Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

SofaKingI t1_j2cw4gl wrote

FYI that comment is full of inaccuracies.

Molecules moving doesn't cause friction, which creates heat and increases temperature . The vibration of molecules IS temperature.

Heat transfer also only works from the hotter object to the colder one. Once the plate is hotter than the food, heat transfer can't possibly be occuring from the food to the plate. It's the other way around.

So the reason the plate is so hot can't possibly be that it's taking heat directly from the food. The plate's material is absorbing the microwaves.

That last paragraph doesn't even make sense.

2

pretendperson1776 t1_j2cvmpi wrote

Violet has the shortest wavelength, so the greatest chance to interact with a more dense medium. This slows it more than blue, which is more than green... you get the idea.

Hitting straight on you wouldn't notice, but at an angle, it causes the light to bend (think of driving a car, then slowing the left wheels more than the right, the car will turn).

Because the Violet portion bends the most, it ends up on one end, and the red (which bends the least) ends up on the other.

1

boytoy421 t1_j2cvctp wrote

In addition to all the reasons listed above: usually by the time a case goes to trial if it hasn't been plead out or dismissed the DA has the guy dead to rights.

Like I remember one where I was a witness where the guy had called in prank bomb threats to avoid bunch of schools (i was there to testify that we'd had to evacuate the building) and like they had the guy's cell records, 3 people who could ID his voice, and a guy who rolled on him.

At the end of the day the DA struck a deal on lesser charges just to avoid a trial

1

jswansong t1_j2ctuct wrote

Nobody gained anything and nobody really lost anything: the money was all theoretical so it never really existed. They owned x number of shares of a company which they could have sold for a certain price in 2021 if they wanted to. They would not be able to sell those shares at the same price now, so their "net worth" is lower. But it's all moot, nobody was really going to sell all those shares and it would be a nightmare to even try.

TL:DR - it's all stock market money which is made up anyways. Nobody ever had this money in their bank accounts.

5

Not-your-lawyer- t1_j2ctget wrote

Not directly, no. Anyone invested in the stock market will lose alongside them, too.

As for whether we "gain" anything indirectly from having less-wealthy wealthy people, that's arguable. And even on the bits that are arguable, it's going to depend on why their wealth decreased and what, if anything, the government does in response.

But again, we don't directly gain anything from having less-wealthy wealthy people. And the hold the wealthy have on political action—"influence," whatever—means the sort of policies that would allow the general population to benefit from their loss are mostly nonstarters.

In the ideal version of capitalist competition, their losses would spur them to redouble their efforts to make their companies competitive, lowering prices, raising quality, hiring workers to improve overall production... etc... But that lowers the dividends their stocks will pay out, and in our current reality, that's also a nonstarter. The goal is to raise the value of the stock, not to build a stable company. (See, e.g., comparisons between Tesla's market cap and the combined market cap of Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, and the next five largest automakers.)

3

epelle9 t1_j2ct8we wrote

This is completely incorrect, heat transfers from the gotten object into the colder one, if the food is colder than the plate then the plate will warm up the food, not the other way around. This is the basis of thermodynamics.

What's happening is that the plate that heats up will have a resonating frequency close enough to the microwave frequency to the point where the microwaves can be picked up by the plate instead of the water inside the food.

So the plate gets heated up instead

1

jswansong t1_j2csto6 wrote

You know how your headphones can reproduce any sound? Noise cancelling headphones have microphones to detect what outside sounds you're about to hear and then make the exact opposite sound at exactly the right time. Any sound (no matter how complex or loud) + its exact opposite = no sound at all, much like 5 + (-5) = 0.

I could get into superposition and all that, but that's probably beyond age 5.

949

sold_snek t1_j2csqgs wrote

> You can bring it to other people to get it fixed.

You need literal electrical engineers to do it and Tesla won't touch your vehicle afterward. It's a pretty big cost to do anything outside of Tesla.

1

BurnOutBrighter6 t1_j2csl0h wrote

Let's say iced tea costs the company 10 cents per L to produce.

  • If you buy 500 mL for $2.80, the company makes $2.75 profit
  • If you buy 1L for $3.00, the company makes $2.90 profit

So you feel like you're getting a good deal, and the company turns more of your money into their profit, even after accounting for having to make more product.

TLDR: Bulk pricing encourages consumers to buy more, which makes the company a bigger profit.

(Yes I know I'm ignoring packaging costs and stuff. frodeem's answer covers these economy-of-scale considerations very well)

2

Adversement t1_j2csfkm wrote

The sound you hear is a wave that is a sum of all sounds around you. Waves have a few relevant properties: They travel at a known velocity, and they are additive.

To cancel such wave in your ear: we measure the wave just outside the ear and play its inverse with a small delay from the earphone. Notably, this only cancels the sound in a very small region around the inner side of the earphone. Everywhere else it adds its miniscule amount of more sound to the wave.

For best results: You need a good microphone in both earphones, and a good algorithm to slightly alter the wave, to mimic hiw it will be altered by the earlobe (as the in-ear earphone sound is not altered by the earlobe identically to the sound coming from the outside). Fortunately, we can tune this individually: place a second microphone inside each ear canal (near the very tip of the earphone), and measure which delay and which amplitude modifications reduce the sound the most.

A good analogue: Look at the waves in the see. Measure the height of the wave. If it is above the mean water level, push the water down with a paddle you have placed under the surface. If it is below, push the water up. If you move your paddle at just the right speed for a given measurement, you can destroy the wave around your paddle (whilst creating a new wave around your paddle, propagating outwards and adding a bit to the waves everywhere else in the sea).

6