Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

Haterbait_band t1_ja5c0mn wrote

That’s always what my thought process is too. Nobody was originally from anywhere, really. I’m sure all the plants and animals that existed in that space for IDK, billions of years before primitive humans crawled across a land bridge would take issue with us saying humans had always been there. It’s not like the “aboriginal” people even purchased the land from the previous inhabitants; probably just ate and killed them. A bit worse than eminent domain if you ask me.

2

Person012345 t1_ja5bf4y wrote

Looking out into space is like looking back in time. Look 100 million light years away and you'll see what was happening over there 100 million years ago. Well, if you look far enough, you'll see what was happening 13.8 billion years ago. But at that point, it's just an opaque mass of radiation that we can't "see through" because this represents the birth of the universe, the big bang. What was happening 13.8 billion years ago, no matter which direction you look, was that the universe was being born. This is why it's a "ring".

This is called the observable universe and to be clear, I'm pretty sure current technology does not allow us to look that far. But this is what you would see.

As for what is "outside" it, our current understanding of physics can only extrapolate back to 1 planck time after the big bang. What was going on before that, in the moment of the big bang and any hypothetical "before", nobody can tell you. It's a singularity, it's where mathematical values reach infinity, and we don't really understand what happens when values reach infinity in real life. It's why people say we don't know what happens "inside" a black hole, it's the same problem.

Ultimately your question is one and the same as "what was before the big bang". My personal preferred idea is that space and time itself didn't exist before the big bang, therefore the very concept of "before" the big bang is nonsensical. So then what is "outside the universe", as far as I'm concerned it may well be a nothing beyond what you can even comprehend, a "place" in which space and time simply doesn't exist. Or it could be a gazillion pink elephants having a tea party. It's likely we will never know for sure.

2

Loki-L t1_ja5ap0o wrote

The prefix isn't "a" it is "ab". aboriginal comes from "ab-origine". it is from Latin.

It means "from the origin". The idea is that those are native people who have been here from the start and not immigrated later.

It is similar to the idea of "first people" or indigenous (born inside).

Of course if you go far enough back all people everywhere outside of Africa migrated there from somewhere else, but that touches on some problematic religious ideas and in any case the people who first applied those terms didn't know that.

2

azuth89 t1_ja59xbs wrote

That's usually a- and an- like a-theist vs an-esthesia.

A- and an- are greek rooted and mean "not" as in a total nonexistence or rejection of. Like an atheist believes in zero gods.

Ab- is from latin and means away from, but still existing. Like... absent doesn't mean you don't exist, you're just away from here, absorb means to draw something away from where it is now not to destroy it, etc...

1

robot_egg t1_ja59rq1 wrote

Each tax credit in the US's baroque tax system is added via a new law, and is negotiated independently from all the others. So whether any given one is refundable depends on the specific horse trading at the time it's enacted.

Most tax credits are nonrefundable, meaning they can reduce the tax you owe, but if it's more than you owe, any excess just disappears. It's easier to get approved, because the cost is capped that way.

This type is often used to encourage some behavior or act, like installing solar panels or buying an electric car.

A few tax credits, mostly directed at low income tax payers, are set up as refundable to benefit the folks who need it most.

2

white_shades t1_ja59mh5 wrote

The word aboriginal is from the Latin word aborigines which roughly translates to “original inhabitants.”

It’s made up of the prefix ‘ab’ (which usually means “away” or “away from” but also more generally “from” in the sense of the word “of”) and the root ‘origines’ (which is the root word for “original.” So it literally means “from the original.”

3

demanbmore t1_ja59g4t wrote

Could be a number of things. One significant consideration is whether we want the government to more fully fund certain things versus potentially limited funding where a tax credit is capped at taxes owed. The Earned Income Tax Credit for example is fully refundable, and in many situations, there's the potential for not only paying zero federal taxes, but getting additional funds from the government as well. The EITC is a welfare program of sorts, and while it's hard to get into the minds of policymakers, it's likely far more efficient to distribute all these funds directly as part of the tax filing and refund process rather than knocking tax liability down to zero and then having a second program to process the remainder of the "unused" funding that the government is willing to pay to EITC filers.

A non-refundable tax credit however, serves as an incentive to spend (or do whatever is necessary to earn the credit) only insofar as you have tax liabilities that equal or exceed the credit. While we can try to attribute some rationale to how policy and rule makers determine which are refundable and which aren't, it likely comes down to lobbying and the need to meet projections.

2

lurq_king t1_ja58xpa wrote

You’re missing OP’s point. Some credits are refundable and others are not. Credits are deducted from taxes due, but some can take the amount due below zero resulting in a refund (or increased refund), whilst other cannot.

Deductions reduce income, before tax.

1

LogosPlease t1_ja58jn5 wrote

The majority of the process is controlled and purposefully done by the DNA. Your body grows in stages and goes through major changes from embryo, to fetus to infant, toddler teenager etc. Your body is developing mostly as intended. As we age though, our cells' DNA slowly breaks down over time and as cells continue to use DNA to perform lifer functions like making proteins or cell reproduction, the DNA is compromised over time and the cells cannot perform their functions as well and slowly perform worse until they start causing stress on cells around them and so on until a major bodily function fails.

8

turniphat t1_ja57uex wrote

Modern cars are ridiculously overpowered. Every year, the new models need to be better than the old models and better than the competition.

Farm equipment just needs to get the job done. A tractor rarely needs to work at more than 5 mph. So no reason to spend money on a larger engine.

Most commercial equipment has a lot less hp than you'd expect. When whoever is buying equipment is looking at operating costs, purchase price, expected profit, they buy just what they need, not what is most fun.

Most consumers on the other hand think, I may tow a trailer in the mountains one day, so I'd better get the bigger engine just in case. Commercial operators say put it in 2nd gear and go slow.

18