>in sexual intercourse, a lot of people seem to have decided safewords to ensure that nobody is made uncomfortable, which is great! but i don’t understand why the word “stop” couldn’t be used. why would you need to decide on a completely unrelated word for when you’d like to stop instead of just saying stop?

Because since whatever you and your partner(s) of choice end up doing might just happen to involve roleplay. If, for example, the point of the whole enterprise is to involve a party feigning reluctance, then "stop" literally and genuinely meaning "Stop what you're doing!" would sabotage the arrangement.

>Eli5: If we had steam powered trains back in the day, why didn’t steam become a common “clean” energy source? Why did it die out?

Steam is created by heating up water a lot. Steam engines burned coal for that.

You can heat up the water by other means too! Nearly every conventional contemporary power plant uses steam turbines to generate its output. Coal power plants burn coal to provide steam for their turbines, gas power burn gas to provide steam for their turbines, nuclear power plants use the heat generated from nuclear fission to provide steam for their turbines.
It's steam turbines all the way down. Either way, none of it is particularly clean. There's always something that gets set on fire or used up in the process.

Pretty cool!
Truly remote areas just don't seem to exist in Middle Europe.

Now if only the pricing of train rides were competitive...

Also, welcome back to reddit?!

>>There's nothing connecting one roll to the next; they are completely independent.

> ...under the assumption of a completely fair die. (An assumption you are usually making in a statistics class.) > > > > In practice, though, the fairness of the die may be in doubt in many real-world scenarios.

You may have quoted the wrong passage there, because even without a fair die it still holds true. Whether the die is weighted towards a 6 or not, the individual rolls are still independent from each other, merely the probabilities of the outcomes are different.

>Why is it used and so valued over similar metals with such properties?

There are no metals with similar properties.

Gold is rare enough to be sought after yet common enough to be gathered in usable quantities, absolutely trivial to mine/gather and refine, easy to identify, easy to work with, easy to alloy, non-toxic and does not tarnish or corrode away.

It's also shiny.

>As an european, I WANT more parking space, I would love to drive anywhere, including downtown, without worrying where to park, I want 6 lanes on the highway each direction. I would never accept using anything else than my own car.

>Especially considering the rise of electric vehicles and the inevitability of dropping fossil fuels altogether, why is the idea of "build a city around the pedestrians, bikes and public transport" being so forced?

The whole point of a car is to enable you to quickly travel medium and large distances. That makes it rather pointless in a city where a public transit system can fulfill the same role more efficiently while all medium to short distances can also be traveled by bike.

Using up precious city space on the truly tremendous (and often redundant) amounts of infrastructure needed by cars when public transit and bike lanes can deliver the same throughput at a much tinier footprint is just wasteful and city planners are starting to take that into account.

>With the internet and ease of access to every part of the world today I imagine having a single language that everyone can understand would probably make everything way easier, right?

The internet has barely existed for a generation.
Languages die all the time but the scenario you're proposing is something that can only ever play out over the course of many many human lifetimes.

>why there isn't a metric to distinguish between used cars that have been driven in an urban setting as opposed to highway cars where there is clearly a larger wear and tear Factor due to the fact that the miles placed on them are more strenuous miles on the car as opposed to a clean highway mile that affects more than just the engine output, we have it more gas mileage

Both - among others - are important and entirely separate metrics. Knowing the circumstances under which a car was driven is pointless without knowing the mileage. Knowing the mileage is pointless without any other data. A car's literal age is yet another important metric that has nothing to do with its mileage but is determined by looking at its build year.

There are dozens of other things that are important for determining and putting into context the condition of a used car. And any salesperson will provide you with the necessary details, not just the mileage.

>I get that squaring a negative leads to a solution that’s impossible, but why do you have to make an impossible number into a number? Can’t you just say, “no solution is possible”?

I'm not sure what you mean by "impossible". Could you elaborate on your premise?

Subtracting a number from a smaller number is impossible within the realm of N (Natural Numbers). So why do we need Integers if they are "impossible"?
Well, sometimes we need to subtract a number from a smaller number.

"President of the United States" would crush the top rank!

>If we were able to have rockets built without money stopping us , we could start having resources from outer space like asteroids , moons , planets etc , we could also do a lot of researches expanding our technology , making us more complex , having bases around the solar system , we could start by putting resources on a base on moon , mars or other planets , we could even have space travel from not rockets , but skyhooks.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here - could you rephrase your question?
Money is an intermediary tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. It has no impact on those goods or services. A house is still a house, a pizza is still a pizza and a rocket is still a rocket - whether you pay for them in Euro, Bitcoin or sheep does not matter.

>If you speak one language you’re normal. Two you are bi-lingual. 5 you are polyliguist. >You don’t have to speak every one of the 7000 languages there are said to be just to be one. One guy (Mesic) apparently reported to understand 73. And another guy (Fazah) claimed 53.

"Polymath" is not a neologism. It has an already established, very specific meaning. You do not need to derive its individual components. It's very decidedly not a synonym to "person who is very very good within this very narrow subject area" (that would be an "expert") - quite the contrary! That's why "polymath of economics" or similar is a contradiction.

> Knowledge is a vast, vast domain and some people become competent or masters of one domain in a matter of several years.

Sure? But the natural conclusion from that is that it is simply no longer possible for a human to become a polymath, since it is no longer possible to keep up with the entire sea of human knowledge. Being a polymath is, at best, a 19th-century thing. Changing the meaning of "polymath" in order to be able to use the word in a contemporary context again, which is what the source article seems to be doing, seems a bit silly to me.

I really can't get behind the terminology here. I mean, surely either you excel at everything - and, accordingly, are a polymath - or not? Why would there be specific categories of "polymath"? That seems totally oxymoronic.

>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

>If allergies, and especially anaphylaxis, are so common, why do we still need prescriptions for epi pens and such?

Prescriptions are used to limit dangerous chemicals/medications to the use of folk who 1. need them and 2. have been instructed on how to use them by a physician.

Whether or not they are commonly used or required doesn't factor into it.

>is much harder to digest though, so we just pass it whole.

That's the point though - properly masticated that thing absolutely gets digested.

>what is the point of chewing food thoroughly if your stomach will digest everything anyway?

Your food having been chewed thoroughly is a requirement for it to be digested properly. Otherwise all the enzymes and carrier fluids involved in the digestion process have no surface area to attack. In that case the food will be excreted undigested.

Best not connect datapoints into a continuous graph if the connection doesn't mean anything. These things are not on a cardinal scale.

In that case columns are usually more appropriate than a graph.