I'm not sure what they did exactly, but yeah it was quite drastic.

Having a bit of faith in the doctors involved, it was probably a secondary infection

A doctor once diagnosed me with strep and said it was likely viral as well. Prescribed a z-pack (antibiotics) anyway, and the antibiotics didn’t seem to help much; I was still sick over a week. I’m guessing now that “viral strep” is just what the doctors are calling a severe sore throat that presents with similar symptoms to strep but didn’t/couldn’t a culture to confirm the streptococcus bacteria

If I remember what my podiatrist told me correctly at one appointment is that the "root" of the nail grows from within the bone. It grows from the base and pushes out the end, continuously, through the skin, which adapts to how the nail grows.

Holy shit, 40 gigs of optimization? What did they do?? Were there a lot of redundant LODs or something?

Thanks, I think this is starting to make sense. So when the car changes speed, it's applying work against the ground/earth and that's the frame of reference? I think that's what I was missing

If I'm understanding it right, this should not apply to a spacecraft right? I'm assuming it has some kind of rocket/thruster for it to change speed. In that case, the work is being done against the exhaust gasses exiting the nozzle? So it shouldn't matter at what speed the spacecraft is traveling since the thing it's doing work against (propellant) is always traveling at the same speed as the spacecraft?

The symptoms of a viral infection and a bacterial infection are usually pretty similar so while a hospital or medical facility may think it’s the “common cold” aka viral infection (in the us at least) they will also prescribe antibiotics “just in case” because it’s always better to treat bacterial infections sooner than later.

Seems like it.

The common cold is exclusively caused by viruses. Antibiotics do not help fight it at all, your daughter's recovery was probably all her own strength :)

Antibiotics are frequently misunderstood and misused, so it's hard for us to know exactly what the logic was, short of telepathic power. Occasionally, antibiotics will be prescribed for cold and flu patients if the doctor is worried about secondary infections like bacterial pneumonia taking advantage of the weakened body in the meantime. There's also a lot of unfortunate cases where dodgy doctors prescribe them as placebo to basically just morale boost patients.

Oops. I guess a doctor lied to me

Strep is NOT viral.

It's called "strep" because it's caused by the Streptococcus bacteria.

Strep isn't viral. True strep is caused by streptococcus bacterium. That's how it got it's name strep, short for streptococcus. There are a bunch of ways to have an irritated throat that aren't strep though.

Boooo!

Everything you listed is a virus and cannot be cured by antibiotics. In fact, there is no cure for the common cold(rhinovirus).

If you don’t mind my asking, what did they prescribe to her? It may be coincidental that she felt better shortly after being given a medication as colds don’t typically last more than a week before you start to feel better on your own.

It’s quite a common process known as a superinfection or secondary infection. Typically a bacterial infection occurs on top of a viral one. The mechanism in something like a cold is that the virus causes congestion, increased mucus secretions, and just generally a bunch of gunk which doesn’t get cleared very well. That acts as a nice breeding ground for bacteria which can now gain a foothold.

Typically that bacteria is just from your own skin and is normally harmless when kept in check by the other skin bacteria around it, but it gets a new advantage from the previous viral illness and grows unchecked.

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).

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.

Please read this entire message

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

• The subreddit is not targeted towards literal five year-olds.

"ELI5 means friendly, simplified and layman-accessible explanations."

This subreddit focuses on simplified explanations of complex concepts.

The goal is to explain a concept to a layman.

"Layman" does not mean "child," it means "normal person."

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.

Other have explained the frame of reference part but let's look at the square part.

The reason is the square of the velocity is at high speed you need to apply the force for a longer distance.

(1) W = F *s

where W =Work (transferred enerergy), F = force and s= applied distance

(2) s = v *t

Where v is the speed and t is the time.

(3) a= F/m => F =m *a

where a is the acceleration and m is the mass.

(4) v= a * t => t= v/a

Consider if you an object with a mass of 1 kg that you accelerate with a force of 1N that means the acceleration is 1m/S

If you start at a speed of 0 the speed after 1 second is 1m/s so the average speed for that second is(0+1)/2= 0.5 m/s and you only travel 0.5m That is the distance you apply the force. So the work is 1 N * 0.5m = 0.5 Joules.

If you start at 10m/s the speed after 1 second is 11m/s so the average speed is (10+11)/2=10.5m/s . So you traveled 11.5m. That means the work is 1 N * 11.5m = 11.5 joule

If we just have constant acceleration 0 to v the average speed is v/2.

Combine 1 and 3 and we get (5) W= m *a *s

If we use 2 with the average speed you get (6) s= v/2 *t

Combine 5 and 6 and we get (7) W= m *a * v/2 *t

Combine 7 with 4 and we get W= m *a * v/2 * v/a = m * v/2 *v * a/A = m * v/2 *v = (m * v^2)/2

So the square is a result of that you need to apply the force over a longer and longer distance the higher the speed is and the work gets larger and larger.

It can also explain what we see in a different frame of reference. When a car slowed down from 120 to 90 by applying breaks the force is applied from the road. So from your point of view, the car change is speed but pushing on something that moved backward at a speed of 120 relatives to you. You need to include that the ground is not stationary compared to you.

For it to do less work whilst slowing down it needs to apply force to something that moves at the same speed as you.

You can compare this to you walkin' in a train where you start waking forward in the direction of the moment. Your feet apply the force relative to the train so the distance is short. But at the same time, the train needs to apply the same force relative to the ground, if it did not it would slow down.

Compare it to walking in a canoe on the water next to the dock. It has very little friction from the water and the mass close to you. If you stand up and walk forward you push the canoe backward. When you reach the front of the canoe you have walked a short distance relative to the dock. So if you use the canoe as the frame of reference you need to consider how it moves relative to the dock. You moving in a train change it a moment too but it will be a lot less compared to you because its mass is many times higher than you

So if you jump off the train and hit the ground, the difference in energy from you walking forward versus stationary when you hit the ground from the work the train needed to do to keep its speed constant.

So it all works out regardless of the frame of reference. You just need to consider everything like what you apply a force relative to and what your action has on the frame of reference

> let's say I was traveling in a car going 120 mph and I wanted to decelerate to 90 mph. This would take four times as much energy than going from 30 mph to 0.

> But let's say there were two cars traveling at 120 mph. The car next to me decelerates to 90 mph, but I'm still going 120. From my point of view, the car next to me just started going 30 mph in the opposite direction. Why would this require 4 times as much energy than if both cars were just stationary, and the car next to me actually started going 30 mph in the opposite direction?

This is a really fascinating question. And the answer takes a bit of thinking about, but you've already got the basics of it.

In classical mechanics (pre-20th century) energy is a mathematical tool that is useful in figuring out how things interact. It corresponds to how much something has been forced. The more it has been forced, the more energy it has gained. Because forces are symmetric (Newton's Third Law) the more one thing has been forced, the more other things have forced things; so we can factor this into energy. If one thing has been forced and so gained "been forced stuff" (energy) we can say that the things that forced it have lost "been forced stuff." We get conservation of energy!

If energy is conserved that can be really useful for understanding situations. Rather than having to worry about all the forces and interactions going on at each moment in some system, we can look at the energy at the start, look at the energy at the end, and you can get a great idea of what is happening.

Anyway. The important thing to note about this is that it is a maths thing; helpful, but has limitations. One of the big ones is that it depends on our frame of reference (which is what you've noticed). It isn't absolute, but relative. But that's Ok as we're only ever looking at how it changes, and it just means we have to be careful about switching between reference frames when doing energy calculations (but we should be doing that anyway).

So let's look at your situation.

Your car is going at 120mph. It want to decelerate to 90mph. That would involve losing more energy than you'd have to lose to decelerate from 90mph to 60mph, and 4 times as much energy as it would take for you to decelerate from 30mph to 0mph. But this is all from a reference frame fixed with the ground.

From your point of view, though, you're at rest. You're not changing speed, so no need for any change in energy at all! Of course, you're in a non-inertial reference frame, so the maths gets a bit weird, but this is a good indication that something weird is going on.

So let's look at another point of view. Some car that was travelling at the same speed as you before you started slowing down.

From their point of view you were going at 0mph, then sped up to 30mph (backwards), then sped up further to 60mph and eventually up to 120mph. From their point of view you have gained energy! This is getting really weird...

The big thing we're missing is that energy is being transferred; if something is gaining or losing energy, something else must be losing or gaining it. We're only looking at half the problem.

Let's massively oversimplify the problem and assume that as you slow down you are dumping energy into the Earth. Conservation of momentum tells us that as you slow down the Earth must speed up. So from our "with the ground" frame of reference, the Earth will be gaining energy as you lose energy.

But from the other car's point of view, as you "speed up" the Earth will "slow down," so as you gain energy, the Earth loses energy. Which is what we expect.

The maths gets a bit messy (and we have to worry about whole systems for conservation of momentum and conservation of energy) but it all works out in the end. Provided we do everything (including measuring distances and forces) from the just one reference frame. The calculations will be different and give us different changes in energy, depending on which reference frame we use, but we will get the same overall result for how things move.

Oddly enough, this is kind of how E = mc^2 was first derived; by looking at how energy changes work when viewed from different reference frames. Einstein's paper on it is only a couple of pages and is a simple thought experiment.

Finger and toe nails stay attached to the skin around them due to the fact that the nails are formed by the matrix, the base of the nail. The matrix produces cells that harden and compress to form the nail plate, which is the visible part of the nail. These cells are continually pushed forward by the matrix, and as they harden and compress, they form a strong, durable structure that is attached to the skin around the nail bed. Additionally, the nails are anchored to the skin by small, invisible fibers called laminin and collagen that act like a glue, connecting the nails to the skin.

[removed]

That description literally makes me feel sick r/tihi ... To be clear, I have no doubt that it is metaphorically accurate but I'm not sure I could stomach the results if I were to Google it

The nail itself goes pretty far below your skin beyond the visible part. The halfmoon-shaped part you can see is where the attached part starts

Just want to chime in amd say that this is absolutely true. Tons of other nations don't require anything like this. I can do my taxes by simply logging in on a government website, read the report they've got, and if I see nothing wrong, be done with everything by clicking "send". Takes a whole 2 minutes for most salaries people.

97% of the time, all my deductibles are already there and correct to the last cent.

Well, they know at the end.

A classic example would be if you take a take a deduction for auto-expenses or mileage, the government won’t know how much less to take if you don’t calculate the deduction at the end.

Or let’s say you don’t take the standard ~$13k deduction but instead want to do itemized, they have no way of knowing your itemized deductions unless we were to go full tilt with the government having a profile for every person and tracking every single transaction they make.

Or, you don’t need to contribute any more to Social Security once you hit a certain amount, but you have to contribute a higher % to Medicare once you hit a certain amount; if you have more than 1 job, how would either job know how much you are making in total (including any other sources of income)?

If US taxes were simplified, then yeah, having each worker file every year would not be needed.

[removed]