>LI5 means friendly, simplified and layperson-accessible explanations - not responses aimed at literal five-year-olds.

-Sidebar

If we literally answered like people were five, it'd be way less helpful and probably fairly condescending. If a question isn't quite clear enough, nobody (well, most) won't be offended if you ask for more clarity.

If we suppose the amount of oxygen "lost" is equal to the CO2 added, which is oversimplified but close enough to get the point across, then the atmosphere has increased by about .02% CO2 over the last few centuries.

The atmosphere is about 21% oxygen, so you can see how that's basically a rounding error with regards to oxygen level.

The "crap in a can" is cream. The propellant is nitrous oxide, which is inert and tastes slightly sweet.

Additionally a lot of restaurants/cafes will just use a refillable version of the "crap in a can", which uses individual nitrous oxide chargers that you can swap out.

Get off your high horse.

It's primarily the pressure component. The longer it's in the water, and the higher the pressure of that water, the more the water can seep through tiny crevices.

I've never heard of, and on a search can't find reference to anything about destroying adhesives playing a major role in this.

Regarding your last point, some of the mass gain is going to be mitigated from water as a byproduct of hydrocarbon burning, but then also to consider is that a higher average temp is going to correlate with a lower average pressure.

Not sure which factor would win out, I'd tend to think the temp increase would be a larger factor and therefore lower pressure

Where are you supposing we source most of that O2 in CO2?

well that's not how combustion works

But he found a single paper from 2008 that, if read a certain way, supports his view! He must be right!

> water dowsing is controversial

Weird how people say "controversial" when pretending like witchcraft is real in any other situation is immediately laughable.

When dowsers are successful, it's because they take cues from the landscape. Not a funny twig and some magic.

The way I see it, people are always free to ask clarifying questions. It can be hard to reduce the language too much without using more and more words.

To add on to your answer, we don't feel temperature, we just feel the heat transfer rate. That's one of the reasons we have a "feels like" temperature in our weather forecasts.

I wasn't trying to be clever, I was just choosing random numbers.

You're right, though, and you definitely can use long multiplication to multiply any two rationals using only addition (though not sure if/how you can reduce to the lowest terms).

I got lost/distracted and started arguing something I didn't mean to initially. My initial argument that I still hold is that you can't define multiplication as simply repeated addition, and to further clarify I mean strictly that if you multiply a and b you add a to itself b-1 times.

I don't think we disagree that doing multiplication prior to addition makes sense intuitively.

My point is that there's nothing forcing us to do it that way, and we could have a well defined system where we add and subtract first. If you disagree with that, then fair enough.

If it is equivalent, then please give me the exact value of 0.75 x 0.44, only using addition.

Fractions are inherently using multiplication, though. I'm not saying you can't visualize it as repeated addition, just that it's not equivalent to repeated addition, outside of integers (or at least having one of the numbers being an integer).

Sure, but you're kicking the can, no? Define that last term in pi^(2),

(.1415...)pi

using only your repeated addition definition.

Well, how would you describe pi*e in terms of iterative addition?

If I were to try, I'd say e+e+e+(pi-3)e, but that's just shifting the multiplication somewhere else, no?

Again, you can have a system that works perfectly well with multiplication prior to addition. There is no "inherent rule in nature" as OP phrased it guiding this.

It'd be less convenient to do it addition-first, but the system would still work and be consistent.

Hell there's even Polish notation, which you'd write

(1+2) x 4

as

x+124

Which is exclusively because we decided to do it this way as a convention, not anything inherent.

>the multiplication and division symbols strictly indicate that the multiplication or division must occur between the numbers on either side of the multiplication or division symbol

Because of the convention of the order of operations. If we instead changed that to say that addition/subtraction is before multiplication/division, then it would be just as valid to say that

2+3 x 4+8 x 7+2

could be arranged as

4+8 x 7+2 x 2+3

>multiplication is doing an addition multiple times.

Only for integer multiplication, though.

> I don't think this is just because we decided to do it this way as a convention.

It is 100% because it's decided as convention.

>BUT, the +4 and -2 and +5 could literally be anywhere else in the formula and nothing would change.

Elaborate?

Salt water may kill many germs, but I'm guessing not such germs you'd find in the ocean.

You can eat any meat raw. The raw meat isn't what's harmful, it's the potential contamination by bacteria or parasites that's the issue. Different meats have different risks. For example, raw beef or horse is eaten in different places reasonably regularly.