Because they don’t produce the news articles themselves, they provide a way for people to share them.

If you cut a newspaper article out and mail it to someone, the post office isn’t the publisher, just a way of getting the information from one place to another. Same idea.

That’s more a political and lobbying question than one of actual definitions.

They’re classified as “platforms” because they desperately lobby the world’s governments to be classified as such - removing most liability for whatever garbage people post.

Changing them to a “publisher” would be catastrophic for their business model, as they are now liable for everything that gets posted.

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Rule #1 of ELI5 is to be nice.

Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

Bananas have been so overly genetically modified (GMO) to help in growth, appearance, cultivation and transportation that they are now able to be a mainstream fruit. Add to that the massive political and civil disruption within the producing countries to protect economic interests and you have nanas for everyone!

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

ELI5 focuses on objective explanations. Soapboxing isn't appropriate in this venue.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

RFID is of two (major) distinctions, active and passive. For most bar codes, it is passive. The laser hits it, it tells the reader the information encoded (there's details here that don't perfectly fit passive RFID always but they aren't important). This usually is to look up the object and price and after you pay the store uses that information for inventory management. The object does not know if it is sold by itself. For expensive things, the tag is active, and by this it means you don't have to hit it with a laser, it calls out when nearby a scanner eg the door. You could have passive ones read at the door and they are trying to figure that out but it is complicated to energize and read all the stuff in your cart accurately, not to mention very expensive today. Anyway, the active tag (or something behaving like active RFID) is removed or de-energized at checkout so it can't call out to/be detected by the machine and set off the alarm. A red bull tag won't do this, nor will 99% of most tags in most stores. Most tags are meant as a way to quickly identify and look up an item.

First, the hypothesis we use commonly says that natural selection occurs when there is competition amongst the population so if we as a population are competing for these medical advancements then semantically no, evolution is not necessarily stopped because a population gets technology. There are a few faucets to evolution but Darwin's null hypothesis says that if there's competition then there can still be evolution occurring.

Logicaly arguing, at first, any change we make to the environment would be to benefit us more in the short term. Think antibiotics for example. At first we cured lots of diseases but in the future we will have made more deadly ones. The more changes we make to the environment the more it will change and assuming we evolved to do well in that environment, the changes we make might seem good immediately but will have unforeseeable effects which may be more detrimental to us in the long-term. Then again, maybe they wont be because that depends on all the other decisions living creatures are seemingly making in spite or simply jest of the laws of physics.

Still, humans are nature and we are just a small part at that(no matter how much our egos tell us we are the biggest, our egos make us human, they do not part us from nature). A huge catastrophe will cause a special evolutionary event I think termed "bottlenecking" or I don't know the academic terms if you look type in: "bottlenecking, catastrophe and evolution" you should get some textbook material that comes up to explain how that effects the population specifically.

What? Source?

Tycoon games are a sub-genre of city-building games. City-building games are a sub-genre of simulation games. I'm not actually sure if there are sub-genres of tycoon games because at that level of fidelity, you get into the actual games themselves, which include, railroad tycoon, sim-ant, Rollercoaster tycoon, airport tycoon, and the like.

I heard recently that humans have essentially stopped natural selection in the traditional sense. The idea behind the statement is that we live in a world where people who are not "best suited to the environment" are able to reproduce causing subsequent generations to carry on unhelpful traits, like very poor eyesight. Nature without modern intervention would leave a significant portion of the population in a position to never reproduce allowing for the natural evolution that accompanies advantageous mutations to be passed on through generations. The statement, of course, is a generalization. We have really changed the game. Only in upcoming generations will humans know what the cumulative effect will be. Maybe it should be called "the age of unnatural selection."

I don’t know how ubiquitous they are worldwide. When my son was in China for a year of HS, for example, his house father got bananas as a treat for his birthday

Yeah, and he also thought that humans were cattle and should be slaughtered for the greater good.

Yes, I should've added that. Thank you.

In addition to what is mentioned above, there was an idea that capitalism is or can be inherently unstable and that humans should not strictly be tied to the value which they bring to those for whom they work. Instead, resources are assumedly plenty and should be shared equally so that all people can profit from labor and pursue passions as well. He also argued that the society which you are in will change your world view: ie in capitalism a poor starving artist may be considered by and large a loser, whereas in his treatment of communism they would simply be an artist contributing art to society without negative inflection. It's important to note that during his tenure on planet earth when he was thinking about these things communism had started mostly as a movement within a small group of intellectuals, depending on where you live it has different connotations today.

It definitely hasn't always been everywhere. My grandfather - British - served during the 2nd World War in a Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers workshop in India, fixing broken down vehicles for the war effort. The way my dad describes it, he had a very good war because he seemingly spent the whole time dicking around with tools and stealing bananas from the back of lorries on a motor bike.

​

He knew what bananas were but, in the UK at least, they were rare items that perhaps you'd get as a treat at Christmas, in much the same way if you were lucky you might get a satsuma or clementine around Christmas. But there, in India, where bananas were grown locally and incredibly plentiful, they'd transport them around in the back on these slow, ponderous, open topped lorries. He would have to take various vehicles out for drives to test them after fixing them up, so whenever he had something fast he took it upon himself to grab a stick, go for a ride and try and hook a bunch of bananas like he's trying to win a stuffed toy at a fairground.

​

I imagine the locals thought he was a bit nuts, risking life and limb for these boring fruit that were ten a penny but for him they were these absurdly exotic treats and here he was, able to hook more in one grab than he'd ever seen in one place in his whole life. And that was only 75 years ago!

Karl Marx was a philosopher who believed that the working class should overthrow the upper class in order to create a more equal society.

Thank you; I lost someone to Pick"s and don't really know much about it.

[removed]

>So isn't it practically saying no to Natural Selection?

Yes.

>In the case of a huge catastrophe, is humanity gonna be in danger for lack of natural selection?

No. Survivors will find each other.

They are able to be picked green and transported cool. The distributor then ripens just what they are delivering that day.

Very few fruits are as easy to transport.

Here is a video of the process https://youtu.be/SgFKfVfghpg

Karl Marx was a revolutionary thinker who believed that all humans were equal and should work together to create a society without class distinctions.

Bananas are fairly easy to cultivate in tropical climates, so large plantations have sprung up in Central America, Africa, and East Asia.

They can be grown year-round, and are fairly productive plants that start popping out bananas rapidly - you don’t have to wait years and years like many other fruit-bearing trees.

A lot of other fruits are seasonal, slow growing, or difficult to cultivate outside of their native range.

There are downsides though - banana farming is labor intensive and the plants are highly susceptible to some infections because they’re all clones.

debt for a nation is not the same as for an individual.

the kind of debt nations want ot have is the one that is created in the effort of improving its own infrastructure and industry, whihc would in turn allow the nation ot generate Wealth that can be used ot pay off said debt(at the veary least pay off the interest)

bad debt for a nation is the one that is created ot do anythnig else other than that.

in this situation the only way you lose faith in the currency is if the nation itself experiences such crippling economical collapse that it makes all major investors panic, resulting in them cahing in to pack their sht and leave.

Worst case is a pandemic of proportions never seen before. We are already seeing antibiotic resistant strains appearing naturally. If the wrong germs/ bacteria develop a resistance to our most readily available drugs, we could possibly get 150 years worth of die off in a single instance... without the 150 years of reproduction between the resistant survivors that should have occurred.

The adaptations we make using science are just as natural as any other adaptation in any other organism. We're an organism that is clever enough to use science to survive. That's our niche.