[removed]

They can, but the barriers to entry are massive.

For example, Knotfest is a metal festival run by Slipknot, who organise ticketing and independent venues.

In Australia this was a Showground in Brisbane, Centennial Park in Sydney and Flemington race course in Melbourne.

There is no way an averagely successful band, or even Slipknot doing a non-festival tour could make these venues financially viable.

Also the people killed when the wind picked up the stage and crashed it into the crowd, or the people crushed in a crowd crush/stampede. Lots of examples lately.

Yes they could. But who would pay to advertise this unusual venue? And who would pay to create a new method of making tickets? And who would pay to have the vendors, food, drink, bathrooms, security, etc? Yes, some of these venues already have some of these services - but for the level of Taylor Swift?

They could, but doing so would also cause a lot of headaches and lost revenue for them too. It's also worth pointing out that the last time there was a Woodstock, people died of heat stroke and rioted over a lack of bathrooms

For complex proteins, taking oral supplements of something like collagen probably doesn’t do much. There is little scientific evidence to show that it helps, and most of those studies are funded by the companies trying to sell you the supplements.

Best thing you can do for your skin long-term is avoid sun damage by wearing SPF.

There are two major things people who settle want to avoid: huge legal expenses and protracted court proceedings. Even if you are 100% in the right, a trial is always risky. You are relying on another person or people to apply the law rationally and correctly, and people are fallible. By going to court you run the risk of losing, paying more and taking a definitive hit to your reputation, after weeks and weeks of your business being aired to the public. Often the trial process can bring more unfavorable information to light that can damage your reputation.

If you settle, yes you have to pay money but it is less than if you had lost the trial, and the matter is resolved quietly and comparatively quickly with minimal legal fees (compared to the expense of a full trial). Instead of weeks of repeated coverage, there is a day or two of mentions and then the whole matter vanishes from the public conscience.

As an example, most people will remember details they heard from the Depp/Heard defamation trial for years. You probably don’t remember a major celebrity settlement from a year ago. So negotiating a settlement can be a good way to sweep the issue out of the public eye and be able to move on. For celebrities, especially those who have to rely on promoting their work, getting rid of controversies quickly can help ensure the success of their upcoming projects as well, by avoiding a long stint if negative publicity.

Could really big acts enact a vendetta against Ticketmaster, and insist on playing (for example) in nothing but outdoor, Woodstock-like venues? Or contracting big but atypical venues (e.g. University football stadiums) instead?

[deleted]

Because Ticketmaster is Live Nation and they not only control the tickets, but the venues as well. In America, you can’t do a stadium tour or a tour of any scale without performing at a live Nation venue. They basically have artists by the balls.

Ticketmaster has a functional monopoly, which isn't the same thing as a true monopoly.

They own and control so many venues that you have no choice but to deal with them.

If you decide to go around them you'll be forced to perform shows in small alternative venues and virtually every stadium and major venue in the US is under the Ticketmaster umbrella.

The only real solution to the problem at this point is convincing the US govt to enforce anti-trust laws and have the company broken up.

Your body stores sugar for quick use as glycogen. And glycogen binds to 3-4x its weight in water. Diets that restrict your carb intake cause you to use glycogen and not replenish it, which releases a lot of water.

Ah, thank you.

[removed]

There are several types of EMP. The one that people worry about, that goes over a long distances, is the HEMP, or High-Altitude EMP. It is caused by a nuclear weapon essentially detonating in the upper atmosphere, and caused by interactions between the radiation from the bomb and the upper atmosphere itself. The easiest way to think about this is that a nuke detonated in outer space has far more of its energy stay as radiation (and not turn into blast and heat by interacting with the atmosphere), and that radiation is used to "charge up" a layer of the atmosphere in a way that results in the EMP. The physics of this is complicated.

Nukes detonated in the atmosphere also produce an EMP effect, but the high-intensity range of it is pretty limited. Limited to the point that if you have something that can be damaged in that range, it probably is close enough to the other effects to be damaged anyway. So it is less "special" in this way, and would just be part of the general damage you'd have of a place that gets nuked. It is not widespread like the HEMP.

> All nukes are meant to be set as airburst, it increases their effectiveness significantly

This is not quite right. It depends on the target you are trying to destroy. An airburst is good for maximizing the distance of medium or low levels of damage. A ground burst is for maximizing the intensity of the damage at the expense of range.

So if your nuke is aimed at a "soft" target like a city, an airburst makes more sense. If it is aimed at a "hard" target like a missile silo, you need to use a ground burst.

It actually can happen, but it's rare.

I'm assuming you already know how rainbows are formed by light refracting through droplets of water. Double rainbows (which I'm going to call second-order rainbows here) happen when some of the light refracts immediately but some of it bounces around inside the droplet before escaping. It has to bounce twice to produce a double rainbow, amd because some of the light is lost with each bounce, the second rainbow is fainter than the first.

Higher-order rainbows are possible, and may not even be all that rare. The problem is that each order requires more bounces than the last, and because each bounce loses some light, the higher-order rainbows are harder to see. The first photograph of a triple rainbow in nature was only made in 2011, because the light has to be very bright and the sky has to be very clear. At least one person has managed to photograph a quintuple rainbow (fifth-order). This was done in 2014.

In laboratories, of course, it's possible to use much brighter lights and better conditions than those found in nature. In the mid-1800s, Felix Billet created up to 19th-order rainbows in his experiments. In 1998, scientists using lasers created up to 200th-order rainbows. What we weren't sure of until recently was whether you could get the right conditions to see more than two in nature. But it turns out that you can.

Excellent description, thank you. Been wondering about the relationship between these terms for years and you have presented the similarities and differences very clearly.

Oxygen levels are decreasing slightly, but there is a lot more oxygen (20.95%) than CO2 (0.02%). If CO2 doubled to 0.04%, without any oxygen being added back, the level would decrease to 20.93%, which is barely noticeable.

Plants (especially algae) convert lots of CO2 back into oxygen, this slows down the rate at which CO2 levels are creeping upwards to a crawl. A change in the natural ecosystem which disturbs photosynthesis, such as a mass die-off of algae, would cause a much larger shift in O2 and CO2 levels.

When you go to buy a home you probably don't have $300,000 lying around. So you get a loan. A special kind of loan for homes, called a mortgage. The bank gives you the $300,000 and you pay it back + interest over the next 15 or 30 years.

The $300,000 is called your principal. And it's supposed to be a close approximation to the value of your home (after all, that's what it cost you to buy it). As you make payments back to the bank you pay off the interest but you also pay down some of the principal. So let's say after a few years you've paid off $50,000 of the principal. That means you now own a $300,000 home, but still owe the bank $250,000 + interest. This means if you sell your home right now, you'd get $300,000. You would use that to pay off the $250,000 you still owe, and you'd be left with $50,000.

"Equity" is the term we use for how much of your house you've paid off. Or how much you would make if you were to sell it. So in this situation if you've paid off $50,000 of the principal, then you've got $50,000 in equity.

In simple terms:

Bail is an amount of money that you can pay in order to be released from jail while you wait for your case to be handled by the court. Say your bail is set at $1,000. You can pay $1,000 and get out of jail. Assuming you make all required court appearances, you get that money back once your case has been dealt with. If you take off and don’t go to court, you lose the money.

Courts want to set bail high enough to guarantee that you’ll actually show up to court when required. If bail was only $10, someone might pay it and disappear. So they set it higher.

The court might set it so high that you can’t actually pay the full amount. Even though you’d get the money back eventually, you still can’t scrape it together up front. In that case, you can get a bail bond.

The bond is an agreement by a third party — a bondsman — to pay the required bail on your behalf. The court accepts this agreement and lets you out. To get the bond, you have to pay a percentage of the bail amount, like 10% to 15%. Unlike with bail itself, you don’t get all this money back. It’s the price of the bond.

The bond guarantees to the court that you will show up when required. If you don’t show up, then the bondsman has to forfeit the full bail amount to the court, and the court will keep it. The bondsman doesn’t want to lose the full bail amount, of course, so they send a bounty hunter after you to drag you back for your court date.

So: The point of bail is to ensure that you come back to court, either on your own or dragged back in handcuffs by a bounty hunter.

All that said, there are plenty of times when they let someone out with no bail at all because they don’t have any reason to believe they won’t come back to court.

Oh wow, thanks for the answer! So there are third and fourth order bows predicted mathematically but are not visible to the naked eye and we won’t ever see a third bow opposite the sun like a regular single or double rainbow.

Thank you. But sometimes the court can require all cash bond, does that mean no bail bondsman allowed?

Third and fourth order rainbows can happen. They're just very faint and occur near the sun.

Light reflects off the inside of water droplets at a 40-42.5 degree angle (depending on wavelength), so the primary and secondary rainbow, reflecting at less than 90 degrees, appear on the side of the sky opposite the sun. The third and fourth rainbow, at ~120 and ~160 degrees, appear close to the sun, and are thus difficult to see.

Here's a scientific paper from somebody who managed to get a photograph of a triple rainbow.

and a quadruple

The fundamental idea is that sometimes people will be arrested and charged with a crime but have an extended period of time before a trial can be held. Most people do not want to wait in jail for that period of time, and the legal system recognizes that it would be unfair to force someone to do so unless there is a reasonable cause to think letting them go free would be a danger to the community or that they would escape entirely. Presuming that a judge considers it reasonable to let them return to the community in the meantime there still needs to be some incentive for them to return for trial.

That is what "bail" is, an amount of money handed over to the court which will be returned in full if the accused shows up for trial at the appointed time. It is supposed to be significant enough that the accused will be reluctant to just leave it behind and avoid the trial completely. This can be in the form of cash or potentially other assets can be pledged such as one's house.

It is possible that this significant sum of money is not something the accused has conveniently on hand. They could instead borrow money in order to pay their bail, and a provider of such a specific kind of loan is known as a "bail bondsman". What they offer is to pay the accused's bail themselves for a set fee, typically 10% of the total bail. When/if the accused shows up to their trial the bondsman gets their money back in full and keeps the 10% fee from the accused.

If the accused doesn't show up for their trial then the bondsman doesn't get their money back. This is a significant risk but there is one way they can mitigate their losses. If the accused is caught and turned over to the courts then they will return the bondsman's money, and in order to make this happen they will offer a "bounty", a reward of money for the capture and return of the accused to the court. The bondsman will need to pay off the bounty but they will get their money back from the court so overall they will lose less money (assuming the bounty is less than the bail + 10%). Those who seek to fulfill the bounty are known as "bounty hunters" and due to the unique legal challenges of a private citizen who's trade is tracking down other people and capturing them against their will, such a trade tends to be strictly licensed so such people are qualified professionals.