Ah yes, to "entertain an idea".

Good add.

Its providing enjoyment or something to do. If I say I'm entraining guests at my house it's typically I'm hosting something that may include dinner, drinks, games etc.

In the more archaic usage I've heard it used for listening to the thoughts of someone you normally wouldn't because they are beneath your station or the enemy or......

Depends on the context.

It could mean amusing them - like how you have to play with a child to keep them entertained rather than just talk to them or hang out.

It could also mean having someone in your home, though that is more archaic usage. Entertaining used to mean hosting dinner parties and the like.

The weird crayon like coloured facsimiles we see as examples are based on historians colouring statue copies with flat colours matched to minute remnants of original paint—not artists, and especially not artists with any sort of proper clue about the intricacies of the original paintwork, being allowed to make stuff up. They extract a flake of red from the groove of a cloak, that's the 'crayon' they get to use for the cloak in their reconstruction.

AFAIK there's no extant statue paint job preserved well enough for us to get a decent clue at how the statues may have been originally shaded, blended, hatched, textured, and patterned by contemporary top artists, or to confirm they weren't. It's kind of a big deal we know they were painted at all.

I guess I'm trying to say, don't be too bummed out, we don't have enough proof the ancient artists had paint game as weak as our non artist archaeologists.

They may also have been hoarding exploits to circumvent encryption, using "side channel" attacks.

You don't need to brute force an encrypted message if you can install an exploit on the user's phone that makes a copy of the message after the user has voluntarily decrypted the message to view it.

Such attacks may also be able to extract the encryption key from the phone (or pc), which may allow them to monitor the messages to and from that particular user while they are in transit.

Depends on the structure.

The Parthenon was actually fine up until the 17th/18th century. It got blown up because it was used to store gunpowder during a war.

The Colosseum got destroyed by an earthquake around the year 700. But by that time, the thing wasn't really used for anything anymore, and repairs would require a lot of money and resources that nobody wanted to contribute.... Because it had no used

The big thing to keep in mind is that the main reason these things are awe-inspiring is because they were so massive, and expensive to build. Most countries don't wanna pour billions or trillions of dollars into buildings what solely amount to tourist attractions. The colosseum is basically just a magnet to get foreigners to buy hats at this point.

Especially since the materials used to build them could go towards more practical uses, there's just not any good reason. They're expensive, and currently culturally irrelevant. (Italy isn't Rome. Modern Greece isn't ancient Greece)

Greece especially isn't in an economic state to make that decision. Most countries have other problems to tend to

If you want a free and true e2e messaging app, Signal is pretty alright. It's also open source, so it can be audited by anyone with the time and skill to do so.

Thanks for clarifying. (PBMs are the worst!). What always gets me is that a customer will come in and have to what appears to be a quoted price from my pharmacy thru good rx. And it’s usually at my cost or below.

The French government as recognized by the allies and later United Nations never recognized the occupation of France as an annexation.

A better example would be Alsace Lorraine (now Alsace moselle), which was legally part of the German Empire from 1871 to 1918.

Countries and their territories are not immutable, and historical governments of countries have no obligation to follow modern notions of historical preservation. Anything held for long enough is a historical artefact. There was no government of Greeks by Greeks from 1453 until the Russian/ottoman capture of the ionian islands in 1800, and Greece itself wasn't a country until either 1821 or 1830 depending on when you want to say it's recognized.

To clarify, that's true, individual pharmacies don't generally negotiate this and wouldn't really have the negotiating power to begin with. The actual process is harder to understand, let alone ELI5, but involves a twisted mess of negotiations among manufacturers, large pharmacy chains, insurers, and a bizarre and increasingly unethical middle-man company called a pharmacy benefit manager.

Sounds like it getting blown up is pretty on brand for Athena then

Nowhere. You have to have money to have money. If you trade your money for stocks you have stocks, not money.

Let's change it to anything but stocks and it starts to make more sense.

Suppose I buy a gold nugget for $100 based on the current market rate. Can I pay for a meal with it? No. Can I buy groceries with it? No. It's gold. I either have to find a person willing to trade with me for it (and then 'value' gets weird) or I have to sell it to someone so I can have money. I had $100, now I have gold.

If the price of gold goes up AND I can find someone who will buy my gold, then I can sell it to them. Now I have money, but I do not have gold. The money didn't appear by magic: they had to have it first and how they made it isn't my business.

If the price of gold goes down, my $100 is still in someone else's hands and I still have my gold. Nothing "went away". But now it's harder for me to find someone who will give me $100 back for the gold. If I find someone that gives me $95, I have less money than when I started, but the money didn't "go away". The person I originally gave $100 to still has it. I traded it to someone else for a different amount of money.

If you can't find someone to make the trade, then you technically haven't "made" or "lost" anything. You've still got exactly what you traded for. It's just not money and you can't find people who want to trade it.

That's why some people argue billionaires don't really have all of their money. If someone has $100m worth of some stock, they have stocks, not money. If they try to sell all of it at the same time, they might have a problem: usually the market for any stock isn't big enough to satisfy that kind of sale. So they can only sell some of it, and if investors hear they're trying to sell ALL of it they might get scared and stop buying. Then they can sell less of it AND people are willing to buy it for less.

Same thing with if I invest $100m into gold. I traded money for gold. That gold will probably go up in value, but I can't buy a hamburger with gold very easily. I have to trade gold for money so I can trade money for the hamburger. And there probably aren't a lot of people who want to buy $100m worth of gold all at once. So "How much money do I have?" is a very complicated question in that situation, but we can start by saying simply that I have no money, because I traded it all for gold. How much money can I get for that gold? That changes every minute based on how many people want to buy gold, how much gold they want, and how much they will pay. Sometimes the answer is lower, sometimes it's higher.

But the money I traded didn't go away or create more. It just went to a different person.

I guess, it didn't occur to me, what if nobody buys the stock at $100,000?

Please read this entire message

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

Loaded questions, or ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. A loaded question is one that posits a specific view of reality and asks for explanations that confirm it. These usually include the poster's own opinion and bias, but do not always - there is overlap between this and parts of Rule 2. Note that this specifically includes false premises.

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

Please read this entire message

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 and we will review your submission.

The money went to the person who sold you the $5,000 worth of stock.

It's a little bit like buying a car for $5,000 and then crashing it into a tree and selling the scrap for $5. The money didn't disappear. It went to the old owner of the car. You just lost value because of the crash (either of the car or the stock value).

Imagine you buy a car for $5,000 and a few years later sell it for $5. The 5K went to the original owner and then you got $5 from the new owner.

It's the same with shares.

In the first example to the one that sold you the stock. And in the second example from the people that bought you the stock.

The Parthenon was a symbol even then. Invaders stored gunpowder there because it may make some think twice.

We see this even in modern conflict. People will absolutely use mosques or other historical buildings as a disincentive to attack.

Appreciate your detail response.

I went over to Signal for privacy purposes and like you said metadata mining; yet majority of my friends remain at WhatsApp so it's really hard to stay away...

Haha. I hadn't thought about it from that angle. It does make me feel a bit better about it.

The colosseum was largely intact until the 14th century when an earthquake knocked down the southern side of it. Rather than rebuild it, everyone was basically "hey, free building materials"

At the start of the conversation each device sends the other a "public key" which can be used to encrypt the data while keeping a matching "privet key" which is the only way to decrypt data that has been encrypted with the "public key"

End to End encryption means that the transmission service can't read the content of the message.

The way it works goes a little something like this:

Modern encryption algorithms work on two types of "keys", Public and Privet, for this though you can think of them as a "Lock" and a "Key", if I hand you a lock you don't need any special equipment to put in on a box, but once you do that you can't open it.

The nice part about this, is that you can make an arbitrarily large number of locks for anyone who asks for them, they can be reused by the people you send them to, and no matter how many you make it will still be (until a quantum computer gets big enough) just as secure.

The goal of its development being "anyone can close this, only I can open it"

The step by step of using one of these apps goes as follows:

• A and B start chatting on an app with E2E encryption
• The first step is that each of their devices create a set of Locks and Keys and send the Locks to the other
• A decided to sends the following message to B "Lets meet tonight for dinner"
• A's app takes B's Lock and encrypts the message and makes it look like this: b'gAAAAABkJKWTY1u2sPwSGTUD0N69P8G5HrKJwRJmM0OnX9l4KJLpCmVOlNxLxPbExPw7XIQJRIhT5CC2gEpuReUq8A5bJlFph_QNmncg7tuJJItifUEMG-g=' (actual encrypted version of text, I used Python's Cryptography module)
• App then sends that over the internet to B's device
• B's device can then use B's Key to take the gobbledegook and turn it back into the original text of "Lets meet tonight for dinner"

The big deal about if being "End to End Encrypted" is that anyone who was trying to listen into the conversation by intercepting and copying the messages will only have the encrypted versions which are indistinguishable from noise.

The current method for encryption involves 3 numbers: 2 very large primes and their product, the primes are the privet "unlocking" key and the product is the public "locking" one, this works because it is incredibly time consuming with modern computers to go from the product to the prime factors. Quantum computers are changing this but people are implementing new methods of encryption which will still hold up into the future.

Now there are some problems that can come up which I will quickly run through:

• Not all encryptions are the same, if they are using a weaker algorithm or shorter keys then it can be broken
• Some algorithms can be set up with a pre-defined 3rd key that will always work to decrypt every message, in this case the company can read everything anyway and if the key gets out then all the encryption is meaningless
• Current development of quantum computers means that in the not to distant future it will be possible to break the RSA encryption algorithm which has been widely used for decades and there are actors in the space who are simply gathering encrypted data and sitting on it until they can get their hands on the tools to break it open, as it doesn't go bad.