It is relevant because the effects inside the country and the effects in the global market are different. If Best Buy brings in a Panasonic TV from Japan, Best Buy has to give that country a certain amount of money that is relative in that country. So Best Buy has to pay the equivalent of $500 in Japan, then sells it me for $900. So sure, if my country prints more money and I get a raise, I can better afford the $900 TV locally. The problem is that after printing more currency, my dollar is worth less globally, due to my initial example. As a result, Best Buy will now need $700 to meet the same value for Japan in Japanese currency. In turn, the next time Best Buy sells me a TV, they need to charge $1200.

Dementia is actually a symptom defined by lessened cognitive ability.

Alzhiemer's is a disease that causes dementia.

Some definitions also describe dementia as a family of diseases including Alzhiemer's, but it's more accurate to call dementia a symptom

Look up “Parkinson’s disease dementia” and “cognitive impairment with Parkinson’s disease.” Here is a good resource to learn the basics: https://www.alz.org/alzheimers-dementia/what-is-dementia/types-of-dementia/parkinson-s-disease-dementia

Bring it up with her doctor, there may be medications and therapies she can try or a clinical trial she can enroll in!

The rocket equation is a butt and as mass/gravity scale up you start needing a rocket the size of the Saturn V just to put Sputnik into orbit

Earth having a 50% greater diameter means it has 3.375x the mass because mass scales with volume and that results in a surface gravity about 50% higher (~14.7 m/s^2 )

That higher gravity means that you need stronger(heavier) rocket engines since a rocket needs a Thrust to Weight ratio of at least 1 to leave Earth and if we still with Earth weights it'd need a TWR of 1.5 to leave the bigger Earth. The Saturn V rocket had a TWR of 1.02 at launch so it'd never make it, and the Falcon 9 is pretty zippy off the pad today but it only has a TWR of 1.4 so it would also never make it.

This then pairs with the tyranny of the rocket equation where the higher gravity means we need to go faster which means we need more fuel which needs to be lifted with more fuel and you need to lift that fuel with more fuel. Today the ISS orbits at a speed of 7.66 km/s, but around our new Earth even at the same 400 km up it'd need to be going 11.6 km/s and it'd take a bit more to get to orbit

Today it takes about 10 km/s of DeltaV(how much a rocket can change its speed, basically range) to get from the surface to the ISS, that means lifting 1 ton requires 29 tons of fuel so the rocket is 96.66% fuel. If you need to get up to 14 km/s then the rocket needs to have 115 tons of fuel(99.1% of overall mass)

So we start needing more fuel just to get to orbit and stronger rocket engines which require yet more fuel which means stronger heavier engines and more fuel and more fuel for the fuel....

Adding to the expense and time it takes to get custom made pointe shoes, there are fewer & fewer custom makers.

Simple rules can produce remarkably complex results, basically.

Many fish, for example, have a pressure sensing organ along their sides called a Lateral Line. If the fish next to them changes direction, they feel it, and can echo it. So if one fish in a school spooks, say, or spots a really tasty-looking piece of food, and decides to change direction, the ones near it feel the change and echo it to avoid collision, and others move to avoid them, and so on. Within a fraction of a second the whole school has echoed it.

Army ants are another excellent example. they have very few brain cell, yet they can join together to form bridges to span quite wide gaps using only very simple rules. If they hit a gap, they slow/stop; and as long as other ants are walking over them, they freeze in place. So basically the first ants to hit a gap stop, other ants clamber over them and stop a little further out, and together they become the units of a bridge that others cross. And once the gap is crossed, they effectively reverse the process, climb out of the gap and tag on at the end. It looks like incredibly complex behaviour, yet invidual ants have almost no instructions to follow.

This idea comes from the rocket equation.

The basic idea of which is this: you want to get some amount of mass into space to do this you need to be going fast enough to get into orbit and to do this you need to burn fuel. Simple enough. If you know how much mass you need to launch you can work out how much fuel you need.

The problem is you have to take that fuel with you in the rocket. That fuel also has mass.

So now you need even more fuel to get that mass of the fuel you need into space as well. And you need even more fuel to account for the mass of that fuel.

Here's the wikipedia article for the rocket equation. Give it a read if you want to see the actual equation and the derivations - it's surprisingly readable.

In any case we can derive an equation for how much fuel we need for any rocket.

What we can also do is look at the equation the other way round. I think I found the article that originated the 50% idea and they explain their reasoning pretty well:

>Let us assume that building a rocket at 96% propellant (4% rocket)... is the practical limit for launch vehicle engineering. Let us also choose hydrogen-oxygen, the most energetic chemical propellant known and currently capable of use in a human rated rocket engine. By plugging these numbers into the rocket equation, we can transform the calculated escape velocity into its equivalent planetary radius. That radius would be about 9680 kilometers (Earth is 6670 km). If our planet was 50% larger in diameter [while maintaining the same density], we would not be able to venture into space, at least using rockets for transport.

The BMI definition of "overweight" is pretty tight compared to general American sensibilities. It leaves a lot of room for being cosmetically overweight rather than being a significant health issue and yeah, unusually fit or broadly built people will often be caught in that category as well. It's also just the nature of weight that it's much easier to be over and to be a significant outlier far, FAR over than under. The distribution is right skewed.

That said, North Americans are absolutely majority overweight and have been so long enough that we have a warped perception of weight compared to many places where this is not a decades old issue.

The most common types of fractures (IE Breaking Your Back) are spinous-process fractures and compression fractures.

The spinous process is the little "dinosaur bone" that sticks straight out the back. There are numerous muscle groups, ligaments, and tendons that "tie" these together and when you go into full flexion, they pull on each other. With enough force, the tip of the spinous process can snap off.

Compression fractures happen when the vertebral body (the big round part) is literally compressed. The disc will not rupture because it's literally designed to absorb and distribute compressive forces.

You just have to remember that, generally speaking, the way the spine fractures is very different than a long-bone.

My mum has early onset dementia and she has a mix of Lewy body dementia and Alzheimer’s. If I remember correctly as a basis, dementia tends to effect logic and problem solving whereas the Alzheimer’s portion affects memory and personality. This could just be down to the types she has though

"Overweight" in this context doesn't have much to do with clothing sizes. It's a quasi-medical definition that is based on the BMI (a ratio of height to weight). Various medical organizations eventually landed on the idea that a BMI of 25-30 is "overweight," but this was a pretty arbitrary definition and doesn't mean much. Research on the links between BMI and health outcomes have not produced evidence that BMIs in the "overweight" range are associated with poor health, and there's some evidence that they can protect people from diseases that sap your energy. On top of this, BMI does not distinguish between men and women, despite the fact that women are naturally heavier for a given height.

The question of what should be considered "medium" or "normal" in clothing sizes is pretty separate. Different brands have completely different sizing schemes, and many are intentionally set up to flatter their buyers or for some other purpose than clearly communicating the dimensions of the clothing.

> Soo…. The majority of women are overweight?

Yes. A smaller percentage, around 40%, are obese according to BMI.

People labelled as obese and underweight according to BMI tend to be at much higher risk for various health problems. The evidence is less concrete for the overweight, but not obese group. The reason is basically exactly what you're getting at. You can be overweight by being particularly muscular, etc.

BMI is an incredibly rough measure of your physical condition. At the extremes (obese and underweight) it is definitely associated with health problems. At more middling levels the fuzziness and imprecision of the measurement makes it less useful as a gauge for health risks.

piggy backing on this comment, side note, OP: when determining whether someone is overweight, we do not curve the results. If 75% of a population is overweight, that's how it is, we don't adjust our definition of overweight to fit people's inability to be fit.

The category of "overweight" has nothing to do with being average, or clothing sizes. It is only regarding the amount of fat in the body. Fat distributed to places, is still fat. If those people lost weight, they would lose fat. It's not a question of making people feel ok about their fat. Fat is still harmful regardless of how well it's carried or placed in the body.

I couldn’t find stat for all of North America, but 70% of American adults are overweight, so most North American woman being overweight wouldn’t be that surprising.

Some of this is that BMI can be misleading. It’s based on your weight divided by your height squared. From a medical statistics standpoint, it’s better than nothing, but since it doesn’t make a distinction between muscle weight and fat weight, it can put a lot of very muscular people in the overweight column.

Please read this entire message

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

• Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).

Very short answers, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.

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.

[deleted]

Yeah it is called The Outer Space Treaty. However there is something called a nuclear salt-water rocket which doesn't use explosions.

Please read this entire message

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

ELI5 is not meant for any question that you may have, including personal questions, medical questions, legal questions, etc. It is meant for simplifying complex concepts.

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

[removed]

Please read this entire message

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

Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts.

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

Please read this entire message

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

Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts.

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

Please read this entire message

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

• Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).

Very short answers, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.

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.

Also, I think there's some treaty that says we can't. I mean, I'm just going off of what my high school physics teacher said, but I remember him telling us about a ship that rides the wave of nuclear fission, but it never got to fly because we can't detonate nukes in space or something.

Hi!

I was trying to be as charitable and universal as I could be- in practice, conservatives (to my knowledge, in the US and UK) may trend towards favoring the individual liberty of those in power.

The theory of their (in as much as I can generalize about an entire part of the political spectrum) framing of the world, I believe, is one of hyperindividualized responsibility. I quite like this video on the subject. think of Margaret Thatcher’s quote about how there is no society.

I think it’s valuable to understand both your opinion of a thing, and how the adherents to that thing see themselves and that cause- for example, your comment makes an excellent point of highlighting the contradiction between individual liberty (expressed as absence of government involvement), and individual liberty (expressed as the ability to live one’s life with dignity).

To a conservative (of the vague, almost indefinable blob I have in mind), the failings of a non-cis, non-het, non-white are entirely due to their personal failings to take advantage of opportunity. If you, say, bring up the fact that this hypothetical person was specifically discriminated against when seeking education and employment, they might insist that their handicap was a product of individualized racism by admissions officers or hiring officers. If you highlight that these adcom officers were following procedure, they might try to pull the string of racist causality all the way back to one, individual person who made a decision to be racist.

No bad systems, just bad people. To a conservative (of my specific blob I have in mind), people are personally responsible for almost everything that happens to them, so systems shouldn’t be changed, we just need to get rid of all the bad people.

There’s an extremely interesting, in my opinion, parallel here between the philosophy of such thought, and who I think it comes from. History, as we were taught it for most of…well, history, was the stories of the nobility. Books were written by, and for, and published by, and for the benefit of, the nobility for most of human history. Taken in this lens, the world is one of individual Caesar’s (and not the legions who fought for him), gentleman scientists (and not their clerks), the unified, individual will of rulers (and not their bureaucratic apparatuses). Art from 13th-19th century Europe was just a rich person’s Instagram.

I think there’s something there- in who benefits the most from conservative policies (those already in power, and would lose power, even if slightly, if the system meaningfully changed), how they likely view themselves (as titans of agency), and what stories they’ve told society through their versions of history, their stories, and the stories meant to cater to them. (How many stories privilege, or focus on, the concerns of royalty and nobles? What do we think happened to books encouraging democracy before they became too numerous to suppress? What do we think happened to the tales of democratic leaders, like Spartacus, who were illiterate?)

I also think it’s worth understanding this mechanism, or philosophy, and how it gets translated to people who have nothing to gain from it, but support it nevertheless. What stories were we told about how the world works, growing up? What myths are expressed as common sense? What unexamined beliefs do we bear in our minds, that were handed to us by those with power and the means to crystallize it?

Fun thoughts!