I read something along the same lines about cotton in the 30's. How owners of the cotton industry wanted hemp to go away.

It can't. People still argue over this today because they're not willing to admit that its just not possible. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Evolution is not possible. It was God who did it all.

Facts that are derived from the scientific method I described above.

Should also add that if any of these are taken in large doses for a long period of time:

Ibuprofen - trashes your kidneys

Acetaminophen - destroys your liver

Naproxen - eats a hole in your stomach

Please read this entire message

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

Questions based on a false premise are not allowed on ELI5. A question based on a false premise is one based on information that may not be true, or may not be the whole truth, and needs that information to stand as a question.

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):

Loaded questions, or ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. A loaded question is one that posits a specific view of reality and asks for explanations that confirm it. These usually include the poster's own opinion and bias, but do not always - there is overlap between this and parts of Rule 2. Note that this specifically includes false premises.

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.

No. A theory is an explanation that fits available facts.

All of them. The brain receives information from other parts of the body, and decides how to react.

Many, many languages have already died out. The world has far fewer languages today than it had 100 or 200 years ago, as people switch to using the dominant language of their region.

For example, you probably think of Ireland as an English-speaking country. But until a few hundred years ago, it wasn't. Irish Gaelic was the most common language in Ireland for most of its history; they swapped to English after England took over Ireland. (Gaelic speakers still exist, but it is now a shrinking minority language in Ireland, not the dominant one.) The same went for Wales and Scotland, both of which originally had their own languages (Welsh has been revived, Scottish Gaelic is mostly fading), and in the distant past, even England itself.

In general, since the rise of large nation-states during the middle ages, the world has been moving steadily towards using fewer and fewer languages. And that process has sped up a lot in the more interconnected world we live in today. There are only about 7,000 languages left in the world, and many of those are spoken by a tiny group of elderly people and will be lost as those people die without passing the language on.

Ah I see. Yes I misunderstood. Thanks.

Conversely, I have heard arguments that the misconception was that any part of the universe, infinite or otherwise, was a single point. Rather, all points were infinitesimally close, but not occupying the same space and not truly one point. In that case, the universe would continue to be infinitely large and infinitesimally small.

But I don't know enough about math or physics to know or argue one way or another.

Apart from racism and prejudice, another thing that was a big factor in outlawing marijuana was the production of hemp. The owner of a paper company, and a friend of Nixon, was concerned the production of hemp, which is arguably better than paper, would cut into his profits and run him out of business. So he lobbied his friends and started a slew of campaigns against marijuana, leading Nixon to agree, I’m assuming because it was an excellent opportunity to target black communities and the hippies, both of which he despised.

The electrocution itself causes the muscles to tense and grip. Normally when you use your muscles, nerves send electrical signals as action potentials.

Thank Henry Anslinger. The first Commisioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He was strongly anti-drug and racist. In the 1930s he began a campaign that targeted Cannabis but also linked it to race and further demonized it as the cause for crime.. Look at Reefer Madness

[removed]

That's a pretty big "if", though. A lot of tests are written by hand and bias away from long answer streaks and first/last answer choices.

In scientific discussion:

A theory is a working model, backed by experimentation, of the way the universe works in some way or another. Some examples of theories you have probably interacted with (or at least know of) are Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Newton's Theory of Gravity, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

These all work to explain a phenomena to the best of our knowledge, but they do have their limitations. Newtonian mechanics, for instance, breaks down in cases of extreme speed or extreme gravity, and Relativity exists to deal with those cases - Relativity meanwhile breaks down at very small values, which is where Quantum Theory comes in to fill in the gaps.

A hypothesis is your educated guess as to the outcome of an experiment before you run it. A really oversimplified example is "if I drop this feather and this bowling ball from the same height at the same time, I hypothesize that the bowling ball will hit the ground first" - then you test that hypothesis by running an experiment, and see if the shape of your intuition is right. In that case it is, but if you were to say something like "I hypothesize that if I drop a bowling ball and a basket ball from the same height at the same time, the bowling ball will hit the ground first" and then tested it, you'd find that it wasn't true, or at least wasn't as true as you thought it might be.

The real culprit isn't weight/mass, but air resistance. If you take that ball and feather and put them into a sealed chamber that you then vacuum seal, then drop them, they will fall at the same rate.

Making the hypothesis helps to narrow down the possibility space of a weird phenomenon, and get to those theories that you want.

>Pineapple has a chemical in it that breaks down protein. Your mouth is made of meat and protein, so it tries to break down your mouth, causing the tingle.

who is eating whom?

Same idea as lego. The objective is to do whatever you want. I personally have never found any interest in the game, but plenty of people do

[removed]

Please read this entire message

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

ELI5 is not meant for any question you may have. Questions that are narrow in nature are not complex concepts, and usually require only a yes/no or otherwise straightforward answer.

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.

“He will run yesterday” is grammatically correct? Grammatically speaking then, is this sentence future tense or past tense?

Is it grammatically correct for one clause to have two different tenses?

This isn’t merely semantically incorrect because it suggests the use of time travel, it’s grammatically incorrect because the verb is just conjugated incorrectly for the tense of the sentence.

As for your other examples, certain dialects have different grammar rules, but they’re still rules. Breaking grammar rules doesn’t usually produce sentences that are still grammatically correct but semantically different in this case either.

A hypothesis is literally just a detailed guess at something that is testable through science. You have to be able to point at some data when you make that guess, but it's still just a guess. "Some data" could just mean data from a single test. It has just as much detail as a theory, it just has not "stood the test of time" yet

A theory is what you get once you have a hypothesis that has been around a while and despite numerous attempts to disprove it, has not been disproven, yet has also not been proven. So much so to the point where science generally recognizes it as truth, as if it were fact, except that they keep it in the back of their mind (or at least they should) that it is not actually a proven fact.

>You CPU can do maybe 8 unique instructions on a single piece of data each.

A modern CPU core can run 3 instructions per cycle on 512 bits of data, making each core equivalent to about 96 basic shaders. Even so you can see how even a 20 core CPU can't keep up with even a low end GPU in raw parallel throughput.

>CPUs are better at calculations that only need to be done on a single piece of data since they are clocked higher and no latency to setup.

The real benefit isn't the clockrate, if that was the main difference we wouldn't be using CPU's anymore because they're not that far apart.

What CPU's have which GPUs do not is branch prediction and very very advanced data pipelines and instruction queue's which allow per-core performance a good order of magnitude better then a shader for anything that involves branches.

I wouldn't take my personal experiences as some sort of proof. If you're looking for guidance on your own health, talk to your doctor. (Notably, I have not, to my knowledge, had covid.)