Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

oblivious_fireball t1_iy4t6fh wrote

its because the very delicate gills collapse and dry out quickly in air when supported and hydrated by water, and thus the fish effectively suffocates. Its the other side of the coin where we can't breathe underwater because the structures in our lungs are not designed to be able to efficiently take oxygen out of the water that is now surrounding them.

However this depends on the fish in question though. some fish are more hardy and can withstand longer periods outside the water. and some fish have special features that let them partially breath air, such as modifying parts of their digestive tract to function as a lung, using their swim bladder as a modified lung, or developing an entirely separate lung-like organ for use. These fish usually live in areas where water quality can become poor. Surprisingly a large number of popular fish kept in home aquariums have these features, such as Bettas, Gouramis, Plecos, Cory Catfish, Oto Catfish, and Ropefish

1

Moskau50 t1_iy4se6c wrote

They cannot target a specific part of the body. However, if you have some sort of deficiency that shows up most prominently in a specific part of the body, then taking the multivitamin or supplement can reduce the deficiency and "heal" the affected part simply because that's the part that hurts. Same for painkillers; they dull the pain everywhere, but you only notice the effect where you were feeling pain.

102

HappyFailure t1_iy4s0kd wrote

A lot of people are mentioning the Earth's atmosphere here, and it just isn't that big of a factor for sizable impactors over history. Yes, it keeps dust-sized particles from making a constant stream of micro-craters, and stops the fist-sized rocks from making small craters, but even Venus with 90 times Earth's atmosphere doesn't stop any craters bigger than about 2 km from being formed.

Okay, we wouldn't be seeing many craters bigger than the atmospheric cutoff being formed today because the influx of such objects is currently very small, but if we could have had the protection of our atmosphere while somehow turning off erosion/volcanism/tectonism for the past 4.5 billion years, then we would look (from a distance) as cratered as the Moon does--only when looking at small scales would we notice the difference.

1

Target880 t1_iy4s0h3 wrote

Multivitamins can't target part of the body. Vitamins and medicine will be distributed all around the body, medicine might have been designed so they interact with a single part but it will go everywhere.

There is an exception to going everywhere that is crossing the blood-brain barrier, so stuff might reach muscles but not the brain.

11

Terr_ t1_iy4rszf wrote

Imagine that computer RAM or a classic hard-drive are like a bunch of tiles an Othello/Reversi game board.

When you delete a picture, only the tiles that say "photo.jpg is inside tiles X to Y" are erased and flipped to be white-side up.

The actual tiles in spaces X to Y that had all of the pixels are usually left untouched, unless we have a paranoid reason to go through and change them.

In no case are any tiles being removed from the table--that would represent damage to the system.

Later those X-Y tiles may be changed, but usually because we've decided to put something new there.

1

graciousprof t1_iy4rowo wrote

Most often, the type of medicine just only affects that part of the body, or affects it more strongly than elsewhere. It will be spread throughout the whole body but not do anything except in specific parts of the body.

Different parts of the body have different receptors (for naturally produced chemicals) that can interact with medications in different ways, and a big part of creating new medicines is finding chemicals that can interact with specific receptors in useful ways

edit: also, often a medication *will* work everywhere, you just won't notice in the parts of your body that don't have negative symptoms

9

Dorocche t1_iy4pwvx wrote

Well, two things:

  1. Their colors only stand out compared to other reptiles and mammals. Amphibians and nearly every kind of invertebrate come in just as many spectacular colors. The better question is "why don't mammals have such a spectacular variety of colors compared to other animals?"

  2. Their variety in shape doesn't really stand out amongst anyone; obviously invertebrates all have enormous variation, but even boring old mammals have everything from tiny/round mice to lanky/springy deer to weird long ferrets to giant stocky rhinos.

It's also worth noting that fish in particular may be so widely varied because they're miscategorized; there's a push among some biologists to split up "fish" into several differently groups because there's so much more variation among "fish" than among equivalent groups.

Mammals don't have as much color variety because our color comes almost exclusively from melanin, which can only do shades of tan/brown/black. Most other animals can synthesize more pigments than that.

But birds in particular do have some other tricks up their sleeves:

Some birds, famously the flamingo but also plenty others, can absorb pigments from their food that their body can't make by itself.

Most green and blue birds actually don't use specc pigments, but their feathers structurally create that color (which is why they're so iridescent).

I don't know if either of those apply to fish.

92

BigChiefS4 t1_iy4pvba wrote

I'm going to be pedantic here - there is only one kind of memory in a computer and that is RAM (Random Access Memory). The data that is in memory is stored there as long as the computer is on and the operating system is fully booted. All of your programs that are running (like Chrome, Photoshop or Notepad) are running in memory. When you reboot your computer or power it off, whatever is in memory gets cleared out, or deleted.

Hard drives, whether they be spinning disks (HDD) or SSD's, are storage, not memory. The data stored in them is retained after a reboot or power cycle of the computer.

OP's wording of his question and your answer are the reasons why people get confused about memory vs. storage.

0

FellowConspirator t1_iy4pqr7 wrote

They don't generally run more efficiently, but they do run faster.

Laptops are designed to run off battery, if need be. Most people want the computer to run longer when on battery, rather than running fast and spending the battery quickly (particularly if you are working), so the laptop is designed to conserve energy by running the processor and other components in a slower low-power mode. Some even switch from a powerful graphics chip when plugged in, to a simpler graphics chip when running on battery (graphics can use lots of power).

When the laptop is plugged in, there's plenty of power and you're not worrying about the battery running out, so the laptop cranks up the speed of everything.

The thing is, it might be more efficient in the low power mode because it's going out of its way to not be wasteful (by default), and using more power might not speed it up as much as it uses more energy.

4

Moskau50 t1_iy4pjqa wrote

Pressure is caused by the column height of fluid, but the force that the pressure exerts is omnidirectional (technically, normal to every surface, but assuming a closed, real shape, that becomes omnidirectional). At any given depth, there's no net force of pressure upwards or downwards; assuming a short object, the bottom of the object experiences the same pressure as the top, which means the net force acting on each side is equal.

3

21_MushroomCupcakes t1_iy4olnj wrote

Stuff that's "marked for overwrite" isn't counted against total capacity.

I would just like to make the distinction that memory and storage are not the same thing, memory is your RAM and storage is your hard drive.

Many people are using them interchangeably, which will run aground if memory addresses ever come up.

1