not everybody sees it the same way. for example in modern society we see primary and secondary colours as being very distinct. but a certain african tribe find it difficult to distinguish between certain colours. but that tribe sees the difference between certain shades of green more greatly than we do. because maybe it helps them distinguish ripe vegetables when gathering food. it's a good watch.

Is there a trade off that makes it hard for a virus to be both very contagious and very deadly?

Yeah, viruses that are overly virulent kill their hosts before they are able to transmit the virus to new hosts, so more deadly viral lineages tend to burn out before being widely transmitted. So there's an evolutionary trade off between high virulence and a strain's ability to maintain itself in a population.

(tennis elbow) why does applying pressure to the mid-arm, such as using a compression sleeve, greatly reduce or eliminate pain from tennis elbow?

The compression bands are meant to be worn about an inch or two down from where the tendon attaches to the bone. This helps to take the pressure off the tendon and allow it to heal. Basically the bands make our body think that the tendon actually attaches at the band, rather than at the bone. This allows the tendon to heal because when you use the muscle, the inflamed area isn't being used. In response to the person talking about shin splints, the bands for shin splints don't work because a lot of times there is too much compression in the shin and that's what causes the shin splints. Also, shin splints are not usually located in the tendon, as much as the entire muscle. So there's really not a specific area to take the pressure off.

how is amd still in business?

> they seem to consistently post losses, in both revenue and market share. That's not enough information. Is that in only one market sector? AMD gave up on the PC market years ago, and that only makes up a small percent of their entire revenue stream. They make semi-conductors, and that's more than just processors, but also things like photo sensors, power converters, amplifiers, different types of diodes...

Can a planet have a core made of diamond?

Not a core, but a planet with a higher carbon/oxygen ratio than Earth might end up with a mantle composed of diamond and silica carbide. However, these materials are poorer insulators than the silicate-dominated mantle we have, so such a planet would cool fairly rapidly in its interior and lack surface tectonics and volcanic outgassing, which are vital to the stability of Earth's habitable climate.

Is it possible for a conductive room temperature gas to exist?

Generally no, gases don't have free electrons. If you ionized it, it would be a plasma (which does conduct), and if you're asking if there is cold plasma, [there is](_URL_0_) (they're in fluorescent lights).

how does overall wealth actually increase?

When we convert raw materials into other resources, the value increases. Raw steel and rocks isn’t that useful, but build a building and you can house people/do commercial activities. Wood isn’t useful, but you can print knowledge on paper and books are more valuable than raw wood. This concept extends to ideas, not just physical materials. A new technology like self-driving cars increases the value of the economy. A new app that allows you to easily order food delivery also adds value. As Long as economic activity exists, humans are constantly transforming resources, and value will increase.

Is our solar system falling through space?

> Are we "falling?" In the sense that orbiting celestial bodies are in an [inertial frame of reference](_URL_0_), and falling while on earth also places you in an inertial reference frame, then yes, stars and planets are "falling". But don't confuse that with there being some sort of universal "down" direction that everything's falling toward. Rather, orbiting bodies are essentially in a constant state of free-fall around the body that they're orbiting -- always falling, but with enough "sideways" velocity to continuously "miss".

why a bunch of people have birthdays the same day?

You expect to see lots of pairs (we'd need more precise data to determine whether your group of friends shows more than the expected number, however). Although this is counterintuitive at first glance, it's actually fairly obvious if you look at it the right way. The point is that although the chance of any two people sharing a birthday is quite low (1/365), there are so many pairs of people that this *could* happen to, that it becomes almost inevitable that it *will* happen to a fair number of pairs. eg with 200 people, there are 19,900 different pairs of people, so we'd expect a lot of matches. Indeed with only 23 people (so 253 possible pairs of people) there is already 50/50 chance you get at least one pair sharing a birthday.

why do we feel the need to play with our phone or read something while pooping?

It's boring. We need something to keep our minds occupied. Reader's Digest was the original smartphone for that.

why does stroking animals relax/calm us down?

i covered this topic in a class in university way back in the caveman days they would sit around the fire with their half wild dogs stroking their fur elicited the guard guard guard instinct in the animal thats the theory anyways so basically the theory is we were able to relax knowing we were protected

What affects continental drift?

Here's a reconstruction of the last ~250 million years, which basically shows the break up of Pangea. The thing to remember is that Pangea is only the most recent supercontinent; there have been at least 6 or 7 over Earth's 4.5 billion year history. _URL_0_ The driving force, very simply, is gravity. Thermal buoyancy in the mantle means that convection cells get set up, and these drag the surface plates along with them. Subduction oceanic slabs are a big part of this, as they draw dense cold material back down into the mantle. New oceanic crust gets formed in mid ocean ridges. There's practically no oceanic crust on the planet older than ~200 million years, while continental crust can be viewed as a silica-rich scum which is not dense enough to sink back into the mantle to get recycled. As a result continental crust is up to ~ 4 billion years old in places. Continents and supercontinents which have been formed can be rifted apart again by rising and divergent mantle convection cells - we can see this happening at the moment in the Afar region of E Africa, where a rift valley is forming which could ultimately form a new ocean basin. Meterorite impacts have had no recognised impact on plate tectonics (the timescales of mantle flow are in the millions of years).

why we have the right to bear arms (guns), but not swords?

If the Congress of the United States tried to pass a law unreasonably restricting your right to keep and bear a sword, that law would be challenged on the same grounds as a law unreasonably restricting your right to keep and bear a gun. "Arms" means arms. It doesn't mean *fire*arms specifically.

What are the greatest "missing" objects that are probably still in existence? (stolen etc.)

Actually, there are a lot of papyri and archeological pieces from the ancient Egypt which have never been studied by archeologists and egyptologists. These numerous missing objects are actually in the hands of collectionners. This is the result of the state of egyptology in the 18th and 19th centuries : Egyptology as a science just started with the decipherment of the hieroglyphics, in 1822. Before that, and until the creation of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in 1858 by Auguste Mariette, egyptian antiquities have been stolen because of their value and the mysticism attached to the old egyptian civilisation.

Why can't I remember a smell or taste the same way I can an image or a sound?

Perfumer here. With training any person would be able to replicate smells inside their heads as well as any visual or auditory input. The main problem is cultural. Our western society does not value the sense of smell as highly as other senses: children are not taught to notice odors, our olfactory "vocabulary" is really limited, we are not used to rely on our sense of smell on a day-to-day basis etc. The Jahai people in the Malayan peninsula is the best example I can remember of a culture that highly praises the sense of smell, having even specific vocabulary to describe odors: [an article on Cognitive magazine about that](_URL_0_) edit: formatting. edit 2: removing link to non-scientific article. edit 3: changed "remembering" to "replicating inside the head".

Just how much different are actual languages different from their «old» counterpart? (eg Old English)

That's a pretty complex question. Languages all move at their own pace, and have their own unique history, so it's going to be a different answer for each language. English has gone through a lot of changes from its "Old" to "Modern" stages, so Old English and modern English are very different. Here's an exerpt from "[Beowulf](_URL_2_)," an epic poem in Old English, written around 900 A.D.: > Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum, > þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, > hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon. > Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum, > monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah, > egsode eorlas. It looks very different to today's English, mostly because the language hadn't borrowed very much yet from Norman French (that comes later, after the Norman invasion of 1066). It had a lot of very different grammar rules, too - more like today's Germanic languages (eg, German, Icelandic) than today's English. Old French and Modern French are also very different, but less so than Old English and Modern English. Looking at the oldest written piece of Old French, from the [Oaths of Strasbourg](_URL_1_) (842 A.D.): > Pro Deo amur et pro christian poblo et nostro commun saluament, d'ist di in auant, in quant Deus sauir et podir me dunat, si saluarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo, et in adiudha et in cadhuna cosa si cum om per dreit son fradra saluar dist, in o quid il mi altresi fazet. Old French looks very Latin, still, but - and I'm relying on your Quebecois eyes, here - you can see where there are elements of Modern French already. (Edit: [Modern French translation of that text here.](_URL_0_)) Italian is a bit different. There is no real "Old Italian," as "Italian" was originally many different dialects. What Italians speak today is essentially the same as the Italian dialect spoken in Florence in the 1300s, made popular by Florentine author Dante Alighieri. An example from his "[La divina commedia](_URL_3_)" (1308-1321): > Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita > mi ritrovai per una selva oscura > ché la diritta via era smarrita. > Ahi quanto a dir qual era è cosa dura > esta selva selvaggia e aspra e forte > che nel pensier rinova la paura! Aside from his use of the *passato remoto* tense ("mi ritrovai" rather than "mi sono ritrovato"), it basically reads like modern Italian, and actually, the *passato remoto* is still often used today in the southern regions of Italy, so even that isn't really obsolete. I hope that gives you some useful information. If I can answer any questions, please let me know. Edit: Also, here is a comparison of Old High German (500-1050 A.D.) and modern German: > Old High German: Oba Karl then eid, then er sīnemo bruodher Ludhuwīge gesuor, geleistit, indi Ludhuwīg mīn hērro then er imo gesuor forbrihchit, ob ih inan es irwenden ne mag: noh ih noh thero nohhein, then ih es irwenden mag, widhar Karlo imo ce follusti ne wirdhit. (From the [Oaths of Strasbourg](_URL_4_) again, 842 A.D.) > Modern German translation: Falls Ludwig/Karl den Eid, den er seinem Bruder Karl/Ludwig schwört, wahrt und Karl/Ludwig, mein Herr, seinerseits ihn bricht, und wenn ich ihn nicht davon abhalten kann, dann werde weder ich noch irgendjemand, den ich davon abhalten kann, mich an einer Hilfeleistung gegen Ludwig/Karl beteiligen.

Anyone know of any mafia families who had their sons serve in World War II? Any post-WWII crime bosses who were veterans?

One of my favorite fiction books is *The Fortunate Pilgrim* by Mario Puzo, and it's about an Italian-American family living in New York. One of the sons of the family is involved with organized crime (the Italian mafia, if you will) and another is conscripted to go fight WWII. The dynamic between the brothers is great. I recommend reading it, especially if you're going to try to write something similar. It sounds like you intend to focus more on the war aspect than Puzo did (it's only a very short moment in the book), so I think you can easily avoid repeating any of his ideas.

how to differentiate whether a person is chinese, japanese, korean, etc. (honest question - not meant to seem racist)

Sometimes you can tell by their surnames. Common Korean names are Kim, Park, Cho, or Han. Very simple. You can usually recognize a Japanese name, like Takahashi, Nakamura, Hayashi, Yamamoto, etc. - very different from Korean or Chinese names. Japanese names never start with V, X, or Z, but Chinese names may start with X or Z. Common Chinese names are Wang/Wong, Chang, Wu, Yang. But there is some overlap, of course, so use this with a grain of salt. A lot of Asians can't even differentiate by looks most of the time, so don't feel bad. Just ask politely like you're just curious and they probably won't mind telling you.

why do we have phobias that weren't a result of early experiences?

A fear of clowns deals with something known as the "uncanny valley". It applies to objects that are close enough to humans to be recognized as such, but they aren't quite "right". Features are drawn to be highly exaggerated. Your brain doesn't know how to react. "It's like me... But it's not. It might attack." It's the same reason that people are afraid of dolls. They're so familiar, but something is off.

through what mechanism is a ventilator an effective treatment for respiratory illness?

The patient can still take extra breaths when the body is signaling it needs more oxygen, but a ventilator takes away the work of breathing (the energy required to move the diaphragm again and again). A patients diaphragm may not be able to keep up with inspiratory demands with the rest of the body needing energy for other things, such as fighting off the virus. I don’t remember exactly how much breathing is in terms of energy usage, but a ventilator (if set to the right deepness, pressure, and frequency of breaths) takes away that work so your body can put it to other uses.

Why did the Great Migration in US history start in the 1910s instead of earlier like after the Civil War (1865) or the end of Reconstruction (1877)?

Essentially you've hit the nail on the head with your last sentence > a perceived lack of opportunity in the North While the First Great Migration (1910-1930) was largely caused by the brutality of Jim Crow Laws and Lynchings, another reason were the increased job opportunities in the North, which largely didn't exist before 1910. The huge jump in Northern manufacturing capability required a massive boost in labor, which African-Americans would meet. Northern manufacturers like Henry Ford even sent men into the South to recruit black laborers for their factories. Before the Great Migrations, there was simply no pull to the North or West for African Americans.

The ocean level stands for 0 high. If the ocean level rises, will the understanding of 0 high change too?

The notion of 'sea level' isn't actually the current sea level because that changes from year to year and more profoundly from place to place. Weather, moon, the geography of the water body in the area, and climate change, are just a few of the things that change 'actual' sea level (this is all from [Wikipedia](_URL_0_)). In science, people are usually trying to describe a standard pressure, which has been generally agreed upon as [standard sea level](_URL_1_) or 101.325 kPa. As for other uses of 'sea-level' where you're literally talking about water level and not just the pressure of a standard system, you're pretty much stuck using the mean water-level or whatever makes sense in the context of what's being described. I doubt that standard pressure will be adjusted anytime soon for increasing global water levels, only because there already remains such a vast variation in sea levels and pressures for the reasons I listed above, but even moreso because the past century of science uses the standard for pretty much everything. And finally, I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about when you say 0, but you might be talking about a specific datum? > In the UK, the Ordnance Datum (the 0 metres height on UK maps) is the mean sea level measured at Newlyn in Cornwall between 1915 and 1921. Prior to 1921, the datum was MSL at the Victoria Dock, Liverpool. TL;DR: Standard pressure references probably won't change, but sea-level has already been changing quite profoundly depending on how you look at it.

why does bacteria grow faster at certain temperature?

All bacteria have certain temperatures that their enzymes, or proteins in their bodies which process nutrients and other things perform at the maximum rate. As the environment temperature increases, enzyme action increases until it reaches a high enough temperature that enzymes denature, meaning that their substrate area (where enzymes attach to food) unfold, therefore not allowing them to interact with what they are supposed to. As temperature gets colder, enzymes simply work at a slower pace. So I guess the basic answer to your question is that temperature speeds up enzyme activity, allowing them to process nutrients faster allowing for faster growth. Sorry for the lengthy response...

if double jeopardy exists, why can a judge overturn a sentencing and retry someone?

He was already found guilty, the issue here is that the sentence for the guilt was out of line considering the sentencing guidelines. Double Jeopardy protects from being tried again for the same crime (decision of guilt or not), not protection from an improper trial (hung jury, mistrial, etc).

Quick high school chemistry question

They're both technically correct, but your dad is correcter.

why do waterproof materials (tents and shower curtains) let water through when something touches it?

They're not really waterproof, is the simple answer. They're mostly waterproof, and rely on angles to shed and wick the water away faster than it would drip out the other side. This means you can make a relatively light and inexpensive material that still allows for airflow. As to why your finger makes it come through, it's basically surface tension. When there's nothing touching the inside, the water sticks together and drains down, but when you touch it, the water can stick together and flow onto your finger.

how is space debris tracked?

The [US Space Surveillance Network](_URL_0_) includes both ground-based sensors and satellites that do the tracking.

how can a founder of a company, like papa john, be forced to step down from ceo

Papa John's is a publicly traded company. This means that individuals can buy portions of the company called "shares" and the company can use that money to invest and grow. John Schnatter kept 25% of the company for himself when they went public, but the other 75% was sold in order to grow the brand. The shareholders are represented by a board of directors. Schnatter has a lot of power, but if they all agreed he shouldn't be CEO then they can make him. They can choose a new CEO. What they *can't* do is take away his 25% of the company. So he still owns 25% of the company. He still will make millions and millions of dollars from Papa John's. He just doesn't actually *run* the company any more.

How do sunburns go away?

A sunburn isn't the same as a tan. Tans are caused by the production of melanin in the skin as a response to sun exposure. Sunburns are the layers of your skin literally being burned by sunlight, and the redness is caused by inflammation, not pigment. The redness goes away as healing occurs.

why is rent control a bad thing?

One of the main reason capitalism works is that prices somewhat accurately reflect supply and demand. Rent control takes away this information. As a result, there isn't the same incentive to create new developments. Less new development means less supply, which would increase prices, but they're kept artificially low which compounds the problem. You end up with a situation where the government then has to step in to create new housing, because businesses don't find it profitable. How disastrous it ends up depends on how out of tune the government rent control is with what the open market prices would have been. This isn't like banking regulations or employment insurance though, it's a reduction of information that never ends well.

How does a computer graph a function?

It plots individual points. "Insane" is an exaggeration. Think about this, say you had a super HD 4K monitor and had the graph going across the entire screen. If the software were to individually compute every pixel it displays... it would only have to compute about 4000 points, one for every x value, which is not hard for a computer at all for most functions, certainly easier than making inferences about arbitrary functions (but not necessarily if the form of the function is known in advance).

Why did the Constitution specify March 4 (the date) for the start of the new president's term? Why did FDR specify January 20 (the date) as the new date in the 20th amendment?

To answer the first part of your question: The Constitution did **not** specify March 4, or any other date, as the beginning of the new President's term. It stated only that the length of the President's term was four years. And, while the Constitution gave Congress the power to set the date for the selection of Electors, and the date the Electors should cast their votes, it did *not* give Congress the power to set the date on which the President's term began. Congress met for the first time on March 4th 1789. This date was the [result of a vote of the Continental Congress](_URL_0_): > Resolved, That the first Wednesday in January next be the day for appointing electors in the several States, which before the said day shall have ratified the said Constitution; that the first Wednesday in February next be the day for the electors to assemble in their respective States and vote for a President; and that **the first Wednesday in March** next be the time, and the present seat of Congress [New York] the place for commencing, proceeding under the said Constitution." [EDIT: So, to answer OP's specific question, it looks as if they were fond of Wednesdays, and March 4th happened to be a Wednesday in 1789]. Although Congress didn't count the electoral votes of the first Presidential election until April 6th of that year, and President Washington was not sworn in until April 30th, his term in office was retroactively considered to have begun on March 4th (since that was when the new Constitution "commenced"). Since every Presidential term was four years long, as specified by the Constituion, every subsequent Presidential term (until the XX Amendment was enacted) also began on March 4th.

what happened at the nevada democratic convention last night?

There are many videos of what is apparently misconduct in the voting process aimed at benefitting Hillary Clinton and suppressing the supporters of Bernie Sanders.

what makes even "healthy" or "normal" people sad from time-to-time for no reason at all (it seems like)?

Every now and then I remember how pointless and insignificant everyone's lives are.

How did showering to clean one's body become a thing?

William Feetham patented a chain-release shower in 1767. In the late 1800s communal showers took hold by French military, under the direction of physician François Merry Delabost who had first tried them out on prisoners for reasons of economics and hygiene. In modern times showers did not start to become common until the early 1920s, by which time homes had water heating and reliable plumbing, and had shower heads in existing tubs. But it was slow going at first. A 1954 article in Challenge magazine noted, "the plumbing industry confidently predicts that the day is not far off when a bathroom and bathtub (with shower) will become a necessary adjunct to every bedroom in the home." (Challenge Vol. 2, No. 6 (March 1954), pp. 36-38).

Could DNA fossilize?

Unfortunately probably not. A relatively recent study pegged the half life of DNA at around 500 years depending on the environmental surroundings. So every 500 years roughly half of the remaining bonds in the DNA molecule will be broken. After 2000 years, you would only expect 1/16 of the bonds to be remaining. And it's all downhill from there. Recently extinct animals could possibly have their DNA sequenced (and in fact the wooly mammoth has been mostly sequenced) but they would be much less likely to be fossilized. So we probably aren't getting DNA from fossils. Also, we don't use microscopes to read the DNA sequence. We use DNA sequencing, which I can explain in more detail if you're interested in that.

Would a single candle in an otherwise unlit circus Hall of Mirrors provide the same lighting effect as an equivalent number of real candles (equivalent to the number of reflections) in a normal room?

Think of it this way. For every mirror there is an area NOT lit because light headed for that area was redirected by the mirror, at a loss because the mirror is not 100% efficient. That's where the seemingly "extra" light comes from.

the weekend

From a Euro-American perspective, the Sabbath has been around since Biblical times, so the idea of having one day per week to take a break is ancient. I believe that current 5-day work week started around the later Industrial revolution, when more people began paying attention to things like worker welfare (no more children playing around with heavy machinery), as well as starting to introduce a shorter workday (eventually ending in the 9-5 workday we have now) Hard to say what the sole effect of making a five week day was since it was a change accompanied by shorter workdays and better labor regulation. Wiki: _URL_0_

Hitler glorified blonde hair and blue eyes, yet he himself didn't look stereotypically "Aryan". Did he consider himself and the other Austrians to be "lower quality Aryans" and the Scandinavians "higher quality Aryans"? I.e did he consider himself "pure"?

Hitler discussed this in Mein Kampf. He promoted the idea of five sub-races of the Aryan people. Dinaric, Alpine, mediterranean, Nordic, and Eastern Baltic. The best kind of Aryan is, you probably guessed it, are the predominantly blue eyed and fair headed Nordics. This was actually very popular, Nordicism I mean, way before Hitler promoted it. Anyway, Hitler said that Germans and other kinds of Aryans have either been diluted and weakened over time (mixing with Jewish people for example). He promoted blue eyed and blonde germans as models because they are less not Nordic. Essentially, Germans needed to expunge non-Nordic lineage which will cause them to have blue eyes and blonde hair again. The issue with Nordicism conflicted with Italy which promoted Mediterreneanism.

what's the purpose for the mid season finale pretty much all shows have now?

Lets everybody enjoy their holidays without watching TV and having to keep up while with family and gives more time to film and edit episodes

why are animals and plants so distinct, e.g why aren't there any plants that can walk or animals that do photosynthesis?

There are animals like a sponge that you would likely mistake for a plant if you didn't know better, and plants that can move and eat "meat" like a venus fly trap. I know that plants and animals are different in that plants have cell walls and animals have cell membranes, and given how far back on the tree of life we are related, those two things must be really different and important.

How good/bad were the Knights Templar in general?

The story you heard is from Usama ibn Munqidh, a poet and diplomat (among other things) from Damascus who often visited crusader Jerusalem: > “Anyone who is recently arrived from the Frankish lands is rougher in character than those who have become acclimated and have frequented the company of Muslims. Here is an instance of their rough character (may God abominate them!): > > Whenever I went to visit the holy sites in Jerusalem, I would go in and make my way up to the al-Aqsa Mosque, beside which stood a small mosque that the Franks had converted into a church. When I went into the al-Aqsa Mosque - where the Templars, who are my friends, were - they would clear out that little mosque so that I could pray in it. One day, I went into the little mosque, recited the opening formula ‘God is great!’ and stood up in prayer. At this, one of the Franks rushed at me and grabbed me and turned my face towards the east, saying ‘Pray like *this*!’ > > A group of Templars hurried towards him, took hold of the Frank and took him away from me. I then returned to my prayers. The Frank, that very same one, took advantage of their inattention and returned, rushing upon me and turning my face to the east, saying ‘Pray like *this*!’ > > So the Templars came in again, grabbed him, and threw him out. They apologized to me, saying, ‘This man is a stranger, just arrived from the Frankish lands sometime in the past few days. He has never before seen anyone who did not pray towards the east.’ > > ‘I think I’ve prayed quite enough,’ I said and left. I used to marvel at the devil, the change of his expression, the way he trembled and what he must have made of seeing someone praying towards Mecca.” This is one of Usama’s various amusing anecdotes about the Franks. Usually they're probably meant to be jokes, making fun of the big dumb idiot Franks (i.e. crusaders) from the far away land of ice and snow. They’re basically like “dumb blonde” jokes or “dumb \[insert ethnicity\]” jokes but from the perspective of a medieval Muslim. There are certainly truthful elements of Usama’s stories, so it’s possible something like this actually happened - in general, both sides seem to agree that the crusaders who settled in the east were culturally different than the new arrivals. But did this exact incident happen? We don’t know, but maybe not. In any case, Usama seems to be the only Muslim who got along well with the Templars. For everyone else, they were fanatically devoted to warfare. They often acted without consulting the other leaders of the kingdom, since they felt they had no authority but the Pope and could do whatever they wanted. On one occasion, some ambassadors from the Assassins came to Jerusalem to negotiate a truce, and the Templars ambushed and killed them. It was a major scandal in the kingdom. They were recognized as brave and strong warriors, but that wasn't always necessarily a good thing. For the Muslims this bravery was interpreted more as brutal fanaticism. The Templars would attack and kill anyone, anywhere, with little regard for tactical or political considerations, or at least that's how the Muslims felt about them. They were in a way too strong, too dangerous, unlike the more respectable might and bravery of the regular crusader army. When Saladin defeated the crusaders at the Battle of Hattin in 1187, he took thousands of prisoners and many of them were eventually ransomed - but not the Templars. Would the Templars have spared any Muslim prisoners? Probably not! So Saladin had all the Templar (and Hospitaller) prisoners executed: > "Two days after the victory, the Sultan sought out the Templars and Hospitallers who had been captured and said: 'I shall purify the land of these two impure races.' He assigned fifty dinar to every man who had taken one of them prisoner, and immediately the army brought forward at least a hundred of them. He ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair, the troops were drawn up in their ranks, the amirs stood in double file. There were some who slashed and cut cleanly, and were thanked for it; some who refused and failed to act, and were excused; some who made fools of themselves, and others took their places." In other battles they either all fought to the death, or were captured and killed afterwards as well - for example in the Battle of Forbie in 1244, only a handful of Templars survived. So the story you heard is just the opinion of one Muslim, who may have been making the equivalent of an ethnic joke, and basically all other Muslims feared and hated the Templars. Sources: Malcolm Barber, *The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple* (Cambridge University Press, 1995) Usama ibn Munqidh, The Book of Contemplation: Islam and the Crusades, trans. Paul M. Cobb (Penguin Classics, 2008) The account of the Templar massacre at Hattin is by Saladin’s secretary Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani, which has been translated in Francesco Gabrieli, *Arab Historians of the Crusades*, trans. E. J. Costello, (University of California Press, 1969)

what would actually happen if we built a tunnel from one side of the earth to the other and then proceeded to drop something through it?

People that claim it would oscillate back and forth are wrong. It's a nice thought, but it's a misinterpretation of the laws of nature. That would happen if the gravity of earth was created by a small point at the centre of the earth, and that the object "falling" could pass through that point. First of all, lets take a look at the formula for gravitational force: F = G*M1*M2/r^2 G is the gravitational constant, we don't need to worry about that for this example. M1 an M2 are the masses attracted to each other. r^2 is the interesting thing here. The r itself is the distance between the two bodies, but the ^2 means that the relationship is squared. I.e. if the distance doubles, the force is only a fourth. Now, to simplify things, lets just consider that the object is in a cavity in the exact centre of the earth, lets also assume that the earth is a perfect sphere with perfectly equal density. Since the object is inside what causes the gravity, we can't really treat earth as just one object, we have to think of it as very many objects stuck next to each other all around the object (I.e. particles), all have an equal amount of mass (and therefore equal gravitational pull). So, there are forces trying to pull the object in every direction. As long as the object is perfectly centered, the net force acting on the object will be zero. But if we placed the object slightly off-zero, the formula for gravitational force tells us that the "pull" from the particles that make up earth won't be even, the ones that are closer will exert a slightly larger force than the more distant ones, so the sum of the forces would not be zero. Newton taught us that an object will remain in its current state until acted on by a force. Well, since we now have a net force that is non-zero, the object will start to move towards the closer one of the particles acting upon it. The closer it get, the more pull it will feel from the closer particles, and the less pull it will feel from the more distant particles. Many people like to think that a stationary object at the centre of the earth would be ripped apart, but this is not correct. Since gravity act on all particles with mass, ALL of the objects particles will be acted upon by the gravitational forces. I.e. all parts of the object is being "pulled" in all directions. But what about the r^2 from that gravitational force formula?! Yes, the particles in the "northern" part of the object will get a slightly larger pull to the north compared to particles in the south part of the object. This is a variant of what is called "tidal forces". Another example of tidal forces is the fact that your head feel slightly less gravity than your feet. However, the forces are far two weak to overcome the forces holding particles together. So if you happen to fall into a bottomless pit, at least you don't have to worry about being ripped apart :/ So, trying to get an object stationary at the centre of the earth would be like trying to get a steel ball centered between two magnets (magnets also have this r^2 thing), virtually impossible. Another way to imagine gravity being a round bowl, with a pin in the centre representing earth (or any other object large enough to have a significant gravitational field). Put a ball in the bowl, and it will go to the centre and hit the pin = falling towards earth and eventually hitting is. Now, for the "being in a cavity inside the large object", flip the bowl upside down, letting where the bowl meets the table around the perimeter represent the walls of said cavity. Try to balance the ball on top of the bowl. It will race to either side, hitting the table (the walls of the cavity). Now back to the actual question: From what I wrote above, we can draw the conclusion that the object dropped would start off by falling down, since most of the gravitational forces acting upon it are "coming from" lower than where you are holding the object before you drop it. But after a short while, when the object has passed into the earth a bit, you will have gravitational forces from the side as well, and here the above reasoning comes into play. Since the object can't reasonably be exactly centered in the hole, it will get a slightly larger "pull" off towards one side of the wall. And subsequently, it will end up sliding down against that wall until the friction overcomes the gravitational force pulling it down (remember, the net sum of the gravitational forces lessen as the object get closer to the centre of the earth), and there it will stop. It will never fully reach half way through.

what is the election everyone in america is talking about and what could it change in the american political system (i'm not american)

Every two years, the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate are up for election. This gives the possibility to flip the majority party in both chambers of the federal legislature, making it more difficult to pass legislation preferred by the Republican party. (But not enough to give a veto-proof Democratic majority in both chambers). [This is a drastic oversimplification making the assumption a lot of proposed legislation is sharpy decided along party lines] In addition, as usual, many state/local elections are held simultaneously

why is the nanking massacre so controversial among the chinese and japanese? which is correct?

considering there are living witnesses to some of the atrocities, it's hard to deny atrocities happened. the Japanese story says there was no high level orders. and whatever stories of individual soldiers committing actions must have been fabrications because honorable soldiers always follow orders. just like flat earthers, no amount of evidence will ever convince them that their opinion is wrong. and once you're in deep, you're committed to go all the way.

why auto insurance companies allowed to discriminate?

It's not a denial of service or something like preferential treatment for a certain race, gender, etc. Actuarial science is just that: a science. Insurance is a business, and the different variables that determine how much someone pays for their insurance are based on past and present statistics of behavior. The price isn't set for me just because I'm a non-married white male with no dependents and so on, it's because all of those factors statistically show that I am a higher risk for an insurance claim. There is chemistry in the human brain involved as well that helps explain why the 18-25 partition has an upper bound of 25. There are subgroups within that partition as well. If there was a flat rate insurance cost for everyone who owned a car, regardless of age, gender, driving history, etc, there would be a massive outcry from the 'safer' drivers who then pay more than their share for the claims of the young and old.

Why was the 5.56mm round chosen as the NATO standard?

in 1977 NATO agreed to adopt a 2nd round in addition to the 7.62x51mm round, specifically the SS109 steel tipped round which was designed to pierce a soviet style steel helmet at 600 meters. Jane's Infantry Weapons 1986–1987, pg. 362 The Small Arms Review vol.10, no.2 November 2006. It's 4am and I haven't looked into the details of the agreement but I'm assuming it's related to the US introducing the M16 and 5.56mm round in 1960.

why is the death of one lion such a huge story but the extinction of rhinos in the wild barely makes the news?

Because people want something to be upset about and this is the newest thing. Two weeks ago, no one ever even knew about this goddamn lion. The news said we should be mad, so everyone got pissed. Outrage gives people a feeling of purpose.

Looking for some career guidance. (post-undergrad)

Your question is certainly welcome here but you might want to try posting it to /r/AskAcademia too – they're good with career advice.

how come i can see a vein bulging out of my left bicep, but not my right, even though i work out each arm equally?

Your body is not an anatomical mirror. Your left side does not mirror your rigt side. Same as your left index finger is not identical to your right index finger. Thus your veins runs 'differently' in your body, meaning that some are close to the skin and some are not. Another contributing factor might also be that you havent always exercised like now, and from childhood may have had a prefered arm (and leg) you used more than the other, leading to this arm being repetitively used more throughout life. Nb! I am not a native english speaker.

milk expiration dates

If you say that it's literally same exact milk (same brand, same type, same size, etc) then its probably different stocks. Lets say Whole Foods bought milk 2 weeks ago and Safeway bought theirs 2 days ago. So WF's milk is older, and thus expires sooner. However if you mean that brands are different, but product is essentially same - then it depends on what kind of milk it is, how it was processed, how it was made, from what animals (cows, goats, almonds (yes - almond is an animal :P )) etc. Pasteurised vs natural, etc. No, the expiration date is not dictated by retailer. Rather its dictated by producer - whoever produces it marks it on the package.

Is it possible to make an anti-matter atomic bomb?

Yes although we don't have anything close to the technology to make that. If exploded in a vacuum it would look the same as a regular nuclear bomb, if it was in contact with regular matter than there'd be an intense burst of gamma radiation as it annihilates with regular matter.

I've noticed on a lot of milk crates they say something along the lines of "using this for anything other than milk is punishable by law" was stealing milk crates ever such a big problem that they had to make a law to address it or was this just a precaution?

Yes, that is the case. During the 1970s and 80s these plastic crates were regularly pilfered because of their solid construction and light weight. Today manufacturers have copied these designs and they're sold in stores as consumer goods. Some states have similar laws for shopping carts, possession is illegal.

how do the ads next to porn videos know where i am?

Kids these days are exposed to porn at a far too early age.