Arrogance.

She didn't actually surprise the Night King.

We see him slowly drawing his sword, see her leap towards him and he suddenly spins and grabs her by the throat.

The way he does this is very deliberate.

He appears to be expecting her attack and deliberately appearing unaware.

(If you watch the scene very carefully, one thing you will see is that his eyes do not move at all when he changes from pulling his sword to spinning towards her attack.)

Notice that the other white walker also doesn't appear to have any expression as he turns.

He appears to be dispassionately observing something.

There's no surprise on his face.

The wights stayed silent not because they didn't see her, but because the Night King was keeping them silent.

This was a ceremonial killing, not an attack.

This is not the first time in the battle

the Night King showed such indifference and arrogance.

He does this twice before in this episode alone, once just before Daenerys unleashes dragon fire, another time as Jon Snow starts to charge.

In the latter case, he could have raised the dead long before.

He's rubbing Jon Snow's face in his failure.

This is an arrogant creature who is amusing himself by toying with humans, rubbing their faces in the powerlessness of their attacks.

That's exactly how he reacts with Arya.

He let's her think she's got a shot, then spins around to demonstrate his superiority.

Then, she kills him with trickery.

They stayed silent because they didn't know what was going on.

Arya is from Winterfell.

She knows its passages, dead ends, and paths to get to Bran.

Though wooded, she can make her way through woods easier than the army of the dead.

We know that the wights have good hearing/sight, but she could have slipped to a tree closest to the NK, undetected, then just waited for him to make his move-then rush full speed, passed the walkers (who only noticed a breeze of her movement).

Remember, she had a forward leap, and at her speed she'd need a running start to make the leap that she did.

The distance from the trees to the god tree is around 20-30 feet...

Believable striking distance for a 20 year old.

| U U | | []

god tree | | Bran | |U

Night King

U| tre|es

\ tre|es |

Wh.

Walkers \ | |___________U

Arya |

My friend and I are actually thinking about this scene as well

, we thought of two possible theories: Arya used her skills from what she learned with the Faceless Men.

Her speed allowed her to move so fast to do what she was meant to do.

(We agree that she knows Winterfell more than anyone else

so she used that advantage to quickly sneak in.)

The official answer so far appears to be that Arya... Came out of nowhere Watching Game Revealed for the episode and that is what all of the people involved in the show say and is even the title of the segment about it.

Looking into the behind the scene footage though she generally appears to come from the direction that the Night King had just come from.

Which is probably why the "wind" brushed past the White Walkers face.

See the following set images which of course match to the direction she comes from.

So why don't they warn him?

They actually could have done, there is some element of mental communication between the Night King and his army and so they could have warned him and the Night King does turn around and stop the attack but is fooled by

The Last Jedi trick.

In the end though I think the Night King has commanded his army step down and arrogance has taken over.

He thinks he has won and no one can stop him now and so doesn't want to worry about anyone approaching him to attack and kill him.

I think Arya was disguised as one of the walkers.

Did you see the way it focused on one blowing his hair

, I think that was her.

I agree with zibadawa timmy.

The slight movement of Bran's face and then the slight movement of the Night King's expression told me the Night King was clueless of what was coming.

The Night King nor Bran have ever shown those expressions before.

It was a sign of surprise and then the Night King knew something was coming.

He had no clue nor did the White Walkers behind him.

He reacted quickly as he should have but it was to late.

Bran's change of expression on his face and the Night King's was priceless in my opinion

Question: In  Game of Thrones  S08E03 "The Long Night", Arya is a skilled assassin, master of stealth and whatnot.  However, the area around Bran is mostly clear, as shown in earlier scenes, how did they not see or hear that character approaching the Night King? Or did they notice and not warned it (as unlikely as it may sound)?

Why didn't the other White Walkers hear or see that character approaching the Night King?

It is not immediately clear whether the Night King was surprised or not. Some people might claim that his actions demonstrate awareness whilst others will claim that his facial expressions demonstrate surprise. Other possible explanations as to how they did not notice Arya's approach are that she was moving too quickly or was disguised as one of the Walkers. The 'official' answer, in any case, is that Arya, "came out of nowhere".

This is a matter of interpretation - either the Night King was arrogant and no-one believed a small girl could kill him or no-one saw her because she knew Winterfell and how to approach him without being seen.

It was arrogance - the Night King believes he has already won and all that remains is to kill Bran. The attack of Arya is expected and it cannot change anything.

They did not know what was going on - Arya was able to use her superior knowledge of Winterfell to sneak up on the Night King undetected.

Arya was able to avoid detection by using the skills she acquired from the Faceless Men.

Arya was not noticed because she was disguised as one of the walkers.

The slight change of expression on Bran's face and the Night King's face shows that the Night King had no idea what was about to happen.


Because that's not an ability that they've covered in the MCU.

In the movies so far they've had The Hulk be basically invulnerable, in fact getting stronger as he soaks up hits in his standalone films, we haven't seen him do any healing at all on screen let alone at an accelerated rate.

I understand that Endgame is already a long movie, ten more minutes run time to explain that The Hulk can regenerate, and oh that's always been a thing we just hadn't noticed was probably not a good idea.

Alternately the fact that the damage was done by the Infinity Stones may mean that he simply can't regenerate.

Because the damage was caused by the Infinity Gauntlet Joe Russo has confirmed that the damage is "permanent" and compares it to the damage Thanos receives from using the Infinity Gauntlet.

As such it is safe to assume the reason is because the damage came from the Infinity Gauntlet and so the Infinity Stones.

The amount of power needed to unsnap, and in Thanos' case snap, is what caused such irreversible damage.

“He’s lost an arm,” Russo says.

“He lost Natasha.

That’s not coming back.

He’s damaged himself.

I don’t know.

It’s interesting.

That’s permanent damage, the same way that it was permanent damage with Thanos.

It’s irreversible damage.

His arm, if you noticed, is a lot skinnier.

It’s blackened.

So, he loses a lot of strength there.”

Russo does acknowledge that “permanent” means something different a world of magic and super science, but that’s not his concern any longer.

“But who knows?

There’s a lot of smart people left,” he says.

“Maybe someone helps him repair that.

Maybe someone gives him a new arm.

I have no idea where that character goes from here.

The nice thing is we didn’t have to pay attention to where it goes after this, we just try to tell a satisfying ending.”

Comicbook, Avengers:

Endgame Director Reveals Hulk's Injury Is Permanent

In the comics Professor Hulk has the benefit of Banner's brain but is no where near as strong as primitive Hulk.

In fact when Professor Hulk gets to angry he reverts to “puny Banner” with Hulk's primitive mind.

Therefore this delay in healing does follow the comic book lore.

In addition this is an Infinity Gauntlet.

Banner already states that it gives off tremendous radiation that will hurt him.

MCU Hulk does not show deadpool levels of regeneration.

While he does have regenerative capabilities they are nowhere as fast.

There's a very significant amount of damage that was inflicted.

For reference: Using the gauntlet straight up killed Tony.

Hulk survived with merely a burnt arm.

That is already a huge testimony to his regenerative powers!

Banner said in the The Avengers he shot himself in the head and Hulk spat the round out... seems like pretty good/quick healing to me

so they just messed up.

Banner:

In case you needed to kill me, but you can't!

I know!

I tried!

I got low.

I didn't see an end, so I put a bullet in my mouth and the other guy spit it out!

The Avengers

Question: According to the comics, the Hulk has very fast regeneration abilities similar to Deadpool.    At the end of  Avengers: Endgame , the Hulk has his charred right arm in a cast because of the burns from using the Infinity Gauntlet to "unsnap" everyone who died at the end of  Avengers: Infinity War .    Why hasn't it regenerated back yet, or even partially regenerated?

In Endgame, why didn't the Hulk's arm regenerate?

There are multiple possible explanations for this, and the answer will be speculative. However, it is possible that the Hulk's regeneration capabilities haven't been fully detailed in the film, or even that they're not fast enough to regenerate quickly, or at least not as fast as the question states. It's also possible that the damage inflicted by the Infinity Stones is so great that even signficant regneration powers would take a long time to take effect.

This is not explained but the main reason may be that the ability to regenerate to that extent is not covered earlier in the MCU and possibly the damage done by the Gauntlet is too great, with radiation etc.

Either because the ability to regenerate was not covered in the MCU or because the damage done by the Infinity Gauntlet meant that regeneration was impossible (because of the radiation).

In the MCU Hulk does not have Deadpool levels of regeneration or at least not as fast, and the damage done by the Gauntlet is very extreme.


She was sent by the remaining Avengers team on Earth, which includes Rocket at this point.

In the Captain Marvel post credit scene, she turned up in response to the beeper summons from Nick Fury before he dusted at the end of Infinity War.

She asks where Fury is, and is then presumably filled in on all that has happened.

As Rocket is on Earth, he would most likely know that Quill, Mantis and Drax had headed to Titan to try and save Gamora in response to Nebula's summons (in Infinity War).

He would have been able to tell Carol where to start looking for them, which gives a smaller search area for her to find them in.

It's also very likely that Nebula and Tony were broadcasting some sort of distress signal that could be picked up as soon as Carol got close enough.

The Avengers also refer to carrying out deep-space scans from Earth in Endgame, so they must have some sort of technology to allow them to try and pick up these signals -

perhaps Rocket helped them build something to help find Thanos.

Since Carol Danvers apparently has the ability to detect Fury's beeper/beacon from across the galaxy (irrespective of light speed limitations, as shown in the mid- or post-credits scene in her own movie), I don't think it's all that far fetched that she can detect a distress beacon from Quill's ship after Stark and Nebula managed to get the power cells working well enough to get off Titan.

Both technologies are designed for FTL communication with similar information levels, and both are apparently within either Carol's powers to detect, or covered by Kree technology in her suit.

Captain Marvel was "summoned" to Earth by Nick Fury at the end of Avengers: Infinity War when he activates the pager that she gave to him.

In the Captain Marvel post credits scene Carol arrives on Earth when the pager stops working and the Avengers still have their pre time jump looks.

I believe this scene takes place before Carol rescues Tony and Nebula.

If that is indeed the case we can assume the Avengers gave a rough idea to Carol about where to find Tony.

This is also plausible because we know the Avengers are tracking energy across the galaxy/universe as they find out where Thanos was hiding using the same technology in Avengers: Endgame .

Alternatively, Carol could have just run across them on her way back to Earth but this seems less likely as when she pops up to save them

she seems to be doing it on a purpose, as if she was told to find them and didn't just stumble across them.

This is pure conjecture and not supported by any concrete evidence but my theory is that she followed a trail left by Maw's ship.

There's lots of people in the universe who would have known Thanos was from Titan but none of the Avengers or Rocket would have known for certain that that's where Maw was taking Strange.

However, Bruce was present in New York when Strange, Tony and Spiderman fought Maw and he saw them enter the ship

so he knew they were taken somewhere .

Assuming those ships leave a detectable trail and Captain Marvel has the means to detect that trail (both plausible assumptions

but I have no evidence to support either of them), she could have followed it and that would have eventually led her to Tony & company regardless of where they had gone.

And odds are, Tony and Nebula were headed back to Earth when they broke down so Carol would have run into them on her way to Titan, or at least come close enough to pick up their distress call.

It's likely that the post-credits "Where's Fury?" scene is canon .

I expect there was a much more elaborate "get to know you / debrief" scene that was intended to be part of Endgame , but it proved to be fairly dull and was cut for time.

Rocket absolutely knew "the morons" were going to

Titan I, and would have mentioned this to Danvers.

We know Danvers is pretty good at planetary surveying, so probably would've taken a pass around Titan.

She would have found the fresh disturbance of a fight scene, and the landing feet impresson of the Benatar (and no ship) and possibly a puddle underneath it.

Where did it go?

Where would it have gone?

From that it's a matter of either following whatever trail a ship may leave (especially a damaged ship leaking stuff).

Or simply guessing that they would make a beeline back to Earth, and following that path.

Or following a distress beacon - you have to figure if today's aircraft black boxes have a 30 day battery to power a sonar pinger, starship distress beacons have an independent power source too.

Also, Titan is hardly "not anything of significance", Thanos' homeworld matters.

Tony was joking about the nearby 7-11's; I'm sure the franchise in that part of the galaxy is Circle-K.

scifi.stackexchange.com/users/83623/Harper - Reinstate Monica

From the commentary included with Avengers:Endgame Captain Marvel was able to locate Tony and Nebula in space because the ship had a homing beacon.

She learned all that after the credits scene in Captain Marvel.

- BGR

Essentially, Rocket probably told her the ship had a homing beacon and gave her the frequency / info she needed to find it.

Question: At the beginning of  Avengers: Endgame ,     Tony Stark is floating somewhere in space with Nebula.  Suddenly, Captain Marvel appears to rescue them.   But how did she know where to go?  Space is huge, they were nowhere near anything of significance, and they were out of contact with everyone.  How was she able to show up in the right place?

How did Captain Marvel know where to find these characters?

The official explanation is that Captain Marvel was abe to locate Tony Stark and Nebula because the ship had a homing beacon that she was informed about after the credits scene of the Captain Marvel movie. Other possible explanations include her having enough information from Nick Fury to make some rough assumptions or that The Avengers had the sort of technology necessary to carry out deep space scanning.

There are a number of possiblities - e.g. perhaps the Avenger team on Earth sent Marvel after receieving a beeper summons from Nick Fury, perhaps Marvel detected the ship's distress beacon, perhaps Marvel followed the ship's train or perhaps she located them after seeing traces of the fight on Titan.

Captain Marvel was sent by the Avengers team on Earth, and after receiving a beeper summons from Nick Fury. Rocket would have known they were heading for Titan, thus narrowing the search area.

As Carol Danvers can detect Fury's beeper from across the galaxy she would be able to detect the distress signal from Quill's ship.

Perhaps the Avengers gave Carol a rough idea where to look - or maybe she just ran across them by chance.

Maybe Carol followed a trail left by Maw's ship or she ran into them on her way to Titan.

When she got to Titan she would have seen the signs of the fight and realised they were somewhere near there.

Maybe Rocket told her the ship had a homing beacon and what its frequency was.


How do you know his actions didn't affect her?

Last we see of Gamora is during the battle where she has a little spat with Quill, after that we don't see her.

For all we know she does actually survive the battle and Tony's snap.

Tony might have excluded her anyway

Gamora was seen fighting for the good guys on the field in the battle and Tony at least knows her name because Quill mentioned her multiple times in front of him.

It stands to reason that in the off screen time on Titan in Avengers: Infinity War

he may have described her more to see if they had seen her.

As such he may have excluded her.

Tony might not have seen her And if the previous point doesn't float your boat Tony might not have seen her in the battle anyway and as such might have excluded her on the grounds of not knowing she was there to be snapped.

The Stones may have decided As Paul D. Waite mentions in a comment Tony may have just decided to wipe out Thanos' forces and the Stones/Gauntlet themselves may have decided what constitutes someone working for Thanos.

As Gamora had switched sides at this point it may have left her alone.

What's Tony got to do with anything?

Neither

did Thanos know half the people in the Universe.

In both Infinity War and Endgame it's implied that the stones are displaying some level of sentience in carrying out complex implementations of simple directives ("Kill half of everybody," "Kill all the bad guys") and that their awareness of the current state of reality includes who's naughty and who's nice - and, as such, would be aware that Gamora switched sides 7 scenes ago.

The Snapper decides who lived and who dusts out of existence as mentioned in the answer here .

Tony couldn't risk killing innocent people in the process.

So, this is what his actions could have actually meant: "Anyone who's allegiance is towards Thanos should be dusted" .

Since the past Gamora changed her sides and joined the present-day Nebula, her allegiance towards Thanos ended.

This could be the reason why she survived the snap (considering she did survive the snap).

And it's left to the stones (maybe the Soul Stone or Mind Stone ) to identify if she really parted ways from Thanos.

Tony Stark spent a lot of time with Nebula.

She might have told him about Gamora.

So he definitely knew about her.

Gamora was never with Thanos, she was always setting herself up as a control rod to kill him if he ever got close to reaching his ultimate goal.

Since she would remain close enough to kill him if she pretended to be loyal

she did not have another, better choice to stopping him.

Consider her origin

the Mad Titan wiped out her mother and half her world then took her.

She was playing a very long game to get her personal justice and along the way she was being made stronger and understanding more about his ultimate goal and trying to find a way that she would stop him, she herself.

During her personal journey she had to keep closest to him and within his innermost circle of trust which meant completing with Nebula with Zero chance of compassion, as that could jeopardize her mission.

Consider meeting up with the Guardian's and taking one or more of the stones out of play the first real chance she had to break out of a lifetime undercover as an evil 'daughter' and show her true self.

I'm just amazed

Thanos did not realize this at some point, at least enough to know how deep down he failed and thus disqualify the love he thought he had for her, and then regain that love with the respect she maintained for her true purpose - to Kill Thanos/Stop his Infinity Stones quest.

I think there was a missed repartee just before he sacrificed her for the soulstone.

She could tell him how she really felt, he would get angryish and sad

she could then say this disqualified her as a sacrifice, then he would make peace with what he made her and respect her will and love her for it , maybe even more.

Question: At the end of  Avengers: Endgame  Iron Man    snapped his fingers with the Infinity Stones to erase all of the villains.   As Tony does not know     who Gamora is.   How can she survive this as she was coming with Thanos and was considered as a bad girl in the beginning of the battle?

Why doesn't Iron Man's action affect this person in Endgame?

It is not clear whether this action affected Gamora or not as she is not seen following the battle. Furthermore, Gamora is seen fighting for the good guys and so may well have been left alone because she switched sides. Tony may have also chosen to exclude her from this particular action.

This is open to interpretation - maybe she survives or maybe not. Tony Stark might have excluded her after what Quill told him and Stones - which seem to be sentient - might have recognised that she was not with Thanos and therefore should be excluded from the kill order.

Perhaps she does survive - Tony might have excluded her after what Quill said or the Stones themselves might have recognised that she was not with Thanos forces.

The Stones are sentient and so would see that Gamora switched sides 7 scenes earlier.

Tony wouldn't risk killing innocent people - the Stones would identify her as innocent.

Maybe Nebula told Tony about Gamora so her spared her because of that.

Gamora was never with Thanos in the first place - she wanted revenge and had to pretend to be with him in order to get close to him.


Bob's job at Insuricare involved him working with a desktop terminal/computer Given the limits of technology, it seems likely that such a device would have a screensaver to prevent the classic green screen burn-in .

You might also want to note that the concept of a screen slave (in the literal sense of a terminal slaved to a mainframe) has been around since the 1950s .

The metaphor didn't, I assume, go unnoticed by those who had to sit in front of them all day for work, nor by those who spotted that their friends and family were entranced by the idiot box in the corner of their living room.

“Screens were hypnotizing us 30 years ago,” he explained toHelloGiggles.

“Where everybody was plunked down in front of thetelevision and just changing channels and staying there all day.

Theidea of people kind of forgetting what's going on around them, infavor of what's going on inside this cool glowing box is not a newidea, but it is one that stays with us.”

The new villain in Incredibles 2 makes the movie sound like a terrifying episode of Black Mirror

Because the film isn't actually set in the past While the film has the appearance of something out of the 60s, it's actually set in a stylized present, imagined through the lens of what the people in the 1960s thought the future would look like.

This is made more confusing by the fact that Bob reads a newspaper dated May 16, 1962 in the first film.

But in a Bustle interview , writer/director Brad Bird and producers

Nicole Grindle and John Walker explained: "I probably wouldn’t have put 1962 on the newspaper if I thought it would get out," Bird said.

"I didn’t even know that we did that.

I just wanted it to feel like the '60s.

" Grindle added, "It’s more just like an aesthetic choice than anything," while Walker went a step further, saying the idea was to create a future based on the 1960s. "You [Brad] always said it’s like the imagined future from the '60s," Walker said.

"That’s when it’s set.

What people in the '60s thought was coming."

(emphasis mine)

This isn't a horribly uncommon style decision either, especially in the superhero genre.

Retrofuturism

As @CaptainMan mentions in the comments, the idea of an imagined future from the vantage point of a specific time period is a style known as retrofuturism and is the basis for the stylized realities seen in shows like Batman:

The Animated Series (and Bruce Timm's other DC Animated Universe shows) as well as the steampunk genre.

From the Wikipedia article: Retrofuturism (adjective retrofuturistic or retrofuture) is a movement in the creative arts showing the influence of depictions of the future produced in an earlier era.

If futurism is sometimes called a 'science' bent on anticipating what will come, retrofuturism is the remembering of that anticipation.

Screensavers as we know them didn't exist then.

I don't recall the character admitting that it was a pun, so I assume that the name comes from the behaviour.

Screenslaver enslaves and ensnares people through the medium of the screen - especially those who are already victims of screen addition.

The quote given in Valorum's answer describes this.

The "Screenslaver" name is a pun primarily intended for the (modern) audience, but it does describe the nature of the crime involved.

I was thinking screen enslaver got morphed into screenslaver, as the looking at screens was how folks got hypnotized/enslaved.

Not necessarily a screen saver.

You missed the point "screenslaver" isn't necessarily a pun on screensaver

it's a pun on consumerism of media and radio in a broader sense.

For 30 years of its existence (1936–1967) television was entirely in black and white.

CRTs were also invented before the 1930s with the first commercially made electronic television sets with cathode-ray tubes were manufactured by Telefunken in Germany in 1934.

Question: The Incredibles  2, the Screenslaver's name is a clear pun on "screensaver".  Screensavers were invented in 1984.  The film takes place in a broad 1950s pastiche, and we don't see any personal computers or other similar monitor based devices, rendering this pun completely useless.  Yet a villain as obsessed with invention and design as The Screenslaver would surely not pick a name that's completely meaningless! What, in-universe, could have prompted them to name themselves this? What is the joke, if not on Screensaver?

In The Incredibles 2, why does Screenslaver's name use a pun on something that doesn't exist in the 1950s pastiche?

The question is incorrect to state that personal computers don't exist in the film, as we see Bob working on a computer terminal at work. Furthermore, whilst the word "screenslaver" is a pun for the audience, it also describes the crime being committed, enslaving people through a screen. Additionally, it should be noted that the concept of a "screen slave" has been around since the 1950s and that the film is actually based in the stylised present.

Views vary - Bob might have had a screen saver even in the 1960s, but maybe the film was not even set in the 60s but in the future as imagined in the 60s and maybe 'screenslaver' is intended as a broader pun on the consumerism of radio and TV, with resonance at least for today's audience.

Bob might have had a screen saver on his computer at work even back then, and the idea of people being enslaved to the TV was also current.

The film is not actually set in the 1960s - it is set in the world of the future as imagined by people in the 1960s.

Screensavers did not exist back then but the term 'Screenslaver' has a dual function in that it describes the nature of the crime whilst operating at the same time as a pun for the audience of today.

Screen enslaver got morphed into Screenslaver - it does not have anything to do with screen savers.

The term "screenslaver" isn't necessarily a pun on screensaver - it is a pun on the consumerism of media and the radio in a more general sense.


Spiders-Man of Earth-11580 almost certainly has.

Spiders-Man.

Thousands of spiders that believe they are Peter Parker of Earth-11580.

Depending on how much you're willing to look into it, kinda?

In The Amazing Spider-Man , Peter catches a fly (0'15 in the clip below), and is seen licking his fingers at 0'30.

Might not be actual craving though, perhaps just uneasiness.

In Spider-Man: The Animated Series Spider-Man mutates into his final mutation form from the initial spider bite and becomes Man-Spider.

Presumably he ate some bugs in this form even if we don’t explicitly see it, that I remember.

According to Spider-Man Deadpool issue #5, yes!

It’s stated twice, from both Peter and Deadpool’s perspective, that while trapped in Tabula Rasa he ate insects— he frames it as something simply done to survive, but in Deadpool’s retelling he seems to think he enjoyed it, though whether that’s true or not is up for speculation.

Take it how you will!

Spider-Man:

Wade, seriously.

What are you talking about?

Last time I saw you we were in Tabula Rasa.

Do you know

Husk and I were stuck in there for 36 hours?

We had to eat bugs.

BUGS.

Deadpool:

I... wait.

Are you serious?

Spider-Man:

Who lies about eating bugs?

Who does that?

Spider-Man:

We had to eat bugs.

To be honest, they were delicious, but that is not the point.

One of the earliest incarnations of the web-slinger in television was Supaidaman : Rather than Peter Parker

the student/freelance photographer, this one was a motorcycle racer called Takuya Yamashiro.

Living his whole life in Japan and having been born decades ago, it is quite possible that Yamashiro at least once tried some of the local insect-based dishes, such as 稲子 (inago, which is actually grasshopper),

蜂の子 (hachi no ko, bee larvae) and 蚕のさなぎ (kaiko no sanagi, silk pupae).

Question: After being bitten by the spider, has Peter Parker ever  eaten  or  craved eating  bugs as a side effect?

Has Peter Parker ever eaten bugs?

It is not 100% clear whether Peter Parket has craved or eaten bugs as a side-effect of being bitten by the spider. However, there is evidence to suggest that he has. In The Amazing Spider-Man, Peter is seen licking his fingers after catching a fly, and in Spider-Man Deadpool issue #5, he eats insects.

There are no scenes where Parker is explicitly shown eating bugs but he is shown, for example, cathing flies and licking his fingers shortly thereafter and both he and Deadpool say that he ate bugs on Tabula Rasa.

Almost certainly - in Spiders-Man of Earth 11580.

This is not shown explicitly but Peter is shown in one scene catching a fly and then licking his fingers a few seconds later.

In his final mutation Spider-Man becomes Man-Spider and presumably eats bugs, although we do not see this.

Yes - Spider-Man Deadpool  issue #5, both Peter and Deadpool describe how he ate insects when trapped in Tabula Rasa.


You might as well ask this of most spaceship designs in any science fiction work, it's not specific to Star Wars at all.

However, there is a very simple reason and one you have overlooked.

Whilst Star Wars as a whole plays with physics, most spaceships do have to fly in a planet's atmosphere.

We see them going in and out of planets all the time and even flying and fighting inside of them.

For example, at the Battle of Takonda in

The Force Awakens we see X-wings and TIE Fighters in the atmosphere fighting.

Wings are beneficial here.

Another factor is weapon placement.

Wings or similar structures are perfect spots to put the ships weaponry to allow it to concentrate heavy firepower on the front.

A compact fighter simply doesn't have the width to mount more than 1-2 guns in most universes

(there are of course sci-fi universes where weapons don't take up a lot of space), so having another 2-4 guns on the wings allows the fighter to bring more firepower to bear while keeping its own hitbox as small as possible.

You often see capital ships not having wings, as those use flexible turrets, while star fighter type ships use fixed gun emplacements with a high amount of manouverability.

Ships in the Star Wars universe travel through a property known as "ether" which acts as a dragging force.

This explains a considerable number of issues including why ships have a top speed, how explosions can be heard in space,

why there's no overt worries about relativistic effects, why ships need to burn fuel constantly to maintain their speed, how tight turns are made and why X-Wings have actual wings Pablo Hidalgo (Head of the Lucasfilm's Star Wars Story Group) spoke to this in a recent tweet (now deleted) PH: If you need to, you could say the interstellar medium in Star Wars does have an ether, which would explain such pulpy things assound, concussion rings, visible drag, and such odd tech callouts as"an etheric rudder" from Heir to the Empire.

Only if you ⋆really⋆ needto, though.

Like if it helps you sleep at night and whatnot.

Watsonian Heat dispersion.

Having extended ‘foils’ (the structures you refer to as wings, at least on X-wings, are called S-foils)

provides greater heat dispersion, both by surface area, and by distancing the heat-producing cannons from the cockpit.

In Legends canon, TIE fighter radiator panels serve the same purpose.

Stabilization.

Allegedly, the s-foils provide in-atmo stabilization, and damage to them is frequently shown to cause a loss of atmospheric flight control.

This suggests they are used for in-atmo stabilization.

Based on the fact that fast-moving helicopters IRL have wing stubs partly for this purpose, it’s not too outlandish.

Greater weapon carrying capacity.

See again helicopters, like the Russian Mi-24 carry additional weapons on their wing stubs, just as X-wings do.

Fitting those cannons under the protected fuselage will require a bulkier body, which presumably is undesirable.

Doylist

They look cool.

These are both out-of-universe answers, but 1.

The Rule of Cool, and 2.

SW is a fantasy with slight sci-fi tropes, so it often doesn't conform to standard space rules.

As other answers have mentioned, this applies to sound in space and also things like the bombers losing speed and falling in The Last Jedi.

Why did that happen?

Cause SW is a fantasy and George Lucas based his dogfights around WWII dogfights.

Question: Many of the spaceships in  Star Wars , e.g. X-wings, have wings as part of their design. If there's no air resistance in space, why would wings be at all beneficial? Wouldn't it be better to have a small, compact shape to a make a star fighter easier to cram through small spaces?

Why do spaceships in Star Wars have wings?

Whilst wings would not be useful in outerspace, most spaceships do eventually have to fly in a planet's atmosphere, and at this point, wings do become useful. Additionally, wings are an excellent place for placing weaponry and can also play a role in heat dissipation.

The wings serve a range of purposes, for example providing stability when flying in a planet's atmosphere, placing weapons, dealing with the 'ether' of space in the SW universe and dispersing heat.

The wings are there for when the spaceships fly in a planet's atmosphere.

The wings are useful for weapon placement, so that firepower can be concentrated on the front.

Space in the Star Wars universe actually contains something called 'ether' which acts as a dragging force, so wings could be useful for that.

Watsonian Heat dispersion - the wings help disperse heat. Also stabilisation in atmospheric conditions, like the wing stubs on fast moving helicopters and carrying weapons and because they look cool.

SW is a fantasy and it does not have to confirm to natural laws, and wings fitted in with the dogfights which George Lucas based on WWII dogfights.


The closet visually would probably be Barash

An alien who abducted / held Riker in TNG:

S4:8 episode " Future Imperfect "

Possibly, but we don't see them in the show.

The only mention of any race of alien that "abducts" humans is in the Voyager Episode "The 37s", where we learn that a race in the Delta Quadrant, the Briori, frequently kidnapped humans to be kept as slaves.

However, the human's revolted and drove the Briori off long ago, and we never get a chance to see what one might look like.

Possibly related to the question is the Deep Space 9 episode, "Little Green Men", where we learn that Quark, Rom, and Nog get sucked back in time and are inadvertently, responsible for the Roswell incident.

I know this alien was a ruse, but there must be some veracity to it, since Kirk and crew accept it so readily.

It doesn't seem reasonable that Balok would have chosen a completely fantasy disguise to try and fool rational adults, I would assume these dudes exist in-universe.

(He is an avatar used by a character Balok in the episode "The Corbomite Maneuver", and also appears in the end credit sequence of every episode)

Interdimensional aliens that abduct crew members from the Enterprise do exist.

They are seen in the episode "Schisms".

It is not established that these are in fact the same grey aliens reported in earth's history, but their behavior of abduction, experimentation, and return are similar.

Schisms (Episode)

However, they do not physically resemble descriptions of greys.

We know that the aliens recovered from the crash at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 were ferengi ; as this is one of the roots of the grey alien myth (along with Betty and Barney Hill), I'm inclined to say that grey aliens are generally other species that have been (deliberately?) misidentified.

Question: Do gray aliens as reported in alien abduction accounts exist in Star Trek? If so, has it been mentioned in Star Trek canon that these are the same aliens that  people have reportedly encountered ?

Do gray aliens exist in Star Trek?

It's possible that gray aliens exist in Star Trek, but they are not seen in the show. The closest visual example in Star Trek would be Barash.

There are a couple of possible contenders - the alien that abducts Riker in TNG: Future Perfect and a race called the Briori who abduct and enslave humans, tho we never get to see them.

The closest thing to this visually would be the alien that abducted Riker in TNG: Future Perfect.

Perhaps, but they are not depicted in the show, only mentioned as a race called the Briori who abduct humans to use them as slaves.


The Dark Lord did indeed survive it as well.

It is indeed correct that the Dark Lord survived the Killing Curse as well.

He mentioned this himself when addressing the gathering of Death Eaters in the graveyard.

“You know my goal – to conquer death.

And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked … for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it.”

- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 33

(The Death Eaters)

Though it remains a rare occurrence, it is true that Harry was not the only one in history to survive the Killing Curse.

The Dark Lord was able to survive the Killing Curse because he had Horcruxes, which tethered his soul to earth so he could not truly die even if his body was destroyed.

“Well, you split your soul, you see,’ said Slughorn, ‘and hide part of it in an object outside the body.

Then, even if one’s body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged.

But, of course, existence in such a form …’ Slughorn’s face crumpled and Harry found himself remembering words he had heard nearly two years before.

‘I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost … but still, I was alive.’

‘… few would want it, Tom, very few.

Death would be preferable.”

- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,

Chapter 23

(Horcruxes) Wizards who have created Horcruxes are themselves very rare, so it would be unlikely that many others have survived the Killing Curse in this way, but the fact remains that the Dark Lord did.

I think that when you say that: "Harry is the only one to have survived the killing curse," you have in mind

this quote said by the fake Mad-eye Moody in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

"There is only one person known to have survived it (the killing curse).

And he's sitting in this very room.

But I would like to draw your attention to some points to show that what Barty Crouch Jr. (the fake Mad-eye Moody) may have said was not entirely true.

After the mishap of the Godric's Hollow, no one knew what actually happened to Voldemort.

Voldemort certainly had vanished but none had a clue if it was due to the rebounding killing curse or something else.

Now when Barty Crouch Jr., a devoted death-eater, found his master, he most probably did not ask him about that night (he was a true servant and would never ever want his master to relive that horrific night).

There can be another explanation.

Even if Barty Crouch Jr. came to know how his master disappeared, why would he carelessly tell this to anyone and attract attention to the fact that how much he knew about what happened that night (especially when his master was weak and needed his support in complete isolation from the wizarding world).

So, you are right in thinking that Voldemort too survived the killing curse (because of his horcruxes) and what the fake Mad-eye Moody said is not right.

No Voldemort also survived the killing curse; because he had horcruxes.

I know what you're thinking: There is only one person known to have survived it.

And he's sitting in this very room

Well

that Moody was fake and it was unclear as to what happened that night prior to that lesson

It may not have been known that the curse rebounded on Voldemort In Chapter One of Philosopher's Stone McGonagall says the following to Dumbledore: No one knows why, or how, but they're saying that when he couldn't kill Harry Potter, Voldemort's power somehow broke — and that's why he's gone."

It seems clear that she does not know that the curse rebounded on Voldemort.

Moreover, Dumbledore doesn't tell her that that's what happened, which would likely indicate that either Dumbledore didn't know either, or he wanted it to be kept secret.

Three chapters

later we find the following exchange between Harry and Hagrid:

“But what happened to Vol-, sorry — I mean, You-Know-Who?”

“Good question, Harry.

Disappeared.

Vanished.

Same night he tried ter kill you.

Makes yeh even more famous.

That’s the biggest myst’ry, see...

he was gettin’

more an’ more powerful — why’d he go?

Notice that Hagrid doesn't give any information about what caused Voldemort to disappear.

Again, it seems that average members of the Wizarding community such as Hagrid were simply unaware of what actually happened.

Thus, the claim that Harry was the only person to survive the Killing Curse should not be taken as evidence that Voldemort did not survive.

It may simply be that those promulgating this fact were unaware that Voldemort had been hit by a Killing Curse.

I have to disagree with the submitter's understanding.

When the curse rebounded, Voldemort's body died, and what was left of his soul split in two, one piece latching onto Harry, the other wandering in the wilderness (until Quirrell came along).

To my mind, that doesn't entirely count as 'surviving' in any reasonable sense, as contrasted with baby Harry, whose body and soul were still alive and undamaged (save for the scar).

Question: In Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry and his parents were attacked by Voldemort and Harry's parents died. But Harry survived because his mother had died to save him and as a result Voldemort's killing curse had rebounded upon him. But that is weird because if Harry is the only one to have survived the killing curse then Voldemort should have been dead. This leads me to think that Voldemort was able to survive the killing curse as well and so Harry wasn't the only one to survive it.

Didn't Voldemort also survive the killing curse?

It is correct that Voldemort also survived the killing curse.

Yes, Voldemort did survive the Killing Curse, but at a huge cost to himself with the spitting of his soul, and nobody appears to have realised that he survived.

Voldemort did survive the Killing Curse - he says so himself - but it involved splitting his soul with great suffering and a temporary loss of his powers.

Voldemort did survive but after the incident at Godric's Hollow he disappeared and the fake Moody (Crouch) was obviously lying to conceal the fact that Voldemort had survived.

Voldemort did survive but tt is clear that McGonagall - and possibly Dumbledore - simply did not know what had happened. They cannot understand why Voldemort failed to kill Harry for example.

Hagrid also clearly does not know what happened to Voldemort.

Voldemort did survive but only with his soul split in two, on half latching on to Harry and the other wandering in the wilderness until it could latch onto Querrell.


That’s probably Logan’s Run , by William F Nolan and George Clayton Johnson.

It was turned into both a film and a TV series, and there are several sequels.

Published in 1967, the novel depicts a dystopic ageist future society in which both population and the consumption of resources are maintained in equilibrium by requiring the death of everyone reaching the age of 21.

The story follows the actions of Logan, a Sandman charged with enforcing the rule, as he tracks down and kills citizens who "run" from society's lethal demand—only to end up "running" himself.

The sign isn’t a painted hand, but a crystal embedded in the hand.

It changes colour as you get older, and goes black when you’re over 21.

This sounds like it could be Logan's Run , which published in 1967 and made into a film in 1976.

Logan is a sandman , a kind of police officer who tracks down and kills runners , who are people who've reached the age of 21 and have tried to run rather report to a Sleepshop .

People are implanted with a crystal that turns red as they become teenagers, and black on their 21st birthday.

This could be the "red hands" you remember.

Logan is tasked to pose as a runner and infiltrate an underground railroad which has been helping runners get away.

He discovers that the railroad is being run by his friend and fellow runner.

I see several analogies with " A Generation Removed " by Gary K. Wolf although it doesn’t fit your description 100%.

In this short novel, published in 1977, the US are ruled by the young people and, as long as they're young, they are also allowed to do anything they wish: people are young up to the age of twenty.

As soon as they turn twenty they become adults and are tolerated as active population until the age of 55: at that point, old people keep being checked up even by mobile units on the streets and, as soon as they aren’t healthy anymore, they are euthanized on the spot.

Or just burned in fire chambers as a show for the young people’s delight.

The main character is a 51 year-old cop who's been assigned desk duties due to his age: but suddenly his Captain (even by name) puts him to active duty again, to infiltrate the resistance network, made up of old farts who keep fighting the young rulers.

Once accepted by the resistance, he realizes they are the good guys and joins them actively, de facto turning on the police: but Captain already knew he would betray them and lets his deputy hunt him until the final showdown.

There are no red hands involved but people over 55 must wear a black band to the arm.

It’s more a short novel than a short story, but this is a good match for William F Nolan and George Clayton Johnson’s 1967 Logan’s Run .

It has: A society where people are executed at 21 A group of enforcers (Sandmen) who track and kill those who try to escape death Crystals in peoples hands which turn red when they reach 22 A main character who stages his escape on his final day to find where the escapees go He is chased by a friend (not a protege)

It reminds me of Buzzati's "Cacciatori di vecchi" published in 1966.

It really is a short story, not a short novel.

It was translated in French as "Chasseurs de vieux" .

It's hard to find information in English about it, although it is mentioned here .

In the story, there is a youth movement (criminal?

it is not clear)

that hunts down elderly people.

It ends with the leader of the movement being himself old and hunted down.

Even if what you are looking for is Logan's Run , it is pretty interesting that this was published before and seems very similar.

Question: I am pretty sure this was a short story in a collection of sci-fi stories.   It was written from the perspective of one of the people whose job was hunting down and killing people that grew too old, after he himself reached that age. IIRC, he is hunted by his own protege.  I think that there was some kind of sign they had, a painted red hand. But that might be from somewhere else.   I read the book around 20 years ago, but would assume the story to be older.

Dystopia of a world where old people get killed

This story is probably Logan's Run by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson, which was published in 1967 and depicts a dystopic world that requires the death of everyone over 21.

The most likely explanation is that it is Logan's Run (1967) altho the sign of reaching the age for killing here is a crystal rather than a painted hand.Another possibility is " A Generation Removed " (1977) by  Gary K. Wolf  although it also doesn’t fit 100%.

It is probably Logan's Run (1967), where people over 21 are killed when a crystal embedded into their hands turns black (rather than the sign being a painted hand).

There are similarities to " A Generation Removed " (1977) by  Gary K. Wolf  although it doesn’t fit 100%. People over 55 are killed when no longer healthy and there is a 51 year old cop who joins the resistence, but people over 55 must wear a black armband rather than having a hand painted red.

It is similar to Buzzati's "Cacciatori di vecchi" published in 1966, which also ends with the movement's leader growing old and being hunted down himself.


Could this be The Chronicles of Riddick ?

There's a scene where various characters are climbing an outcrop.

When the sun touches them, they burn horribly.

This could be The Mole People , best known for its appearance during the eighth season of Mystery Science Theater 3000 .

A group of mountaineering explorers (led by Shirley Temple's ex-husband, the extremely "moist" John Agar) discover an underground remnant of the ancient Sumerian civilization, where the people are so lacking in melanin that sunlight instantly sunburns them to death.

This is used as a form of ritual execution for criminals, and protagonists use the sunlight to protect them during their escape.

There is also a lot of climbing (prompting the riff:

"This movie is nothing but ropes and asses!").

The plot summary, per Wikipedia : A narration by Dr. Frank Baxter, an English professor at the University of Southern California, explains the premise of the movie and its basis in reality.

He briefly discusses the hollow earth theories of John Symmes and Cyrus Teed among others, and says that the movie is a fictionalized representation of these unorthodox theories.

Archaeologists Dr. Roger Bentley and Dr. Jud Bellamin find a race of Sumerian albinos living deep under the Earth.

They keep mutant humanoid mole men as their slaves to harvest mushrooms, which serve as their primary food source.

The Sumerian albinos' ancestors relocated into the subterranean after cataclysmic floods in ancient Mesopotamia.

They believe the men are messengers of Ishtar, their goddess.

Whenever their population increases, they sacrifice old people to the Eye of Ishtar.

These people have lived underground for so long that they are weakened by bright light which the archaeologists brought in the form of a flashlight.

However, there is one girl named Adad who has natural Caucasian skin who is disdained by the others since she has the "mark of darkness."

When one of the archaeologists is killed by a mole person, Elinu, the High Priest, realizes they are not gods.

He orders their capture and takes the flashlight to control the Mole People, not knowing it is depleted.

The archaeologists are then sent to the Eye of Ishtar just as the Mole People rebel.

Adad goes to the Eye only to realize it is really natural light coming from the surface and that the men had survived.

They then climb to the surface.

Unfortunately, Adad dies after reaching the surface when an earthquake causes a column to fall over and crush her.

Could this be Missile to the Moon as per Movie about the sun being too hot it burned and kill very fast ? ....

Right near the end the lunar astronauts are trying to evade "rock men" while staying in the shadows.

One astronaut, escaped convict stowaway Gary, refuses to drop the bags of diamonds he has collected.

With the extra weight he is not quick enough to manage.

The film has men climbing up a rock face, and having to stay in the shadows, or else they will be burned, as seen in the case of Gary.

The full film is on YouTube:

In addition to other answers this could be any number of vampire films, but it makes me think in particular of 1987's Near Dark, in which the protagonist is a vampire and hiding in shadows / burning in sunlight is a recurring theme.

Trailer:

This reminded me of the Ray Bradbury story Frost and Fire , which was made into a film, Quest , in 1984.

Might the answer be the movie "Core", in which the earth loses its protective magnetic field?

Question: In the movie there are several people running into the shadows to hide from the sun that kills them. Whenever the sun hits them, they start to burn alive. I remember one scene where they are climbing on a mountain away from the sun that burns them.

People running into the shadows to hide from killer sunlight, climbing scene

There are a number of films that could fit this description. One is potentially the Chronicles of Riddick. Other potential films with these story elements include The Mole People, Missile to the Moon or Quest.

There are a number of possibilities, including The Chronicles of Riddick, The Mole People, Missile to the Moon, Quest or a vampire movie.

It could be The Chronicles of Riddick where various characters clinbing a mountain are badly burned by the sun.

It could be The Mole People, where mountaineering explorers discover people who have been living underground for centuries and have lost all their melanin.

It could be Missile to the Moon, a movie in which the sun was too hot and it burned and killed very fast.

It could be a number of vampire films, but it makes me think in particular of 1987's Near Dark, in which the protagonist is a vampire and hiding in shadows / burning in sunlight is a recurring theme.

This reminds me of the Ray Bradbury story Frost and Fire, which was made into a film, Quest, in 1984.

It could be the movie "Core", in which the earth loses its protective magnetic field?


Their assistance would not be useful.

What would Trelawney be able to do?

She only has prophetic powers when she has a vision, which is not under her control.

What would Professor Sinistra, the Astronomy teacher, be able to do?

So far as I can tell, astronomy in the magical world is nothing more than mundane astronomy.

I think Muggle Studies would be fairly useless, and both Arithmancy and Ancient Runes seem to be helpful for other kinds of magic, but less so themselves.

In other words, the other professors teach theoretical or abstract subjects, which is why their courses are more advanced.

Whereas the core teachers give practical courses, and so their knowledge is more useful for actually creating obstacles.

From Chapter Fourteen of Philosopher's Stone : “Oh, come on, Hagrid, you might not want to tell us, but you do know

, you know everything that goes on round here,” said Hermione in a warm, flattering voice.

Hagrid’s beard twitched and they could tell he was smiling.

“We only wondered who had done the guarding, really.”

Hermione went on.

“We wondered who Dumbledore had trusted enough to help him, apart from you.”

While Hermione might be totally making this up, it is possible that she has correctly identified the point, namely, that Dumbledore trusts certain people.

According to this we can surmise that those who helped protect the stone were the teachers that Dumbledore particularly trusted.

Possibly limited to heads of houses and other important persons rather than all staff.

Fluffy - Hagrid (trusted person) Plants - Professor Sprout (Herbology), Head of Hufflepuff

Flying Keys - Professor Flitwick (Charms), Head of Ravenclaw Chess - Professor McGonagall (Transfiguration), Head of Gryffindor & Deputy Headmistress Potions - Professor Snape (Potions), Head of Slytherin Mirror - Professor Dumbledore, Headmaster

Because had any more professors been involved, there would have been more than seven obstacles.

This is Harry Potter .

Everything is about the number seven.

I'm not sure if this is what you refer to as the obvious out of universe answer.

But even in-universe, characters know the power of seven, for example the deliberate number of Horcruxes, or the ways of scoring in Quiddich.

Another answer is that Dumbledore wanted obstacles that would stop Voldemort (if he had returned) but would not stop Harry (and his friends).

Or, as the inspiration for the question says, "A first year should technically be able to get through with the help of some friends."

By restricting the professors to those that knew Harry personally, he could make sure the challenges were things that Harry, specifically, could overcome.

It's possible that the traps were meant to serve multiple uses... Allow Dumbledore through, without too much hassle.

Slow-down - rather than stop - someone trying to get the stone, so that Dumbledore could be notified (wards) and had time to intervene.

Serve as test for Harry Potter (whom Dumbledore knew eventually would have to be the one to stop Voldemort) and his friends.

If so, it makes very much sense to only use the teachers teaching 1st year subjects.

(In addition, Hagrid conveniently gave Harry a flute for Christmas to put Fluffy to sleep.)

Make sure no one teacher could easily disable all traps using their own expertise.

Test the teachers' loyalty, by seeing how difficult their traps were (eg.

Quirrel's troll).

If Dumbledore just wanted to keep the stone safe, why use a simple locking-charm that several students (including 1st year Hermione) could bypass?

If Dumbledore wanted to keep the stone safe, why not bury it under the stone-floor of his personal quarters (accessed through his office, protected by a gargoyle) and use many layers of wards?

Why tell all the students at the welcome-feast, in a way that almost guaranteed some students would try to find-out what was hidden?

The only real safety-measure was the mirror, as someone who wanted to actually use the stone, would spend hours trying to get to it...

assuming they didn't also succumb to the magic of the mirror, and "wasted away in front of it".

So I would think everything

but the mirror were just slow-down an intruder, and to test Harry and his friends.

If Dumbledore wasn't away, I'm sure he'd observe Harry's journey through the traps - maybe he did.

While I think that the other answers provide quite reasonable answers, I think it's also important to recognize the rather special relationship Harry and Dumbledore have throughout the series, as well as the connection between Harry and Voldemort.

Dumbledore makes a habit of spinning lots of plates at once, making things seem disconnected, until (unsurprisingly given the name of the series) it turns out to all be about Harry - Snape's revelation in book seven is the epitome of this.

All that is to say that: Voldemort will make it through any security system, so Harry needs to be able to as well.

Harry, at this point, is the one thing that can stop Voldemort in the end.

Dumbledore knows this, and intends for Harry to get involved in order to stop it.

Dumbledore can't do it himself because: He doesn't want to show his hand.

He's still amassing power against Voldemort, and doesn't want him to come out of hiding too early.

He needs Harry to start believing in himself and his ability to fight against Voldemort, if he wants Harry to be an effective fighter.

Furthermore, Dumbledore doesn't want it to be someone else besides Harry, because he knows that Harry is still protected by his mother, and will never just give the stone away.

It's pretty clear that Harry was meant to get through these challenges - they're basically tailor made for him and his friends.

The only reasonable explanaition for such a personalized set of tasks is that they were meant to be that way.

Question: In Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, all of Harry's professors create an obstacle. Noticeably missing are obstacles related to courses that Harry isn't currently studying, such as Divination, Muggle Studies, Arithmancy, or Ancient Runes.  Is there an in-universe reason why there were no obstacles created by those professors? (Out-of-universe, the answer seems to be obvious.)  Inspired by  this post on Reddit.

Why didn't the other teachers create an obstacle in Sorcerer's Stone?

Other teachers did not create obstacles in the Sorcerer's Stone because their assistance would not be useful. This role may also have been limited to heads of houses and other important people rather than all staff.

There are several possible reasons - the other teachers taught theoretical rather than practical courses and the obstacles need to present a practical challenge, Dumbledore may have wanted to limit it to more senior teachers, there had to be 7 obstacles and they had to stop Voldemort but not Harry and Harry had to be trained in fighting Voldemort without making it look too obvious.

The assistance of the other teachers would not be helpful as they teach theoretical rather than practical subjects.

Perhaps because he wanted to limited it to heads of houses and more senior staff.

Because there had to be seven obstacles - seven is an important number in these books - and because Dumbledore wanted obstacles that would stop Voldemort but not stop Harry.

There are several possible reasons - Dumbledore needed obstacles he and Harry could get through but not others. The only real obstacle was the mirror.

The obstacle course was designed in part to train Harry to fight against Voldemort without making the training too obvious.


Edison's Conquest of Mars ( 1898 ) by Garrett P. Serviss was an unauthorized sequel to H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds .

The plot is basically about Earth arming after repelling the Martian invasion, testing their fancy new ray gun (created by the titular Edison) and then embarking on a counter-invasion of Mars.

Set after the devastating Martian attack in the previous story, the novel depicts Edison leading a group of scientists to develop ships and weapons, including a disintegration ray, for the defence of Earth.

Edison and company fight the aliens in space and on Mars, eventually causing a flood that defeats the enemy and forces an end to hostilities.

The book is now out of copyright, so it can be read at Project Gutenberg .

Note that while the Earth forces defeat the Martians, they don't remain as colonists; I have an alternative suggestion from 1900 if that is important.

Even earlier is the 1930 Last and First Men by Olaf Stapledon, a novel of vast scope which follows the development of humanity and its successors for hundreds of millions of years into the future.

The Fifth Men invade and colonise Venus when Earth becomes uninhabitable.

From the Wikipedia article: After clashing with and finally eliminating the Third and Fourth Men,they develop a technology greater than Earth had ever known before.

When Earth ceases to be habitable, they terraform Venus, committinggenocide on its marine native race which tries to resist them.

1887: Man Abroad:

A Yarn of Some Other Century , an anonymous novel.

Humans from earth invade the planet Venus.

The Venusians are human colonists rather than indigenous lifeforms, but the question does not make this distinction.

WorldCat summary: A fantastic classic science fiction tale from an anonymous late-19th century author.

In a far-flung future, humanity has colonised the solar system.

The story is set against a background of interplanetary war, with mighty electric spaceships riding the inter-system electric currents to battle in epic space warfare.

From Everett F. Bleiler 's review in Science-Fiction: The Early Years , which you may be able to read at Google Books : The time is not specified, but is far enough away for man to have colonized the whole solar system.

The other planets and the asteroids are like earth, with similar atmosphere and gravity, and presumably similar vegetation.

[. . . .] As the story opens, the Jupiterns [ sic ], who resent the earth's attempt to annex Luna, declare war.

In a space battle the Jupiterns defeat the terrestrial navy, but this leads to their downfall, for among the prisoners of war are many highly skilled agents provocateurs who set off a general mutiny among their captors in the Jupitern armed forces.

Other earth agents subvert the Jupiter–Venus alliance and sidetrack the Venusians into invading Jupiter to capture women, since women are in short supply on Venus.

Venus then declares itself a republic.

At this point the earth counterattacks by invading Venus, thereby falling into war with Mercury, which resents earth interference on Venus.

But then earth suddenly and inexplicably withdraws its forces when victory seems in sight.

The journalist Weber Lockmore, who is the central character for the later part of the novel, has a roving commission throughout the solar system.

He makes a huge fortune on Mercury and accidentally discovers why earth withdrew its forces: The Senate was bribed.

1932: A Conquest of Two Worlds , a novelette by Edmond Hamilton , first published in Wonder Stories , February 1932 , available at the Internet Archive , reprinted in Startling Stories , January 1948 , also available at the Internet Archive .

The two worlds conquered by Earthmen, against bitter resistance by natives who are ruthlessly suppressed, are Mars and Jupiter.

Here is the editorial blurb from the original publication in Hugo Gernsback's Wonder Stories : Just as the white man had nothing to be proud of in his early conquest of the Americas, so the human race will hardly look back with pride if it manages to conquer the solar planets.

The dominating force of greed is not expected to suddenly vanish when enterprising men roam the interplanetary spaces.

It is unfortunate that after brave and unselfish men have opened up new lands, the great profits that they bring go to financiers and business men who risk neither their lives nor their money.

Suppose, as Mr. Hamilton shows so dramatically, the selfish exploitation of other planets was being accomplished for greedy exploiters, and to conquer those worlds meant the decimation of its harmless population, would you aid in that process?

Read this absorbing story, and then write us your opinions of the conduct of Mart Halkett.

We will print the best letters.

Hamilton's protagonist, Mart Halkett, is a Terran commander who defects to the Jovian resistance.

I can certainly push this back to 1962 and H Beam Piper's novel Little Fuzzy (which has many similarities with Avatar ).

Protagonist Jack Holloway lives a solitary life in a wilderness of planet Zarathustra, itself "owned" by the Chartered ZarathustraCompany (under Victor Grego), which installed basic services andcolonial outposts initially, and now reaps the benefits of newdiscoveries, such as the valuable "sunstones" mined by Holloway untilhe befriends a tiny, golden-furred humanoid that he names "LittleFuzzy".

Little Fuzzy brings his family/tribe to meet Holloway and thelot of them promptly adopt Holloway as well.

Upon discovery that theFuzzies' intelligence may qualify them as a sapient species, theCompany moves against them.

The novel is out of copyright, and can be found here .

John Scalzi has taken advantage of this to publish his own rewritten version.

"A True Story" is a novel written in the second century AD by Lucian of Samosata.

In it the heroes travel to the Moon and engage in warfare with the King of the Moon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_True_Story

I doubt it's the first, but I can push the date back to 1972: Ursula

K Le Guin's "The Word for World is Forest".

Brief summary from Wikipedia

In The Word for World is Forest, the second thought experiment is thecolonization of a pacifist culture on the planet Athshe by amilitary-controlled logging team from Earth, known in the novel as"Terra"; additionally, the inhabitants of Athshe recognize the peoplefrom Terra as human, but the Terrans do not see the Athsheans, who aresmall and covered in green fur, as human.

Question: We see alien invasion of Earth in fiction all the time, but reverse is a rare sight.  There's only one example of this on top of my head right now:  Avatar  (2009)  I don't believe that  Avatar  was the first to show human invasion of an alien planet. Or, was it?  Which Sci-Fi work first showed human invasion of alien planets?

Which Sci-Fi work first showed human invasion of alien planets?

It is not clear exactly which is the earliest novel depicting a human invasion of an alien planet, however, a strong contender would be Edison's Conquest of Mars by Garrett P. Serviss, which was published in 1898. Other more recent novels depicting a similar storyline include Last and First Men (1930), A Yarn of Some Other Century, A Conquest of Two Worlds (1932) and Little Fuzzy (1962).

It depends on your defintiion of sci-fi work but the earliest work of fiction to use this trope is perhaps "A True Story", written in the second century AD by Lucian of Samosata. Other contenders include Edison's Conquest of Mars ( 1898 ) by Garrett P. Serviss and the late 19th century A Yarn of Some Other Century, an anonymous novel.

Possibly Edison's Conquest of Mars ( 1898 ) by Garrett P. Serviss, in which Earth arms after repelling the Martian invasion, develops a new ray gun and then embarks on a counter-invasion of Mars.

Possibly Last and First Men (1930) by Olaf Stapledon, which follows the development of humanity for hundreds of millions of years into the future and where the Fifth Men invade and colonise Venus when Earth becomes uninhabitable.

Possibly the late 19th century A Yarn of Some Other Century, an anonymous novel in which humans invade Venus.

Possibly A Conquest of Two Worlds (1932), a novelette by  Edmond Hamilton, in which humans conquer Mars and Jupiter against bitter opposition from the natives.

Possible H Beam Piper's novel Little Fuzzy  (1962) where the planet Zarathustra is invaded and conflict erupts with the local Fuzzies.

Possibly "A True Story", written in the second century AD by Lucian of Samosata, where the heroes travel to the Moon and attack the King of the Moon.


If you need to rapidly cool beverages that are still sealed in cans or bottles, put them in a mixture of water, ice, and salt.

Once the beverages are submerged in the mixture you can stir them to have them cool even faster.

The salt melts the ice faster cooling the water more quickly.

This only takes a few minutes to cool you beverage.

I've heard this from multiple sources and done it myself.

I think there was even a Mythbusters episode where they tried this as well as some other very impractical methods.

(Link and comment provided by @Mast - Mythbusters Season 3 Episode 6

"Cooling a Six Pack" - Do note the link is technically not part of any answer whatsoever.

The methods used in the video are highly impractical and should under no circumstance be tried at home.)

The keyword is dissipation .

What you want is a large amount of liquid on the right temperature.

The larger the amount, the better (a large amount of liquid heats up less quickly because there's more to heat up.

If it heats up too much, it isn't cooling much.).

The relative heat of the cans will be dissipated by the liquid.

It's important the cans are completely submerged.

Water from the tap is a quick fix, but if you have anything colder around that works as well.

Filling the liquid with ice will keep the temperature of the water lower and is usually a good idea as well, if any is available.

If you happen to have a large (preferably filled) container in the freezer, you can throw this in the water as well.

It will have the same effect as adding ice (the larger the container, the better).

Keep in mind the container probably was there for a reason.

However, one need can overrule another.

You can use this method but this requires freezer!!

Cover the cans/bottles of beverage with wet paper and keep it in freezer!

By doing this cans will chill fast!!

more info here

You don't need to cool your drinks, just cool the glasses.

Prepare by having enough glasses in the freezer for your friends, for every glass taken out of the freezer put a new one in so every drink is a cold drink.

This is also a great way for Whiskey snobs to get cold whiskey without adding ice.

An old school method will cool your canned drink instantly.

Find a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher, the kind with the big horn on it that projects the gas.

Set the can on a surface, preferably outside.

Cover it with the fire extinguisher spout and blast it once or twice.

It will be ice cold in less than 5 seconds !

Freeze water in plastic bags or put ice cubes in plastic bags after they have been frozen.

Put the ice in its plastic into the drink, cooled drinks without risk of diluting by melting ice.

(I have seen that most people drink so fast that the ice cubes in the drinks have no time to melt, so your friends might be happy to have normal ice cubes.)

Question: I just bought box of Coca-Cola cans that have not been refrigerated. I have a group of people coming over soon, and I want the Cokes to be cold by the time the group arrives. What is the best method for doing so without diluting the beverage with ice?  I also would rather not put them in the freezer because it requires active monitoring (I do not want the cans to freeze if I forget about them).

What is the quickest way to cool down a room-temperature drink without pouring it over ice?

There are many different ways to quickly cool down canned drinks. One popular was would be to submerge the cans in a mixture of water, ice and salt. Another method involves wrapping the cans in paper and keeping them in the freezer. Other more inventive solutions may include chilling the glasses instead of the cans or blasting the cans with a fire extinguisher.

There are many ways to cool canned drinks, for example by putting them into a bucket containing water, ice and salt, by placing them in a large volume of ice and water, by covering the cans with wet paper and then placing in the freezer or by blasting them with a carbon dioxide fire existinguisher. Alternatively you could just freeze the glasses.

Put the cans into a bucket containing water, ice and salt. The salt melt the ice faster, thereby cooling the water more quickly.

You need to dissipate the heat so fill a container with water and as much ice as possible and then put then cans into it.

Cover the cans with wet paper and then put them in the freezer.

Blast the cans with a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher - it can cool a can in seconds.

Keep some ice cubes in plastic bags and place these in the drinks to call them without diluting them.


I suggest you first semi-close the blinds and then dust with a cotton sock.

Works like a charm.

You could also use a damp cloth.

If you really dislike manual work, a vacuum cleaner sometimes gets the job done.

Purchase a blinds duster.

Use it.

The first thing to do is, of course, close them.

I wouldn't close them completely , as it may hold up the dust in the "folds"

(how can I call them?).

The next thing is to use a vacuum cleaner with the brush like this attached to the end of hose: image from vacuumcleanershop.com

I've found a vacuum to be the best tool for this job, as long as you have a brush attachment.

You still must run the brush along each slat

but it's much faster than a cloth.

There are even special attachments that go on a vacuum nozzle which clean several slats at once.

Take them down, leaving them fully extended.

Then put them in a bathtub full of hot, soapy water.

If they're really bad, include a gentle degreaser like Simple Green.

Let them soak for a bit, swishing them gently to loosen the dust and oils.

Then use the shower to rinse them off.

In my case I have such blinds on a balcony looking over a big boulevard so they get dirty quite fast.

The way I clean them is the following - I take down the blinds when fully extended and closed .

After that I take them to the bathroom and I use my shower.

My shower is with flexible hose like so that helps.

Now after you pour some water to the blinds they stick to either the floor or the walls.

In case the blinds are short enough I use the wall otherwise I use the floor.

Use strong flow of water and hit the blinds from one side to the other.

The dust literally flows out.

You may have to use some towel if the blinds are really dusty or muddy.

Cleaning the blinds using this approach is much easier but it is still a challenge for my apartment as I have about 20. NOTE: remember to remove the plastic part for turning the blinds otherwise it will constantly get in you way.

Now I also remove the small plastic part at the end of the strap for lifting the

blinds(after

I stepped on a few and broke them :)

When I moved into my flat, I unhooked them from the window frame and gave them a shower.

Question: I have  Venetian blinds  in my home.  I have a feather duster, but it does a  terrible  job, removing (at most) a third of the collected dust.  I've also used a standard dust cloth, which does a good job, but to wipe it across each blind takes much too much time.  What would be a more effective method?

How to dust Venetian blinds?

There are many different ways to approach cleaning Venetian blinds. One way is to close them and dust with a cloth or a sock or even use a special purpose blinds duster. Alternatively, you could use a vacuum cleaner or even remove the blinds completely and wash them in the bath.

There are several methods for this, including wiping with a cotton sock, damp cloth or binds duster, cleaning with a vacuum cleaner or taking them down and washing them in the shower.

You could dust them with a cotton sock or a damp cloth or use a vacuum cleaner.

Close them, leaving the 'folds' partly open and then clean with a vacuum cleaner.

Take them down and clean in the shower with soap and hot water.


Here's a solution that my friend came up with: Take a bunch of Styrofoam cups Cut out the bottoms of the cups Stack them up Put the wide end of the top cup under the faucet, and the (cut open) thinner end of the bottom cup over the edge of the sink Place the urn directly underneath the end of your Styrofoam cup chain Turn on the sink At the end, your contraption should look like this:

Similar to @Shokhet's answer you can also use a clean dustpan, as shown below: Source: Trupser.com

Step 1: Get a smaller container which actually fits in the sink.

Step 2:

Fill it up.

Step 3:

Dump it into the larger container Step 4: Repeat Steps 1-3 as needed.

This is really simple, but if you urn is very big, it is quite difficult to do :D take a smaller volume fill it with water from your tap pour the water from the smaller volume into your urn.

Another variant: take a large plastic bottle (e.g. 1.5L+) cut the bottom and put the bottle in this way:

I've used a flexible cutting board for this, if the faucet is above the lip of the sink.

You can curve the flexible cutting board into a "U" shape, put one end under the faucet, and put the other end over the thing you're filling.

Turn on the water slowly & carefully to make sure it's running the right direction.

And since water will run downhill (isn't that a saying?), your urn or other container will get filled up.

These are all great answers.

I've also used a plain ol' baking tray that was not as wide as the bucket I was trying to fill up.

Hook one of the lips of the baking tray under the faucet, and hang the tray over the edge

so there's enough force from the other side of the tray trying to fall, to keep the water from splattering too much from out of the faucet.

The advantage that this technique has over the styrofoam cups technique, I think, is that the tray will be much sturdier, and thus be able to take more force, and perhaps perform better under hot water, over a long period of time (depending on your bucket size, and how many times you need to refill it).

You can attach a length of garden hose to your kitchen sink using an adapter.

This should allow you to fill any size container.

Unscrew the U-shaped trap plumbing below the sink.

You can often do this with your bare hands.

Then simply place your container vertically under the drain hole of the sink, and open the faucet.

Careful:

usually there is a gross amount of gross dirt inside, with some water, so don't spill that.

And since the water runs through the dirty drain pipe before getting to your container, this is not applicable when you need clean water .

But if you just want to water a tree or something …

Question: I have a large container (a hot water urn) that I need to fill with water.  I don't have access to a hose, unfortunately, so that is not an option.  I did also try stuffing the urn in the sink, but that didn't work because the sink is too small to fit the urn inside.  How can I fill my hot water urn from a sink that's too small for it?  This also applies to any other bucket or water container.

How do I fill a hot water urn that doesn't fit in the sink?

The simplest way to fill an urn that won't fit in the sink is probably to fill up small containers and empty them into the urn. Alternatively, you could use a garden hose with an appropriate attachment.

There are many possible solutions - you could fill the urn using a smaller vessel bit by bit, channel the water into the urn using a pipe made from styrofoam cups or a dustpan, cutting board or baking tray, attach a garden hose to the sink and use that or remove the u-bend below the sink and fill the urn directly from the water exiting the sink.

Make a tube out of styrofoam cups with their bottoms cut out and run it from the sink to the urn.

Get a smaller container that does fit and use it to fill the urn in stages.

If the faucet is above the lip of the sink use a flexible cutting board to fill the urn

Use a baking tray to channel the water into the urn

Attach a length of garden hose to the sink and fill the urn through that.

Remove the u-bend beneath the sink and fill the urn directly from the plug hole, as long as you do not need clean water.


The simplest way would be to put something enough heavy behind the laptop screen to make it lean on it.

you could make a hinge much like you find on a photo frame although this would have to be attached to the lid of the laptop and would look unsightly.

if that wouldn't be a problem then all you would need is a stiff piece of card cut into a triangle, and something to attach it eg.

duct tape if attached with a couple of millimetres between the lid and card it would fold to the side quite nicely

I like large binder clips for problems like this.

Clip the black part to the edge of the lid, and adjust the silver "ears" so that they prop up the screen.

If the ears aren't long enough, use something like a thick book behind the laptop for the ears to lean on.

Use some duct tape and some rubber bands.

If you use just the right size, it will apply just enough friction to prop the screen up.

If it will simply fall, glue or tape a small metal bar to the back, so it will stop falling if it reaches the case (the part with the CPU, etc).

Try setting it up against a wall.

That way, the screen won't tilt backwards.

I had a similar problem which I initially tried fixing with black electrical tape.

However, the tape kept coming undone and the problem got worse.

Finally, in frustration, I used superglue.

To my surprise and delight, this fixed the problem!

Get a piece of styrofoam packing (which I suppose counts as ordinary household stuff, no?)

Carve it into an angled shape with a recess that holds the screen in a press fit.

Does Lego count as a household item?

I'd build something from Lego to keep the screen in place.

With a few Technic beams and pins you can build a support that fits around the laptop, holding the screen at pretty much any angle you want, without risk of slipping away from the laptop and dropping the screen.

Both of my hinges have broken.

I am about to order replacements.

For a temp fix, I have: black duct tape from the top left of the screen to the surface of my laptop's supporting table (or to anything that it will stick to, behind it), and tape from the top right of the screen to the front right of the base of the laptop.

These opposing tapes keep it fixed upright (again, this is temp), and they do not block the screen, although it is awkward getting to the numeric keypad on the right.

You will probably want to test the angle you need before affixing the two tape strips.

Question: I have a laptop with a broken hinge. The broken hinge is cracked and exhibits no friction whatsoever when opening/closing the lid.  For now, the remaining hinge holds the screen in place. My concern is that this will stop working, allowing the screen to fall and crack.  Using  only  household items, how can I prop up the screen?

How do I prop up a laptop screen with a broken hinge?

The simplest way to hold the laptop screen in place is simply to place something heavy behind the screen and lean the screen against it. Alternatively, you could prop it against a wall, or use tape or lego to keep it upright. Lastly, you could even consider using superglue to glue it open.

There are many solutions - you could put something behind the laptop to rest the screen on, make a hinge like on a photo frame, use large binder clips to hold it in place, use duct tape and runner bands, set it up against a wall, use superglue, cut a stand out of styrofoam, make a stand out of Lego or run strips of duct tape around it.

Put something heavy behind the laptop to lean the screen against.

Make a hinge like you see on a photo frame.

Use large binder clips - if necessary with a thick book to lean the ear on.

Carve some styrofoam packing into a triangular prism shape and lean screen on that.

Use duct tape and stick it to the table and to the front of the laptop.


That's the dew freezing on.

If you throw a waterproof cover over the windshield, hardly any dew will accumulate, and the problem will be mostly nil.

The closer the cover hugs it the better.

Cover your windshield with aluminium: Applied on a windshield, your car will look like this: It will prevent any dew freezing on in most scenarios (it won't work against heavy snowfall and blizzards, naturally).

However, even if a lot of snows falls on top of it, removing the cover will still take care of most of the freezing.

Using a waterproof cover is your only foolproof solution.

I have had (partial) luck with spraying wiper fluid

last thing before leaving the car.

Less dew sticks, and the few pieces just wipe away in the morning.

If you leave your car uncovered outside in freezing rain, it will ice up just like everything else.

Sorry, but the only solution there is to cover it.

For snow

however, you can greatly reduce and in some cases eliminate ice build-up by just making sure your windshield is cold before allowing any snow to fall on it.

Ideally, this means parking your car and letting it cool for a few hours before the snow starts falling, but if it's cold enough outside you can speed this up by turning off the heat and opening your windows for the last part of the drive home.

You'll still end up with some heating from the engine, unfortunately.

Also, make sure you have a good hat with you.

While I am not sure how well this will work with icing problems, try a product called glass wax.

It is good for keeping moisture and bugs from sticking to the window, and may just be effective enough to make your problem bearable.

A mixture of water and vinegar is supposed to remove ice and prevent ice from forming.

see How to remove ice from windshield for more.

The best solution is to get the car into a garage or carport if possible.

Surprised no one has mentioned that so far.

Some sort of roof over the car is really helpful.

If not those are available, then natural shelter like large trees could be helpful, in addition to covering the windshield like described in other answers.

I've also seen cars parked next to ventilation or air condition vents to re-use the warmer air, but you got to have some luck for that to be available.

I've never done this, but I'd like to suggest an idea I just had: Cut four 1

" slits in the corners of an electric heating pad , then slip in four neodymium magnets that have velcro dot stickers (into each individual slit) and adhere to the inside of the pad lining.

Then individually stick the---now---magnetic corners to the window within the vehicle to four other matching neodymium magnets on the outside of the window, and connect this to an extension cord .

Question: Winter is coming. And as I don't want to spend time defrosting my cars windshield I would like to know:   How can I keep it from icing over every night? I have tried the de ice spray but it is too expensive for me.

How to keep the windshield from freezing over?

It is generally agreed that the only way to prevent your windscreen from freezing over is to cover it, possibly with a waterproof cover or aluminium, or alternatively keeping it in a garage.

Possible solutions include throwing a waterproof cover over the windscreen, covering it with aluminium foil or park the car in a garage or carport or even under a large tree.

Throw a waterproof cover over the windscreen - make sure it fitrs closely.

Cover the windscreen with alumunium foil.

Park your car in a garage or carport or even under a large tree.


Dry them with several heavy bath towels which will both mute the sound and distribute the shock sufficiently to prevent the drier door from jarring open.

How can I best tumble-dry my sneakers without the noise and risk of the door opening and stopping the cycle?

You don't.

A tumble dryer is not meant for shoes.

It will not dry them particularly effectively, and both the shoes and the dryer may suffer damage if you try.

Instead, just set the shoes out to dry in a warm (but not too hot!)

place, preferably with some air circulation.

If you happen to have a fan heater , try setting it to blow warm air over the shoes.

This does the same thing as a tumble dryer would, except that it won't also toss and bang the shoes around for no good reason.

If you don't have one, even just a plain old fan ought to help.

Ideally, you should also unlace the shoes and pull the flap out to better expose the inside and let it dry.

Or, possibly the most effective solution, just buy a shoe dryer made for the purpose.

It'll set you back some $20 to $40, depending on the model and where you get it from, but it's a one-time investment (well, until it breaks down, anyway, but it'll most likely outlast your shoes by a fair margin).

Alternatively, some people recommend stuffing the shoes full of paper (newspaper / tissue paper / etc.).

I have a mixed feeling about this — it may indeed help to absorb moisture, but it'll also block air circulation inside the shoe.

I'd suggest just using a fan, but if you don't have one, paper might help in a pinch, at least if you change it often.

For that matter, if you're going to stuff your shoes full of something to dry them out, try dehydrated silica gel — you can buy it in several kilogram / pound bags from pet stores or supermarkets as "crystal cat litter", and it's even reusable if you heat it to dry it out.

Just fill an old (but clean and hole-free!)

sock about halfway with the silica grains, tie a knot in the sock to keep the silica in, and slide your homemade desiccant bag into the shoe.

I've tried this, and it works great e.g. for drying boots while hiking.

Dry them one at a time.

Tie the laces of both shoes together and leave one out of the machine.

This should reduce the amount of movement, reducing the sound and risk of opening the door.

Or "Why not place them both in, let the shoestring hang out and tie something different on it, so they don't fall in?"

Thanks @Angelo Fuchs

When I tumble-dry my football boots, I usually put them in with some thick socks.

Put the thick socks on the outside of the shoes to prevent the heavy parts from clattering too much.

A couple of thick pairs on each shoe usually does the trick, especially if you also dry them with thick towels, as another poster has already suggested.

Many clothes dryers have an optional drying rack designed for items such as shoes, etc.

which aren't meant to be tumble dried.

The shoes would sit in the rack inside of the dryer and can be dried without risking damage to the dryer or the shoes.

It would probably work best if the shoes were put on the rack on their side or upside down.

They are on the expensive side, but are worth it if you wash shoes regularly.

Here is an example of one: http://www.whirlpool.com/-[W10121663]-1001500/W10121663/

Question: When I wash my sneakers and attempt to tumble-dry, a loud thumping sound permeates my apartment and often they will kick the door open.    How can I best tumble-dry my sneakers without the noise and risk of the door opening and stopping the cycle?

What is the best way to tumble-dry wet sneakers?

One way to tumble dry shoes as quiet as possible is to dry them with several heavy towels or with some thick socks. You could also try tumble drying them one at a time. This being said, some people would not recommend tumble drying shoes at all.

The solutions include drying the sneakers together with heavy bath towels, using a fan heater or fan, stuffing them with dry paper or silica gel, dry them one at a time, put socks over them before drying or buy a special drying rack.

Dry them together with several heavy bath towels.

Don't use the dryer - use a fan heater or just a fan or a special purpose shoe dryer. You could also stuff them with paper or silica gel to dry them out.

Put thick socks over them before they go into the dryer.

Buy a drying rack for use with a tumble dryer.


Counterintuitively, corn on the cob holders can be good for this.

They dig into the apple directly, rather than a fork which curves and can cause difficulty in angling it right without biting into metal.

You can make it sort of a caramel apple (without the caramel).

Get a popsicle stick or something else similar and stick it in the bottom of the apple.

Now you can eat it without get sticky.

Take a knife / fork or something and jam

it top down into the apple.

Then you have a nice handle and can eat all the apple you want.

When finished use something other then your hand to strip the apple off the knife / fork and clean it.

I do this by laying the apple on the ground, standing on it and pull the knife out to the side.

You have to clean your knife afterwards, so it isn't sticky itself.

A leaf from a tree can work as hanky in this case.

Be careful not to cut yourself or bite on the metal though.

I hold the apple with one hand and eat a circle around the "equator".

I then either snap the apple in half and eat the remaining flesh from each half, holding the inner bit of the core and a "dimple".

Eating the remaining flesh without snapping the apple in half is possible, but I find this leaves me with a sticky chin.

I just cut the apple in little pieces like the picture below then

I'll just it eat using a fork.

This also avoids throwing the remains of an apple , so you can just do anything you want while eating apple.

I do this when I am so lazy to get up

, I just want to eat and play games, or watch movies or focus on programming.

First, cut out some paper towels so that they are just bigger then your hand, then eat the apple while holing them.

Doing this stops apple juice form getting all over your hands.

Use a corer/slicer.

Now that you have eight slices with no more waste, just pick them up with a fork.

Question: I really enjoy eating apples, however it is annoying when hands get sticky.   How can I eat an apple so that the juices do not make my hands sticky?

How can I eat an apple without getting sticky fingers?

Ways to eat apples without getting your hands sticky include using corn holders or poking a stick in the bottom of the apple. Another method involves eating around the equator, snapping the apple in half and eating the flesh of each half. Alternateively, you could cut the apple into small piece or hold it using paper towel.

Solutions include using a corn sob holder, a toffee apple type stick, eating the 'equator' first, cutting the apple into pieces, using a paper towel to avoid juices and using a corer/slicer.

Hold with one hand, eat around the 'equator' then snap in half and eat each half holding the inner core and a 'dimple'.

Use paper towels to keep your hands from getting sticky.