Ideally that's true. And I'm sure for some individuals it is how they act.

In general politicians vote for things that keep themselves in power, which means avoiding things that piss the public off enough for them to take action. If the public is annoyed but doesn't actually do anything the politicians are safe to continue doing what they want.

and i answered the question to the best of my abilities. i'm a little confused. I both answered why they cannot take up nitrogen from the air and explained how they do take up nitrogen and I explained why this is with the diatomic state being a very strong bond and hard to break. I also provided two sources where you can learn more on this subject. I am truly sorry if that's not enough for you. please ask me your question in another way as it seems you require more information but are too lazy to seek it out yourself. Instead you belittle someone on reddit with a shitty comment that is empty of meaning. please try harder to uptake information so that we don't need to have these pointless discussions. there are tens of comments with good answers some even better than mine. either that or do try again with your question and i will try harder to teach you. we can use snatoms if you want as some people learn differently https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/veritasium/snatoms-the-magnetic-molecular-modeling-kit

It's not so much the container it's kept in as the conditions it's kept it. Refrigerator temperatures slow the growth of bacteria and fungi, and the tight-fitting lid prevents air from oxidizing the food. And preservatives added by the manufacturer are likely to do one or both of those things. Finally, some substances in food have inherent antimicrobial properties, such as the capsaicin that makes the chilis spicy.

Thank you for the suggestion of the book, now I am definitely curious.

🤷‍♀️ I'm not the OP of the post or the comment thread, so I can't really help you with that.

Atmospheric nitrogen is more or less inert; two atoms form a N2 molecule that is very stable; the bond between them is well balanced. Nitrogen in the form of nitrates in soil will easily break free in water solutions and form N^2- ions; plants can incorporate those easily into more complex molecules since it is unstable and needs to form compounds with something.

The word "gerrymander" comes from a political cartoon in the Boston-Gazette from 1812. The paper was criticizing then-Governor Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814) for using his influence to get electoral maps in Massachusetts drawn in a politically favorable way for him, but that defied reasonable expectations of fairness. One district in these maps vaguely resembled a salamander, so the Boston-Gazette added some artistic flair and dubbed it the "Gerry-mander". It is important to note that Gov. Gerry did not invent the process of gerrymandering, nor was he even necessarily the worst offender up to that time. Rather, the Gerry-mander was just catchy enough of a name that it caught on for the whole process for the rest of time.

So what is gerrymandering? As I said before, it's drawing electoral maps in a politically advantageous way for a particular politician or faction. But to really understand what that means you probably need an example. So the first thing you must understand is that not every person has the same ideals and interests, and will therefore tend to vote in different ways. You might be a rich factory owner interested in tax breaks and relaxed labor laws; I might be a subsistence farmer interested in keeping property taxes low and a relatively clean environment so that my crops don't fail or poison me. Joe Shmoe over there might be a city-dwelling white collar worker interested in urbanism and robust government services like education and city parks. Further, these people with differing interests are not necessarily homogeneously spread throughout a particular polity. The factory owner and white collar workers mentioned above are more likely to reside in a dense city, while the subsistence farmer is more likely to be out in the country, for example. Indeed, if you look at the current American political landscape you can see that dense urban areas tend to be heavily Democratic voters while the surrounding exurbs and rural areas tend to vote heavily for Republicans.

So with those two factors in hand, a savvy politician tasked with making maps for the next decade until the next decennial census might be able to predict how individuals in any given are are likely to vote, and then draw boundaries in such a way to achieve some political goal. Generally, this falls under two major methods, "cracking" and "packing". In cracking, map makers will attempt to split groups up in and pair them with their opposites in such a way as to dilute the target group's influence. For example, a Democratic-leaning city might be split into two or more districts and paired with the less dense, but more populous, Republican-leaning countryside areas in such a way as to produce a slight but reliable Republican majority in each district, effectively eliminating the ability of the people in the city to have a voice at the particular level of government at question.

Packing is slightly different, in that you try to pack as many target voters into a single district so that their electoral efficiency is low. This will produce a seat for the opposition, but if that seat is a minority, it's fine for the gerrymandered because it will be made up for with electoral gains elsewhere. By electoral efficiency, I mean that for a single member district, it doesn't really matter if that member wins with 51% or 99% of the vote; they're still just a single vote in the legislature. So a Democrat might try to pack as many reliable rural Republican voters into as few districts as possible, making just a few deeply entrenched Republican seats in the legislature, then use the rest of the of the map and the seats to deliver a solid and everlasting Democratic majority.

Either way, the end result is politicians choosing their voters, rather than voters choosing their politicians. Both parties do it. Texas engaged in quite a bit of packing this cycle to further cement their Republican majority with their two new congressional seats, while Oregon did a bit of cracking of the rural vote in an attempt to expand their majority with their new congressional seat. Most of the time, you have to do a bit of both to pull off a truly successful gerrymander. Also, gerrymandering isn't always done for a party's benefit; sometimes incumbent politicians will want to draw nice safe seats for themselves, even if they end up in the minority most of the time. After all, it's a pretty nice gig to cruise to an easy reelection every year and get to sit in the halls of power without ever actually having to the hard work of governing and facing the consequences of your policy positions being enacted. Also, gerrymandering isn't always done for partisan purposes. For example, in the US we have a requirement to create majority minority districts when possible in order to ensure that minorities voices can be heard in government. So in the Deep South you'll often see packing of the Black vote into one or two sapphire blue districts so that Black voters can know that they'll have someone they've chosen for themselves on Capitol Hill. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a value judgement left as an exercise for the reader.

If they have access to the cars interior, they can also pop the hood and disconnect the battery. I've seen them do this twice after accidents. Not sure if that was to prevent alarms or a general practice after an accident when towing for some other reason.

Is that a good thing though? In your example, making 2 districts of strong group A, and 1 district of strong group B you are encouraging extreme views that dont work well together (basically what we have now). The minority group is always the loser no matter what because 2 beats 1.

If we just went by proportion it could isolate minority groups, but would more than likely foster electing 3 moderate candidates that appeal to the majority of people in the middle and actually accomplish things instead of fighting for opposite goals. In this case minority groups become the swing voters that decide elections so their concerns get amplified and are more likely to be addressed by whatever party is in power.

Difficult ELI5.

We don't know anywhere nearly enough about REM sleep as it is. Nor the brain very well as it is. They all would impact REM in different ways.

Sleep works kind of like this:

NR1 Sleep (non-REM 1) - Very light sleep. You will feel like you just nodded off. When you awake from it, it doesn't even feel as though you slept. Very low demand sleep. This is what you aim for in a quick nap - under 15 minutes.

NR2 Sleep (non-REM 2) - Lighter sleep that comprises most of your time slept. Feels like more than nodding off, but still not too deep in sleep to be awakened. Good for long naps - under 45 mins.

NR3 sleep (non-REM 3; also known as Delta Sleep) - Deep sleep. Difficult to be awakened at this time. Most restful portion of sleep. This is when the body and brain repair themselves.

REM sleep (Rapid Eye Movement Sleep) - This is when you dream. It is the most demanding part of sleep. Your heart rate increases and becomes variable. Your brain activity flies through the roof. This part of sleep is believed to be responsible in processing emotions and cementing memories.

*My weird little opinion on REM sleep, which is by know means factual: We need to experience things to learn. Our dreams are our way of simulating these things into a way we can experience them, process them, and cement them. Again, by no means factual.

After REM it circles back and continues in layers: NR3, NR2, NR1, repeat. (NR1, NR2, NR3, REM, NR3, NR2, NR1, NR2, etc.)

A common REM suppressor, cannabis, impacts REM cycles by shortening them. With shortened REM cycles, though, comes with more non-REM sleep (NR1/2/3) in a similiar period to someone with regular length REM cycles.

So a person who uses cannabis and sleeps the same amount of time as somebody who doesn't use cannabis would theoretically get a more restful sleep than the latter, based on cannabis' impact on REM sleep, alone (not taking into account physiological effects). But the cannabis user would have gotten less REM sleep and time to cement their memories.

It hits those lows every single year. I'm in the west metro, lived here my whole life.

2014/15 (I think it was) we had highs of -55F, plus windchill. That was exceptional, but we get a week or two at least every year of lows around -40.

Can confirm. I've had people bite into me and I leaked liquid.

Don't forget that the methods of measuring power are questionable at best... Even today.

Can take a car from ford, bmw, vw, Mercedes, and dodge and toss them on the same Dyno on the same day and there is a decent amount of variance between their self reported and actual...

Most notable the BMW 335 from the mid 2010s where it somehow was developing more power than claimed.

Where most usually develop 10-20% less due to drivetrain loses

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

Please search before submitting.

This question has already been asked on ELI5 multiple times.

If you need help searching, please refer to the Wiki.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

[removed]

I can't answer why it has to be oxygen, but the oxygen is used in the final step to keep your cells fed.

There is a molecule called ATP (adenosine triphosphate, for those of you over 5) that is what your cells run on, and your body produces it from sugar (glucose) and oxygen. That is the entire reason you need to breath, to bring in oxygen for the ATP cycle.

​

See here for details

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/02%3A_Cell_Biology/2.31%3A_Anaerobic_and_Aerobic_Respiration#:~:text=Why%20oxygen%3F,many%20more%20ATP%20are%20made.

https://www.thoughtco.com/aerobic-vs-anaerobic-processes-1224566

[removed]

Please update your original comment

[removed]

I'm curious if OP is referring to older shows on older TVs, because if you watch any 80/90's era cartoons on Netflix/Hulu/whatever, they're very saturated and bright.

Sorry what do you mean by 'higher up'?

i finished my residency in march and have since gotten a corporate job that is 9-5, but I still have a lot of issues sleeping. the truth is that medical school and residency is pretty demanding and sleep becomes second on the priority list

I like those temps for a lot of reasons, one of them that the C/F distinction more or less goes away down there haha.

All good mate, talking about the winter's cold can quickly turn into a Salty Spitoon contest of who's toughest! I'm happy to give it to you up in Edmonton though - you know the senses involved with a clear January day for sure!

Right around the corner now, good sauna weather! I was just noting to a friend too how we're a third of the way down from summer: 50⁰ off from the top of July, 100⁰ still to go down to the bottom of January. . . Bring it on!

[removed]

Yeah, people in Canada tend to exaggerate by giving the windchill temperatures, but I think that’s cheating. Excluding windchill we don’t really get to -40F/-40C very often, maybe only once or twice every second winter, in the middle of the night during a cold snap, like you said.