unlike barbiturates they do not (directly) impede breathing function, thats why they replaced barbs.

Partly what everyone here has said already - the technology takes time to develop and starting from square 1 makes more sense than starting at the final iteration.

Although, on the other hand, I'd say part of it is "Planned Obsolesence."

Imagine you're a company that makes computer chips - you can instantly make the smallest most compact most efficient chip possible - and then what?
After everyone who wants a chip purchases one - what drives sales beyond the slow trickle of replacements and late adopters?

IF, however, you design a chip that will become obsolete in 2 years - because you have an entire multi-decade plan for how you will scale down your chips over time, you can sell all of those chips... then 2 years later, they're obsolete - your new chips are better... so you can sell all those chips to everyone who bought one before... rinse and repeat for a few decades and you've turned a one time profit into a long-term business model that will generate you billions.

considering the size of an atom is roughly 0.1 nm, someone who today saying that they'll make 0.01 nm chip will be laughed out of the room. Our physics and engineering is not solid enough to create subatomic transistor.

>I think you are directionally correct on this, but I would challenge “enormous.” The sugar in a 12 oz soda is less than two apples , and a little more than two oranges. That’s more than most people eat as a serving, but not enormous imo.

This is quite wrong. A can of soda contains 39 grams of sugar. An apple on average contains 11 grams of sugar.
https://www.coca-colacompany.com/faqs/how-much-sugar-is-in-coca-cola
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/how-does-sugar-in-our-diet-affect-our-health/

ASML is rumored to have spent $300 million and 5 years in developing extreme UV lithography

Different electronic componets operate at different voltages. If you use only 1.5v components you can build a mouse that only needs one.

This is also why younger investors shouldn't chase dividend-paying stocks/funds thinking that it's just "free" money. It is not. You are simply being forced to convert equity to cash and also forced to pay taxes on it unless held in a retirement account. For older investors who actually need the cash and presumably in a lower tax bracket, it makes much more sense.

Please read this entire message

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

Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts.

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.

It should also be noted that often the makeup of that weight, is likely primarily made up of muscle mass, which of course, generates more force.

But then you need a special battery for a special product. But I can use AA or AAA batteries in a bunch of stuff. If something needs 6v? They require 4 batteries. If they need 4.5 V they can just use 3.

Hey, we're only human. Everyone has bad days. Hope today is better for you.

Let's say that a worker gets paid weekly. On payday they cash their check and put some of the money into envelopes for their budget.

The act of paying the dividend is like putting the money into the envelopes to spend, that's not a process that adds value so we'd expect the price to offset the change. Over the next period of time though we normally expect the company to earn money and that's when we'd traditionally expect the price to rise. Just like the worker earns his pay until the next pay period.

[removed]

It helps release tension in the muscles and improves blood flow, and activate the release of endorphins, which are feel good chemicals in the brain

The main question has been answered in comments, I think, but to further put things into perspective:

The total energy of Earth's magnetic field is very roughly our current energy consumption over a thousand years. This on one side sounds seriously huge, it's enough to boil away the Caspian sea (twice, actually). On the other hand, it is not at the absurd scales most other cosmic things are (e.g. dismembering the entire planet, solar energy output, or worst, supernovae), we could get there if we very very seriously want it even with current tech.

(I hope I remembered the total energy correctly, as modern Google is utterly useless when trying to verify them; all other numbers have been re-calculated.)

I think you are directionally correct on this, but I would challenge “enormous.” The sugar in a 12 oz soda is less than two apples , and a little more than two oranges. That’s more than most people eat as a serving, but not enormous imo.

It's actually Newton's 4th law so I'd assume universal.

Your parents might be tricking you that way, but "Nature" most certainly isn't.

"Nature" is telling you to eat the fruit because it has lots of sugar and you need lots of sugar to be running down gazelles in the African savanna. It's not "Nature's" fault that you do so little gazelle hunting.

Inverse square law, double the distance, halve the volume of the sound. Eventually the kinetic energy of the sound, which is moving the particles of air, will have transferred all of its kinetic energy to its surroundings and it will then cease to exist as a sound.

Saw this posted earlier today on a friend's feed... pretty clear breakdown of the flow from indictment to arraignment to trial:

https://imgur.com/h6xbCPq

(Had posted this earlier but it was removed, I guess because I didn't explain what's behind the link?)

Wow, just wow. With all these bodily movements involved in a simple variation of a punch, it makes me just wonder and appreciate how these fighters are able to just ‘do them’ as though they were second nature.

What I meant by “whipping a punch” was basically involving your shoulders in the punching motion. Snapping your shoulders like a whip as you’re extending your arm to punch seems to also give it more force. That’s what I was told

Like every tech, the concept is “we can just win every golf trophy by doing every hole in one shot”

But then you shoot and miss and you realize you forgot the wind, the grass type and so on.

Most technologies are not about getting from A to B, but going from A to B without stepping on some dog poo.

For example, at this level a spec of dust can totally destroy your chip or even your machinery. So you may start your journey thinking about chips and now you have a department that develops vacuum machinery, another department developing air cleaners that stop nano dust, and another developing optical lenses… and your final product is only as good as your “side quest score”. And every side quest opens new side quests.

> "diversitility"

That's totally not a word. But I can see how it could be. I can just imagine Frigidaire or General Electric or someone coming out with a whole ad campaign about the diversitility of their products.

[removed]

[removed]