---------------------------- We'll start with #RTAnswers for episode #485 - The Gang Starts A Cult https://roosterteeth.com/episode/rooster-teeth-podcast-2018-485 ---------------------------- And we're back! Sorry for my absence. I will be posting for the latest episodes as well, however, I have several older, already completed, posts from the back catalog which didn't make it onto the site because of the transition to the updated Community site and just the general disarray around groups, including the RT Poppycock group. Fair warning, these older ones will jump around a bit. ---------------------------- Would Achilles have died if he nicked his heel from shaving? The poet, Statius, is the one who first told the story of Achilles and invulnerable skin. According to Statius, when little baby Achilles was dipped in the waters of the river Styx it, "....made him [Achilles] invulnerable except at his heel by which his mother had held him." Statius explains that Achilles's mother, Thetis, heard a prophecy of her son's death and knew that the river flowing through the mythical Underworld would make any mortal who was submerged into its current invulnerble. Like most stories about mythology, however, the tales surrounding the motivations of Thetis as well as the eventual demise of perhaps one of the most famous warriors in Greek history have evolved and changed greatly since its first, relatively minor, appearance in the works of Statius. Perhaps the most famous retelling of Achilles comes from Homer's epic The Iliad which tells the story of the Trojan War and Achilles participation in the great battle between several Greek states and the ancient walled city of Troy. Interestingly, despite the connections often made between Achilles and Homer's tale in The Iliad, the poet spends very little time on the history, actions, or eventual death of the Greek hero. In fact, the infamous "arrow to the heel" from the bowstring of young Paris while the great statues of the God Apollo look down upon, and supposedly assist in guiding said arrow, are not an accepted part of the Achilles mythos until the Roman retellings of the story. A far older poem, attributed to Hesiod, tells a much different origin story for the warrior. In it, Achilles mother is a demigod who, obsessed with the prospect of birthing a truly immortal god, tests the mortality of all of her infant children by dipping them in a bubbling cauldron of scalding water. Obviously, this typically leads to the slow and painful death of her newborn offspring. This myth goes on to say that the father of Achilles, a mortal named Peleus, intervenes and saves his son from being boiled alive. The poem makes no mention of the child being then dipped into the river Styx or any type of magical connection at all. Many scholars actually believe this to be the myth which is most likely rooted in the real story of Achilles. While they obviously do not believe that the mother of Achilles was a god, they do believe that it is far more likely that Achilles was just a highly skilled, extremely quick, exceptional warrior who, like so many others, met his eventual demise at the walls of Troy. The stories of his invulnerability were likely a result of his unparalleled skill on the battlefield and the later references to the arrow which finally brought him down are likely tied to a lucky arrow during the battle which immobilized him, allowing him to finally be struck down. While we will never know if that arrow was legitimately a well-placed, purposeful, ankle shot with the intention of severing the then-unnamed tendon at the back of the back of the foot, it is far more likely that the arrow, or perhaps many arrows, found their marks generally among his legs successfully preventing his infamous quick movement. So... to the actual question. I'm going to go ahead and say no... at least not from any inherent weakness in his heel. However, this was millenia ago when disease ran rampant and personal hygiene was limited at best. It is far more probable that had Achilles been shaving his legs... for some reason... and nicked his heel, the wound, untreated and uncovered, could absolutely become infected. This infection, if untreated, would almost certainly lead to the loss of his foot, leg, or perhaps even death. ---------------------------- What else is in the Constitution besides the Bill of Rights? This is a great question which every American should take the time to understand. While frequently lumped together as the same document or as a synonymous document, these two pivotal documents in American history are absolutely two different, but symbiotic things. The US Constitution, ratified in 1787, outlines our entire system of government. This includes the description of duties for our three branches of government as well as outlining the powers that that these branches actually have with regard to the governance of the country as a whole. It specifies office term limits, election process, checks and balances, and, importantly for the Bill of Rights, the process through which the Constitution can be changed. This process, more commonly known as amending the Constitution was instituted because the Framers of the document recognized that no system of government can thrive if it does not freely allow itself to evolve based on the modern needs of the people. It is also important to note that the process does not allow for the removal of previous amendments, instead requiring that future amendments are created which negate previously established changes. This process of "always moving forward" is to encourage lawmakers to not frivolously make adjustments to the "law of the land" as these will be forever immortalized in the document, and America's, history. In other words, we should be aware of our mistakes in order to learn from them. The Bill of Rights, represent the first ten of these amendments. Ratified in 1791, they were proposed by Congress, specifically James Madison, as the first additions to the Constitution. Influenced heavily by the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the Five Nation Constitution of the Native American peoples, and even the Magna Carta, the list of ten Amendments represent perhaps the most famous of the "inalienable rights" given to the American people... though it would take later amendments to truly grant these rights to ALL Americans. For the most part, the Constitution lays out the powers which the US government DOES have and the Bill of Rights, and really all amendments, largely identify the basic restrictions of that power. For example, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Interestingly, the only two amendments which have ever GRANTED Congress the power of some kind are the 16th and 18th amendments. The 18th, prohibition, would be repealed 14 years later with 21st amendment. Additionally, the 16th amendment text is largely considered to contain the most vague language among any amendment and some of the conspiracy theorists out there will claim that was the intention. This amendment which legalizes the collection of taxes on a citizen's income does not specify sources, limitations, or any other restrictions on these collected taxes. To summarize, the Constitution explains how our government is expected to work and the Bill of Rights represent the first ten limitations, or clarifications, to that explanation. ---------------------------- Rules against using fingerprints of dead suspects? The short answer here is that there is none. Some opponents to law enforcement taking it upon themselves to use a dead suspect's still warm body part to potentially further incriminate themselves as a violation of our basic rights. Perhaps the 5th against forced self-incrimination or the 4th against unlawful search and seizure? Unfortunately no, neither of these would apply in this case. Your fingerprint is not seen as self-incrimination as it is a publicly available trace which all of us leave a consistent trail behind us of, regardless of what we are doing. The 5th amendment pertaining to self-incrimination is specifically regarding the knowledge a person has which may cause them to be an inadvertent witness against themselves - "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." As any evidence the phone may contain is separate from the literal memory and thoughts of the person, it would not fall under self-incrimination. The 4th amendment against unlawful search and seizure is an interesting one because it has caused arguments to have been made concerning a person's rights after their death. However, at this time, a person's rights against search and seizure would end at their death. Additionally, some have pointed out that the phone would immediately become property of the next of kin which means their rights are being violated. Unfortunately, this is also an incorrect assumption. The property is not legally yours until a legally recognized decision has been made which clearly outlines who a recently deceased person's property belongs to, according to their wishes. Lastly, for those who may try to claim that their next of kin wouldn't want law enforcement to access the device, the 4th amendment, as a personal privacy protection, cannot be invoked on behalf of another person. Some posts I have seen around the internet on this subject say that they do not necessarily have an issue with law enforcement using this method to unlock a device, they are only asking that they follow the expected due process of getting a warrant in order to rightfully access it. While this may seem like a reasonable request, it may be important to note that iPhones in particular will require a passcode re-entry if the biometric ID has not been used for 48 hours. The intention of law enforcement is to get the necessary information as quickly as possible and, if the device were to suddenly require a passcode for entry, then they would be forced to use a tool like Grey Key to crack the code. ---------------------------- What is a Youngblood? Webster's defines Youngblood as "a young inexperienced person; especially one who is newly prominent in a field". Originating in the 1970s, it is often attributed to young black males and was originally used as a term of endearment. More recent use cases, as outlined by Urban Dictionary include: a newb, an apprentice, a slut, or an avid fan of Fall Out Boy's 2013 series of music videos titled "The Youngblood Chronicles". ---------------------------- Is WD40 a lubricant or should it be used as a lubricant? WD40 IS a lubricant... just not a very good one. It's original use was to discourage rust and corrosion on Atlas missiles in the 1950s and what it doesn't do in the world of lubrication it does make up for by being one of the most versatile lubricants out there. I suppose that is the trade off. As the Podcast discussed, the "WD" in WD 40 stands for "water displacement" and the recommendation against using it as a lubricant is that if you spray it on something which requires a true lubricant it can, and will, strip away whatever "real" lubricant remained. For any of you who, as kids would spray down your bike chains with some WD40 and then get pissed off when you had to spray it again in a few days, or even hours, this is the reason why. While the secret ingredient for WD 40 is still a well-kept secret, it does contain roughly 20% simple lubricants and 50% purified mineral spirits. This combination does make for a very good short-term lubrication, its best use is as a temporary lubricant in order to clean away residual particles so a true lubricant can be applied after the WD40 has evaporated away. For door hinges, screws, and other items which may be stuck or squeaky due to debris, rust, or particulates, WD40 is works great as long-term lubrication is typically unnecessary. However, wheels, bike chains, and any other mechanical system which requires a consistent lubricant, you should be using whatever type of grease or oil which is recommended by the item's manufacturer as WD40 will only very temporarily provide a lubrication. So the answer for both questions is "Yes" but there are better lubricants out there so just no what your use case is and select the best one for the job. ---------------------------- Which side of aluminum foil should you use? It doesn't matter. Despite the Facebook myths about cutting your cooking time by 20% by wrapping your baked potatoes dull side out, it is far more useful to just wrap your potatoes as tightly as possible rather than worry about what side of the foil is facing out. The reason it doesn't actually matter is because every modern oven cooks via convection. This is the method of cooking by heating up all of the air around the food until it cooks and raises the general internal temperature of whatever you may be cooking. Articles will occasionally claim that the shinier side of the foil will "reflect the heat away from the food". While this would be true if we were all cooking our casseroles with light rays, the reflective surface of the foil does nothing to prevent, or minimize, the transfer of heat. If it did, then it would still make no difference which surface you had facing out, as the heat has to pass through both sides of the foil regardless. If you would like to decrease, no matter how small, your cook time, your best tip is to wrap the foil as tightly as possible around whatever object you are heating. Minimizing the air gaps between the foil and the food will speed up the process as air particles take far longer to heat than foil due to their general diffusion and spacing.