Very Interesting!

The way I've seen it explained, they don't. At least on the Australian version of Masterchef. They walk between work stations, and taste it while in progress, but a lot of the time they've made up their minds beforehand, and the tasting is just for show.

EDIT: /u/thechosenbum93 posted below citing the same place I read it, so I'm adding a link here. https://www.aliceinframes.com/8-things-you-didnt-know-about-masterchef/

It depends on the show. I know for Chopped, the judges are allowed to taste while the contestants are cooking, and immediately after as well. The dishes are kept warm until the on camera tasting which can be 30 minutes later or more. On Iron Chef, the contestants finish only one of each dish they make during the one hour contest, for the camera. Then they have additional time off camera to finish four more of each plate to have it ready just in time for judges tasting.

I can confirm the same for the U.K. version of MasterChef. In fact for the first screen test you’re asked to cook the night before, bring it in cold then plate up while explaining the dish, how you cooked it etc directly to camera.

During the final tasting that we see on TV, the food is apparently cold. At least on the Australia version of Masterchef.

Source: An article by Alice from S4 of Masterchef Australia - https://www.aliceinframes.com/8-things-you-didnt-know-about-masterchef/

Most TV is fake. The impression of what the show is presenting happened - did not happen. It is true for virtually all shows. They make incidents or situations that did not occur to make it look like something did.

The starch released into the cooking water stabilizes the froth that you get if you boil it too vigorously. Putting the lid on keeps more heat in so effectively it's like turning up the electricity or gas too high.

Changing boiling-temp water into steam takes a ton of energy, at least as much as heating liquid water up to boiling temp. The phase change itself needs huge energy input.

If the steam is free to escape, it carries all that energy away with it.

If the steam is trapped by a lid, then when it condenses back into liquid it dumps all that energy right back into the pot. It's like doubling your element's heat setting!

The lid traps heat and steam , building a little pressure, which can lower the boiling point . It may not be a lot, but can be enough.

This then causes the pot to boil more, as it would if just cooked over a higher temperature.

The frothy bubbles come from the starches in the water, giving a little extra strength to the surface tension. This doesn’t have anything to do with the lid, though.

Edit: pressure increases increase boiling point, but pressure on stove top pot not likely to amount to much

This doesn't answer your question but put some butter or oil in the water to prevent this from happening...

With the lid on the vapor pressure of water in the limited atmosphere reaches its saturation point. Evaporation is now in approximate equilibrium with condensation. Without efficient evaporation there is no easy way for the system to shed heat from the burner. Water skyrockets toward maximum heat capacitance.

1. The immune system won't ignore it unless it is super inert eg plastic, titanium. If the immune system detects something that is not part of the body it will attempt to absorb and destroy it. Think dust in the lungs: white blood cells (macrophage) will recognise it as foreign and absorb it with no fuss. As this is clean and simple there is no immune response and the cells that make antibodies are left dormant.

2. Cells will release alarm molecules when they recognise that a virus has infected them. Alternatively, the contents of cells killed by viruses can also raise an alarm. This attracts immune cells and when they recognise there is an issue (think walking into a room full of corpses...you'd be pretty stressed out too) they mount a full scale response. Immune cells will pick up "scraps" (antigens) of the viruses and will present them to antibody producing cells until it finds a cell that can recognise the pattern of the antigen and produce antibodies for it.

3. As mentioned below; the immune system can recognise that the protein produced by the mRNA is not "self"; therefore it looks like the cell has been infected with a virus. A similar response to 2 occurs.

As to why we don't produce antibodies for everything: you need an immune response. Certain cells that are required for presenting antigens and producing antibodies will not activate until a certain level of alarm/threat is detected. In addition, antigens can only be recognised if presented by very carefully controlled special receptors. Think of it like this; if someone bumps me in the street it's not a big deal. If they stab me, I'm going to call the police and they will keep a record of him for future reference. If he's running around with a knife he might not have stabbed anyone, but the same thing as number two will happen because he's obviously a threat.

If you really want to dig deeper you want to start looking at things like PRRs, PAMPs and MHC molecules.

Hope that helped clear it up a bit? :)

No such thing as something entering your body and just floating around. Immune system recognizes every bit of nothing and reacts to it, eliminating it. Now, if something is harmless, you won’t even know about it, but it’s still getting destroyed.

For the immune system, it all boils down to chemical reactions. Antibodies will bind to specific elements on the outside of threats. That’s why the mRNA vaccines encode the spike of the coronavirus. Immune system won’t know it’s the real virus or not. But it will know it’s not supposed to be there. Next time it finds the same spike, it’ll recognize it and block it.

Well, your body doesn't "know" or differentiate exactly, rather an antigen is defined as any substance which provokes your immune system in to a response and there are thousands of these. This may be something (generally a protein) inside a vaccine, a virus, bacteria, or even pollen or other chemicals from the environment. Typically these are chemicals which bind to or invade your cells in some way. What chemicals our immune systems react to versus the ones they don't is thus a matter of our evolution. The fundamental answer to your question is that it is the actual molecular shape or structure of a foreign substance which either causes a response or doesn't.

I believe your immune system doesn't actually ignore foreign bodies, it attacks all of them. The system knows which cells/substances are "self" and when it encounters a "non-self" substances it produces antibodies which stick to it and mark it for destruction. There is some leeway built into the system, so it's not always working at full tilt. This prevents minor substances creating a full immune response all the time (like allergies).

The process by which it knows which substances to ignore is quite complex, and we aren't fully sure how it works. However there has been some promising research in this area:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061012184230.htm

I can’t answer for the first two, but mRNA doesn’t provide immunity directly. It’s “messenger” RNA - normally messages within a cell to make a protein. In this case the mRNA is encased in a lipid that allows it to pass into your cell. Once there your body treats it as any other (naturally occurring) mRNA and creates the requested protein.

The trick is in this case the protein that is being created looks identical to the spike protein on the virus. At this point, it’s treated just like any other virus particle by the immune system and follows the normal path to immunity. Of course the trick is the nasty bits of the virus don’t exist - they aren’t part of the mRNA message.

The drop in the number of confirmed influenza cases in the US so far this winter is truly remarkable. The statistics below are from the US CDC Weekly Influenza Surveillance Reports for the first week of January in the years indicated:

• 2017: Tests: 259,647, Positives: 15,026, 6%
• 2018: Tests: 371,863, Positives: 47,869, 13%
• 2019: Tests: 363,555, Positives: 26,430, 7%
• 2020: Tests: 493,875, Positives: 63,975, 13%
• 2021: Tests: 440,972, Positives: 1103, 0.3%

Source: CDC

[entfernt]

Since the strain of influenza viruses are changing rapidly every year, it is important to know which one is spreading and how effective the vaccine is at combating these viruses. The review process for the vaccine compositions takes place in February, March, and April each year, so that the World Health Organization can recommend which virus strains should be included in the vaccines for the next flu season, which usually starts in September of each year.

[entfernt]

[entfernt]

This is why bedtime stories are useful, they distract you from thinking about actively forcing yourself to sleep.

Anyway, recorded books playing while waiting for sleep is helpful.

Going to sleep had two fases. First your body makes a chemical indicating you are going to sleep. It makes you more relaxed and it starts the production of another chemical that will cause the actual sleeping. If you stress, the first chemical won't be produced. That's because if you are stressed your body must be ready to fight off that lion or other danger. The second chemical needs you to be relaxed enough and don't have to much brain activity in your prefrontal cortex.

From an evolutionary perspective, being stressed makes your body get itself ready to respond to the stressor. The problem is that stressors used to be significant things, like stuff that could kill us. So our bodies fuel us with necessary shit to stay alert and survive. Our modern stress is a lot less hazardous, but our bodies don't recognize the difference. They just know stress, and they respond accordingly

Stress keeps you awake. From an evolutionary standpoint it makes a lot of sense. You don't want to sleep with a lion outside your hut. You have to stay awake and protect your family.

When you NEED sleep, it's usually because of something stressful happening the next day.

The "just fall asleep already" thought doesn't cause you not to fall asleep. It's the stress your body/mind is under that keeps you awake.

Because you're thinking about all the reasons why you need to sleep, which makes mental stress

This is the something attempts like International Sign have tried to address. Unsuccessfully.

It turns out that getting all deaf people to use the same sign language is not much easier than to get everyone else one the planet to agree to speak Esperanto.

The problems with getting people to discard what is often their native language for some nebulous benefit of being able to communicate easier with some other people very far away is that people for the most part don't want to.

Language is culture and the deaf community in many places has been very protective of theirs. (Just look into the controversy about cochlear implants to get an idea of how passionate some people are about those issues.)

It doesn't help that sign languages aren't related along the same line as the spoken languages that exist alongside them. American Sign Language, is for example based on French sign Language and rather different from British Sign Language.

Same reason there are variants of spoken language.

Things like BSL (British sign language) and ASL (American Sign Language) evolved after the US had parted ways with the UK but before international telecommunications were invented, so evolved mostly separate. They each have their own, separate, hard fought, histories that I suspect many signers would be unwilling to give up.

As a note - BSL isn’t “British English in sign form”, similarly ASL isn’t American English in sign form either.

Sign languages often/always have a radically different language structure to spoken ones, including things like “spatial grammar” that doesn’t even really exist in spoken languages. In order to learn to read written English (in the case of people in English language countries) signers need to learn a completely new language - English - that is has almost nothing in common with their own.

Because people from different regions developed sign language individually. A person's culture also plays into it - for example, some hand gestures that are rude in one country are not rude in another.

That is the same reason we all have different languages. It's made up really long ago, all in their own ways. And if you ask them to all used the same language it's like asking a American to speek Japanese.

In the case Black Americans Sign Language, segregation forced African Americans to make their own language (they couldn't attend deaf schools, which were only for the white until relatively recently). I doubt the BASL community is interested in giving up their rich heritage for an international language that might lack some of the nuance their native signing does.

The first strongish magnets were created before electricity. In the mid- 1700s people knew how to multiply the strength of permanent magnets.

The best paper on the subject is “A Method of Making Artificial Magnets without the Use of Natural Ones” by John Canton 1751:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/105019?seq=7#metadata_info_tab_contents

iron and steel become magnetized when placed in a magnetic field; iron temporarily, steel permanently. Stroking a piece of steel with a weak magnet makes it also a weak magnet. Canton describes a process to (I think) align a piece of iron with the Earth’s magnetic field, use it to stroke a steel bar, then stack the bars in a way that creates a strong localized field. He then stroked another steel bar with the stack, making it even more magnetic, and so on.

Using this technique you can magnetize steel up to its magnetic saturation point, which is respectable, enough to pick up small objects but nowhere near the strength of modern ceramic and rare earth magnets.

There is a way of making electricity without any magnets: a chemical battery.And we know there is a way to make a battery in the ancient wold because some madman with a box did it (admittedly not as far back as 1000 BCE): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad\_Battery [I should stress there is controversy as to whether these artefacts were actually ever actually used as batteries, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a thing you would do with a battery once you had it (because the time machine they were jumpstarting disappeared; come on historians! lol), but the more modern experiments show that something like this could function as a battery; albeit not a very good one].

It's basically a sealed clay jar container with an anode and cathode of differing metals in the lid, with an acidic solution inside (e.g. vinegar, fruit juice, or if you're near a volcano you'd be able to make sulphuric acid - at that point you're part way to an early car battery). Wire a few of those together and you'd have a current sufficient to magnetise iron parts. You'd then be able to use these to build a more reliable generator to hook up to a water wheel, and from there you can begin to get your time machine back up and running.

Good luck in your temporal travels, try to save the dodo this time around please.
Or maybe correct my grammar without an edit.

You could invent the first battery early using basic metals and an electrolyte (voltaic stack), and if you make a bunch of them, you could probably produce enough current to act as an electromagnet. Using that, you could produce more permanent magnets if you wish. Basically do what scientists did with decades of experimentation and refinement in just a few days.

Edit: the process to make more permanent magnets is to melt iron and expose it to the electromagnetic field created by the electromagnet as it cools.

After you make one decent magnet, you can build a generator to produce more electricity more easily, for more electromagnetic field, for better magnets and so on

[entfernt]

[entfernt]

Believe it or not, just seeing someone you're attracted to has major effects on the brain. There is some evidence that it immediately deactivates the parts of your brain dedicated to 1) decision-making and reasoning, and 2) processing negative emotions. This might explain why you get giddy and excited and stupid whenever this person gets close to you. Not just that, but it also seems to affect which neurotransmitters, or chemical messenger molecules, are sent back and forth and being used to communicate within your brain. You'll get hit by a surge of dopamine, which is sometimes called the "feel-good" hormone. Other ways of triggering dopamine release in your brain include by eating and/or drug use. You'll also get a blast of adrenaline, which is the fight-or-flight hormone that makes your heart rate go up. I'm sure a scientist or clinician can expand on this but it is truly remarkable what happens in the split second that you see someone you like!

I believe that all them hormones quite literally affect the way your brain works, inhibiting part of your rational thinking abilities.

Physiological effects wrote in this thread are great answers but there's a complementary very simple psychological explanation : You start watching your every move to avoid looking bad which makes you act very unnatural. You also try your hardest to be at your highest but this ends up being your weirdest because you're not used to it and people at their best don't force it.

England, Scotland, Wales and Nireland are all countries, but they are not sovereign states. Only the UK is a sovereign state with the power that grants.

The distinction between the constituent countries is solely for internal governance. England for example has no international relations, neither does scotland, only the UK is a recognised political entity on the world stage.

For all intents and purposes, England, Scotland, N Ireland and Wales do not exist outside of the UK, because no country can deal with any of those 4 independently.

And as to your example, no. An Englishman has no social status as ‘English’, he only has British citizenship. As does a Scotsman, as much as the Scottish may dislike it.

Edit: This is ELI5, please stop flaming me because i left out a technicality that you personally care about. These are the broad strokes.

"Country" doesn't mean what you think it means here.

The UK is a sovereign state, in the same way that the USA is a sovereign state, or Canada is a sovereign state.

England is a country within a sovereign state; Ohio is a state within a sovereign state; Ontario is a province within a sovereign state. In this instance, country = state = province (generally speaking). England, Ohio, and Ontario are not sovereign states themselves - they're governed by a sovereign state.

Basically, different words are being used in different regions that mean largely the same thing. The USA just decided to call its subdivisions "states," even though the term "state" generally refers to a sovereign state. (The USA is not the only sovereign state to do this, but it does lead to some degree of confusion in instances like this.)

I don't have much to offer, but CGP Grey does a really good video quickly covering all that information: https://youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10

As an Englishman, I can tell it's a bit of a mess - governed pretty much entirely our historical and traditional hatred of each other - but the same hatred you might have for a sibling, we can call the Welsh names - but so help us if anyone else gives them the side eye.

Best explanation I've seen is in this video by the incredibly eloquent CP Grey, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to it here.

England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are the big players, and are to most of us what we consider "the UK", if you live in the border towns (say Bristol) it is entirely possible to live and work in separate countries - but a house would never be in two countries simultaneously. The borders between the countries are more like the borders between states in the US and less like the Mexican border. There are some toll bridges and roads between countries - but you're paying to use the road, and not to get checked to enter the country.

As far as government goes, England has the main body of government - what you see on TV (maybe) with Boris Johnson and the MPs in the Houses of Parliament - but the other countries have what is called "devolved Parliaments", where they have certain powers over what happens inside their own countries (for Scotland they have the first Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who seems to have gained a decent amount of acclaim, especially compared to Mark Drakeford of Wales, Northern Ireland doesn't even seem to have a head of their assembly).

Then you have the Commonwealth - a political alignment of over 50 countries, most (if not all) used to be part of the British Empire from the old days when we would sail around the world sticking our flag into wherever we landed - but at some point the British Empire used to include Australia, India, the initial 13 American colonies, a good chunk of Africa - all ruled under a single monarch.

Tldr - it's a cluster fuck, multiple countries, single ruler with some devolved powers for the individual countries - much like how states have local powers.

Hope that helps.

And what's great britain then? And what the hell is the commonwealth? Most importantly, where's King's landing?

Well, for one, polymers degrade when melted, so you can't just turn a PET water bottle into a new PET water bottle. It won't have the same properties anymore. You can use post-consumer recycled PET in something else, like a CPET microwave dinner tray, but even then you can't just use all of it, you can only use a small percentage of it. EDIT: That "something else" can, in fact, be a new bottle, but it will almost certainly be mixed with virgin material and won't be 100% recycled.

For two, you can't mix types of plastics, which means that either consumers have to be exceptional at separating their types of plastic (by which I mean the cap and ring on your water bottle has to be separated since they're probably PP while the bottle itself is PET) or we have to have people sort through garbage bags full of recycling to separate it, which adds a hell of a lot to the cost. There's also the fact that most plastics have some additives in them, for one reason or another, and plastics with certain additives can't be mixed with others.

For three, any contaminants (adhesives from stickers, residue from food or drink, etc) have to be washed off to the point where they're as close to completely gone as possible, which is basically impossible and also adds a ton of labor, again increasing the cost dramatically. (This is also true for paper/cardboard - STOP RECYCLING YOUR GREASY PIZZA BOXES, THEY CAN'T BE RECYCLED IF THERE'S FOOD OR GREASE STUCK TO THEM. Edit: This may not be true, I'm not sure - my city explicitly says not to recycle pizza boxes with grease on them, but YMMV. Maybe someone with more experience in recycling, or paper/cardboard, can chime in on this one.)

For four, not all plastics are thermoplastics - thermosetting polymers cannot be melted down, they'll just burn up and release a ton of pollutants into the air. And obviously you can't mix thermoplastic polymers and thermosetting polymers.

And for five, it's largely just not feasible to use post-consumer recycled plastics because it's 1) extremely expensive to buy and 2) can be extremely difficult to work into your existing process while maintaining quality and matching the needed performance without using so little that it's basically irrelevant. You're paying through the nose to use a tiny amount of the stuff you bought, just to be able to put a label on your product that says "Contains post-consumer recycled material!"

Basically, plastic recycling - while it is done to some extent - is much more limited than the public has been led to believe, and in an amount of cases that would shock the average person, is outright impossible. I guarantee that 80-90% of the plastic items people put in their recycling bin actually end up in a landfill or incinerated because they can't actually be recycled for a myriad of reasons.

Source: I work in QA at a plastics manufacturer.

LAST EDIT: Okay, this comment alone now makes up more than 90% of my total karma and comments just keep rolling in, so I'm gonna go ahead and disable notifications. Sorry for not responding to all of you, there's just too many!

Plastic processing engineer here.

Plastic parts can be ground and reused (regrind) but options for doing so are limited. Plastic has a heat history, the more you melt and reheat plastic, the more it degrades. As the plastic degrades you lose its physical properties. This means you have to use virgin material (no regrind) for many applications, such as automotove or medical parts.

Regrind also can be more difficult to process, as it is more prone to part defects. Visible burns in the final product or brittleness would be a few examples. Regrind typically needs to be mixed with virgin material during processing to avoid these defects.

The size of the regrind also matters. With virgin material the plastic comes in little plastic pellets, all the same size. When these are melted down they all melt at relatively the same time. With regrind you get bigger chunks and dust. The dust tends to burn while the bigger chunks may not melt evenly. There is equipment to remove dust and more evenly chop parts, but then there is now additional cost to reusing materials.

Then you get into contamination issues. Typically when doing regrind you don't reuse consumer products, instead you are taking the scrap at the plant and regrinding it there. Even keeping it at the plant level, the chances for contamination is high. If a part is dropped on the floor and picks up dirt, now its in your regrind.

There are many different types of plastic and each may require different processing temperatures. In many cases you cannot even mix different grades of the same material. I may have 5 different types of polypropylene at the plant. each with different fillers or additives that should not be mixed. This creates a logistical problem at the plant, because now you need 5 different grinders and 5 different storage containers for you materials. All it takes is one person putting the wrong part in the wrong bin or grinder and now you have a lot of scrap.

Taking this a step further, this contamination could create machine damage in some cases. Incompatibile materials such as polycarbonate (melts at round 400F) and polypropylene (melts around 300F) mixed together could chew up your machines by running unmelted material through. Mixing materials such as PVC and Acetal can create explosive chemical reactions.

Many common plastics are thermoplastics and can be remelted. There is another group of materials called thermoset. These materials undergo a chemical reaction to harden them. (example epoxy) These materials cannot be reverted back to their original form and recycled.

TLDR: Some plastics can be reused, but process problems and costs make reusing plastics infeasible in many cases.

Not all plastic melts. “Thermoplastic” ones melt when heated, but “thermosetting” ones are made strong by complicated bonds that don’t break down with heat. They will catch fire first.

This is a partial answer, naturally.

Have you ever tried unbaking a pie?

ELI5 for an actual 5 year old:

Like metal, you can melt ice and freeze it in a different shape. Like plastic, you can't un-fry and re-fry an egg. It's also difficult to separate the quail egg from the Duck egg after stir-frying them together.

This is not an exact comparison, but I guess it will do for a 5 year old. Plastic is really quite complex on a molecular level. Metals are simple.