I feel like either this definition or the above definition of queer is wrong. I don't believe there are only two genders, or any of the above, but I am cis-gendered and heterosexual, so I'm not queer. That is to say, as far as I understand, queer isn't about belief at all.

consultants are experts. since they're really good at what they do, their time is very expensive. it's way cheaper to just use a consultant here and there when you need them, than to hire them to work for you fulltime.

The gear itself doesn't wear at all from static force, since it's just pieces of metal meshing with each other but not moving. They can wear a bit from turning under power, though this is pretty negligible in vehicle transmissions that are working properly.

I think you're thinking of clutches. Manual transmission cars use clutches which physically slip to start from a stop. If you left one partially engaged while braked at a full stop, it would indeed wear very fast, so don't do that. Automatic transmission cars use torque converters, which as described in the other posts is a fluid coupling instead of a mechanical slippage, so it doesn't wear significantly from exerting force while the car is held at a stop by the brakes.

Gas generally is aligned directionally with the price of oil. If oil goes up, gas goes up, if oil goes down gas goes.

If people think the price of oil is increasing, they will say that gas may go up. They may be wrong, maybe oil goes down, or no change, but they can still say it. Saying "gas will go up" means nothing until it actually does, and unless you're putting your money where your mouth is, there's no penalty for being wrong. They absolutely do not ALWAYS get it right. But economists and traders know the patterns and roughly what to expect. Your local radio etc. isn't making their own predictions, they probably just look at what someone else is saying.

Example: Gas is going up tomorrow.

For oil, there's a lot of metrics, such as worldwide oil production, that are very good indicators of the direction oil is trending, so people look to those when they think about what the price will be in the near term.

Queer, historically, is a slur used to call gay people strange disturbing and unnatural. Like most slurs, some people have tried to reclaim it. In the 80s during the AIDS crisis there was a lot of shock-and-awe activism tactics going on to draw attention to how gay men were dying and the government was being very slow in addressing the epidemic. This included the use of the word queer as a reclaimed slur, as it was being used extensively as a slur at the time. Not all people were in favor of reclaiming it.

Additionally around this time and especially in the 90s, post modernism was taking hold in academia. This is a philosophy that believes in 'multiple, conflicting things being equally true because universal truth does not exist'. In many ways, the pioneers of this academic field attempted to appear as edgy as possible, and thus explored slur usage. They decided to study sexuality, but opposed the idea that sexuality is concrete and unchangeable. They believe it is fluid and subject to change since there are no universal truths but rather 'everyone's identity and experience is supposed to be equally true', which depending on who you ask, can be seen as very progressive or incredibly homophobic.

They decided to call this theory of sexuality 'queer theory' and positioned themselves as academics guiding the activists — to be progressive is to consume Butler and Foucault. To be repulsed by the idea of telling gay people they are queer (overwhelmingly a slur at the time) and their sexuality is changeable is to be backwards, even if you were grassroots gay activists.

Queer theory expanded into theories of gender as well, finding best friends in defining reality based on identity not material circumstance. Queer theory does not get along with materialism.

Post modernism is really popular among the left and most universities now. It is the party line, so to speak. Other forms of leftist thought based in materialism are considered backwards and outdated. As a result, the key tenets of post modernism have been embraced, such as word salad and incomprehensible, undefinable 'truths'. Thus, queer theory, in which sexuality and gender are completely opt in, and how the word queer is used in it, as a way to refer to all those they choose to define as 'not normal', becomes in vogue.

Thus, queer became a progressive identity standing for nothing other than the idea of counter culture sexuality and gender as per postmodernism thought. Theoretically, it is supposed to mean those who are attracted to the same sex (the ones the slur originally was applied to) and those who do not conform to sex stereotypes (which was often gay people, and is the reason trans people, who were often homosexual, became associated with gay people in the west in the first place). However, it is widely used in the queer theory notion of simply refering to anything not within the 'mainstream'.

Nowadays, it is still used as a slur quite extensively. I have heard it myself. However, the general public consensus is that it is fully reclaimed and can be used by corporations and people who were not the target of the slur, because academia proclaimed it the most progressive way to talk about people considered 'not normal' regarding their sexuality or whether they conform to the stereotypes associated with their sex.

People have wildly different opinions on the use and meaning and usefulness of the word. However, the above are some basic facts regarding its history and usage. Altogether, I think one has to decide what it means and what they think of it for themselves. There is no concrete, real meaning, since it is commonly now used as a post modernist term, and a 'concrete, real meaning' is the antithesis of post modernism. It also has history and modern use as a slur. How it is used as a post modernist term is also something you could choose to judge as progressive or backwards. It is up to you, op.

The answer is that we evolved alongside them. We share a long relationship of coexistence to mutually benefit each other.

The user I was replying to was complaining that it was so freely available without prescription. There are very good reasons that people who are addicted, but because of the stigmatization and legal consequences are afraid to tell a medical provider, or don't have access to doctor visits, should still have access to narcan. There are very good reasons why people who are NOT addicted but for various reasons may encounter an overdosing person need access.

My point is that there are very good reasons to not require a prescription. And that more lives are saved by not requiring a prescription for narcan.

> water

Liquids are very good at facilitating chemcial reactions, because they're dense, so different molecules spend a lot of time in close contact with each other, but unlike in solids, the molecules can move around freely. Liquid water is especially good for doing chemistry in, because it's a very strong solvent - a water molecule has a positively charged end and a negatively charged end, which grab onto different parts of solid/gaseous substances and pull them into the water.

Liquid water should also be pretty abundant, since hydrogen and oxygen are the first and third most abundant elements in the universe and they love reacting with each other to form water. The range between its melting and boiling points is pretty big, and there should be plenty of planets that have temperatures like that somewhere. So it's not something that's incredibly rare and only found on Earth - it should be fairly common.

People have come up with ideas for substances that could take the place of water, such as ammonia, but all of them are either rarer than water, or less good at facilitating complex chemistry, or (usually) both.

> oxygen

There are plenty of known organisms on Earth that don't require molecular oxygen, and even some that die if they are exposed to significant quantities of it. So nobody assumes that extraterrestrial life would necessarily require an oxygen-rich atmosphere. However, I'm pretty sure that all known life contains oxygen atoms somewhere, and it's one of the most abundant elements in the universe and appears in a huge range of chemical compounds, so it would be a little surprising to find a life-form that doesn't contain any oxygen at all.

> an atmosphere

Without an atmosphere, you don't get any surface liquid or gas. It is possible that life could exist underneath a solid surface though. For example, it's thought that Europa has a liquid water ocean under a thick layer of ice, and it's not implausible that life could emerge somewhere like that.

Interesting, thanks!

I just googled the average price at $691. I’m really glad it’s available by prescription. I get refills when it expires.

I don’t know what point you’re making. Narcan is routinely prescribed for people who are either abusing opioids or taking opioids for e.g. cancer pain. The Narcan is intended to be given by family members.

Narcan also has standing orders and anyone can get it to save someone else, but it’s not an individual prescription and, because America, not covered by insurance.

In addition to torque converter, many higher end sport cars use Dual Clutch Transmissions. In that case there is an actual clutch that engages/slips into 1st gear, just like you would do in a manual.

>I practically guarantee you that more people are going to harm themselves with OTC acetaminophen/paracetamol than would do so with epi pens.

I agree, those should absolutely not be OTC ;P

Of course he would. Adrenaline should be administered intramuscularly not intravenously. The iv dose for adr is far less than what we use for Im. So a std im dose can easily be lethal

Because adrenaline can be abused and obviously has side effects. Hypertension, arrythmias, haemorrhage, aneurysm bursts, cardiac arrests are just some of the side-effects of adrenaline.

Consultants help companies change or improve their business operations. But it’s a broad directive based on specific case. Often, it means helping companies improve their operations through technology and software, like helping set up and customize a business software platform or even build a custom platform to help the business operate more efficiently… say something like allowing a chain of stores to better order inventory from the central warehouse, or a logistics company to better assign/plan delivery routes; helping an eCommerce company build a better, more effective sales platform that can do things like show customers actual real-time availability and offer alternatives if our, or upsell when they do find what they want (make sure to get ink for that new printer; this belt goes well with those shoes).

It can even be pretty mundane stuff, that’s actually much more complex under the hood due to interconnections… like when my company shifted from gmail/Google calendar & MS Office to a full Microsoft 365 set up that tied network logins to all software, meant migrating literally decades of emails and calendars, etc. and training employees on the new programs.

As with all questions about why animals do any specific thing, the ultimate answer is simply "those that didn't died out". So the question of why do birds that bob their heads have an evolutionary advantage over those of their species that didn't does not necessarily need or have a single absolute answer.

In this particular case, three major proximate reasons (any of which might have more or less impact in any particular case) are:

• tracking: the mechanical movement is actually lack of movement, because keeping their eyes nearer a fixed level is less energy-intensive than using their brains to compensate for the movement of their heads while walking

• balance: to lower their center of gravity to make toppling over when they lift one leg to step forward less likely

• leverage: by moving their heads in an opposite direction to their bodies, they use less energy in locomotion

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

Think this through.

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

Loaded questions, or ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5 (Rule 6).

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

If you want to buy it over the counter you might be able to. I remember someone else that wanted to get one without a doctor for reasons. (I think they were on Vacation) It still had to be ordered and was expensive.

It is covered by prescription so people get them and get them replaced. Prescriptions get them to people and get replaced regularly. This system gets a life saving treatment to people that need it.

Opioid use. Not necessarily opioid use disorder (addiction), just opioid use for any reason.

If it were brought to market today, Tylenol wouldn’t be over the counter. I’m not sure it would get approval at all with its horrible overdose toxicity.

But the same is even more true for alcohol, and yet that ship has sailed. Actually it sailed thousands of years before the invention of ships.

We have limited resources, so we can’t look at everything in detail all the time. We have to prioritize how we are looking for life, and we only have one example of where life can be found: Earth. So we look for Earth-like planets because we have positive-proof that life can exist there.

Imagine you were looking for a doctor in a hospital; you’d probably look for someone wearing a white coat with a stethoscope hanging from their neck, right? But anyone in the hospital could be a doctor; the guy wearing skinny jeans and a sweater walking through the lobby could be a doctor coming on/off their shift. But we know that white coat + stethoscope = doctor, so we immediately look for those signs first.

Unless it's a weekend, holiday, etc.

Really, what harm are you trying to prevent by keeping the thing prescription?

The simple answer is that if they are different enough from all of the life that we know about that they don’t need those things then it’s likely that we won’t know what to look for to find them. At the distances we are dealing with we can just look for things moving around. We look for planet-wide traits since we can see those, and only know what those traits might be based on our sample size of one living planet.

As a simpler example, say we were using just a telescope to look for trees on Mars. We can’t see a tree from here, but all the trees we know about form big green forests, so we just look for green. There might be other color trees on Mars, but we have no idea which other color they would be, so looking for other colors won’t tell us anything.