q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
296
| selftext
stringlengths 0
34k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | url
stringlengths 4
110
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2r5y76 | if a meteor was hurtling towards earth, what would be the process to stop it from causing another extinction event, like the dinosaurs? | I am looking for a detailed explanation in terms of chain of command, and the probability of success vs. failure. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r5y76/eli5_if_a_meteor_was_hurtling_towards_earth_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cncrl77",
"cncrn6o",
"cncrypz"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm sure in the possibility of an extinction event, it'd be in every country's interest to stop it. \n\nThe UN covers a lot, and may have jurisdiction over this, or they might form some one off committee to bond even hostile countries to formulate a plan.\n\nBut really, all you can hope to do is throw a big bomb at it and hope it's trajectory is altered or that it's blown into enough bits to fall harmlessly like a meteor shower.",
"How soon do you need to know this?... Is there something we should know?.... Lol. \n",
"It's only called a Meteor when it is in our atmosphere.. So by then it's probably way too late. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5arlrd | why is it common in the usa to buy houses even at a young age? | I'm german and I recognized that there seem to be lower barriers in the US to buy houses even at a young age. In Germany buying a house is rather considered as a "lifegoal", something you can think of after a long work life and/or when you have a well-paid job. Why is it more common in the US to buy houses instead of living in a flat/live in rented accomodation?
EDIT: Thanks for all the good and interesting answers so far! | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5arlrd/eli5_why_is_it_common_in_the_usa_to_buy_houses/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9ith8g",
"d9ithtd",
"d9iv8on",
"d9iw82o",
"d9iwjs9",
"d9j09qh",
"d9j2852",
"d9j45ko",
"d9j74zz",
"d9jq5y9",
"d9jwzif",
"d9k4yp3"
],
"score": [
3,
26,
5,
9,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That really depends on the area. In places like open midwest, land and housing is cheap. There's gov incentives like tax breaks to help you purchase. \n\nHowever in other parts of the US, owning IS a life goal. Places like NYC, San Francisco. Even well to do middle age folk still rent.\n\n\nUS is the size of all of Europe. So economic conditions are just as varied. ",
"The US has a lot more space relative to its population than Germany, so it's cheaper to buy land and residential neighborhoods tend to be more spread out and more likely to consist of separate houses. \n\nAnother factor is that the layouts of major German cities tend to date back to way earlier than American cities; many American cities were built up after mass transit (trains, trolleys, cars, etc.) allowed residential neighborhoods to be spread out much more than the case in earlier years, when people had to walk everywhere. This allowed the US to take advantage of its landmass and build sprawling suburbs. It's difficult to make major changes to a city's basic layout once it's set in place because doing so would be extremely disruptive. You can see other differences between the US and Europe related to the age of cities as well, e.g. the widespread use of street grids in the US and the large number of cities in the Western US that could only be built after technology allowed massive quantities of water to be routed there.\n\nFinally, there are historical factors related to race. White Americans fled the cities for the suburbs in large numbers in the middle of the last century to avoid integration. This process has reversed somewhat in recent years, but from the 1960s through the 1990s, urban areas were associated with ethnic minorities, crime, poverty, and decay while suburbs were associated with white affluence.",
"Not USA, but Canada. We bought a house simply because mortgage payments are cheaper than rent. :/ Also, we got a good deal that needs to just be fixed up a bit then we plan on renting it out and getting another house. The cost of rent here would more than cover the cost of a mortgage for a \"move in ready\" house. \n\nWe are mostly able to rent it out so soon though only because my husbands parents gave us a generous monetary gift to go towards the payment. We will be able to pay off this mortgage a lot faster than normal. ",
"I'm going to do a real life example to illustrate why buying a house is seen as ideal in the US. Right now [The Average price of a home in the US](_URL_3_) is 234,200 dollars. The average interest rate for a 15 year fixed mortgage is [4.312 APR](_URL_1_). The Average down payment on a house is [14%](_URL_2_). The average property tax rate is [1.31%](_URL_0_). The average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment is [1,270](_URL_4_).\nAssuming that in our hypothetical scenario these numbers don't change over the 15 year period of the loan, you will have paid 352,680 dollars. You now have an asset that you can sell for 234,200 dollars, and you only have to pay 3,068 dollars a year(property taxes) to stay there. With the apartment you will have paid 228,600 dollars over those 15 years, you have no assets gained, and will continue to pay 1,270 a month to live there. In summary, for an extra 124,080 dollars over 15 years, you get an asset worth 234,200 dollars, and an 80% reduction in rent once the mortgage is paid off. Obviously this example doesn't cover other variables like the prices of houses or rent rising/falling.\n",
"There are a bunch of tax incentives and government programs that have made home ownership more achievable for Americans relative to similarly well to do Europeans. The Civics Class explanation for this is that homeowners tend to be more stable and better citizens, so the government subsidizes it the same way that we subsidize public school.\n\nA somewhat more cynical interpretation would be that while a person who's renting a place can go on strike and potentially have to move or whatever with few long term consequences, a homeowner doing the same thing would likely be walking away from their most important single asset. Germany has fewer homeowners but more union members and generally better labor laws. ",
"Our tax laws are written heavily in favor of home owners. Low to middle class families often pay little to no taxes because of the amount of property taxes and mortage interest they can deduct from their taxable income. People who rent do not receive this benefit.",
"I don't really know why per-say, but I got my house when I was 20. It costs me the same amount monthly to rent in my area as it would for me to pay off the loan. So there really isn't a large downside for me, just taxes and insurance.",
"In the US it is considered a sign of success to own your own home, and something you are suppose to do before you have children. Renting a home means your a failure in business (ie poor) or are completely unsettled as a person. \n\nMortgage payments are also the same or cheaper than rent in many if not most places. ",
"In usa government programs like FHA make it easy for young people and first time buyers to get a home loan. Mortgage payments are definitely cheaper than rent and here close to Atlanta where I live there are plenty of houses for sale cheaper than your average luxury car. I bought my house when I was 20 because at the time, in 1999, it was easy to get the loan and I wanted a place where I could pretty much do whatever I want. Now it is paid for and I rent part of it out so my home is a source of income / investment and is no longer an expense. ",
"Many different reasons - cultural, financial, societal...\n\n1. Its something to do with being risk averse. Germany is much more traditional and conservative with regards to finance, compared to the US. Remember sub-prime?\n\n2. Germany is a special example because home ownership is very low compared to other developed countries and a huge proportion of the population tends to rent, even if they could afford to buy. There are bigger articles explaining this phenomenon.\n\n3. Plus, although the general interest rates are at an historical low (1.xx%.. its almost like the banks are giving you money for free), the down-payment (own-capital) needed tends to be quite high and the interest rates also depend on that. As a thumb-rule, one needs around 25% of the property cost as own-capital. This would mean approx. 75K on a property purchase worth 300K ! Not many in Germany have that kind of savings before the age of 40.\n\n4. I don't know about the costs of buying in the US, but in Germany it is really high. Factoring in the Agent (broker) fees, government fees, taxes, registration fees etc., it is quite expensive to buy in Germany. And there are no tax incentives for home ownership.\n\n5. Also, the market in the US seems to be quite fluid. A lot of people tend to buy, sell after few years and upgrade themselves to a better/bigger place and so on. Overall, the buying-selling happens quite frequently and easily. This is not true in Germany (see point 4). Very few Germany see property as an asset which will rise in value and give them excellent returns over time. For them, as the OP said, its a life-goal. A house/home is for them to live in, and not an investment.\n\n6. Finally, (thats my personal theory :) ) - I think the overall German population aging is also a factor. All the current well-to-do home owners who are in their 70s will tend to leave behind the property for their kids who might be in their 30s/40s. In anticipation, the kids might not pre-invest a lot of money in property themselves.\n\nPS: I am an Expat living in Germany and I did buy an apartment last year.\n\n",
"It really boils down to two factors: space/population density and ownership history.\n\nHistory is easier to explain - Europe for a 1000 years has never really had any open land that wasn't claimed by someone. When Western Civilization got to the middle ages, all of the land was already claimed by the various kings, queens, lords etc. The commoners just existed on the land by the grace of the rulers, they paid their tithes to the church, and their duties to their lords. As serfdom fell, the church and rulers still held the productive lands, but granted charters to burghs (bourgies etc), the rulers still held the lands, but granted crafters/artisans to set up their villages as the merchant class grew and gained power. There wasn't enough land granted for everyone to have their own, and they were still reliant on the pastures/fields to produce enough food. There was also the problem of inheritance, and the exponential growth rates, but only a set amount of land - very few people would ever own land.\n\nAlong comes the US, which while founded on western beliefs; was founded after Europe had gone through all of these challenges of space, inheritance, and landed titles etc. Also - the people who came here had mostly gotten the short end of the stick cause they were in unfavorable inheritance situations in Europe. With a very low population and a lot of land, we had some unique challenges. How would we hold it all (we were a British colony, but the French and Spanish also wanted claims)? Solution - encourage everybody to spread out and stake a claim. \n\nWe also had a give up and start over spirit to begin with (its been said that US history has basically been one get-rich-quick scheme after another)\n\ntl;dr: We have lots of space that nobody owned; Europe everything was owned by somebody already - we developed the \"my house is my castle\" mindset mostly out of jealousy of what we couldn't do in Europe",
"If you're in a major city, buying a house is just as much a long-term goal as it is in Germany. \n\nA halfway decent home in NYC or Sam Francisco is a million dollars, minimum. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2016/04/28/who-pays-highest-property-taxes",
"http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/mortgage-rates/current.php",
"http://www.housingwire.com/articles/33255-realtytrac-what-was-the-average-downpayment-in-2014",
"https://ycharts.com/indicators/sales_price_of_existing_homes",
"https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/national-rent-data/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2um8pe | why does one get tinnitus when in a quiet place like an anechoic chamber? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2um8pe/eli5_why_does_one_get_tinnitus_when_in_a_quiet/ | {
"a_id": [
"co9o9sh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Technically, you always have a certain amount of tinnitus. It's just that the general background white noise of daily life drowns it out most of the time.\n\nWhen you find yourself in a very quiet place like an anechoic chamber, that background noise you're used to hearing 24/7? Stops. You're left with nothing to listen to but the noises in your own head - tinnitus."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
7hfq5b | how does google maps show satellite maps of other planets and moons? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7hfq5b/eli5_how_does_google_maps_show_satellite_maps_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqqnjz0",
"dqqnwnw"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"We have photos of those celestial bodies from various sources, including high resolution telescopes (for the larger and closer bodies), satellites (for the more explored bodies, like Mars) and space probes.",
"Yes, NASA has sent space probes to orbit the moon, Mars, Venus, and other planets to completely image them. All of the data is freely available to the public, too.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1t922y | how to take a nap. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t922y/eli5_how_to_take_a_nap/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce5klzp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Step 1: Get comfortable and close eyes\nStep 2: There is no other step, just nap"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
127om4 | dropping a slinky in mid-air | I'm referring to this gif. _URL_0_ How does the bottom stay still until the top reaches the bottom?
Is it a visual effect of the bottom being stretched back to the opposite end? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/127om4/eli5_dropping_a_slinky_in_midair/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6sucy3",
"c6sueij"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not a visual effect, the bottom really hasn't begun to fall yet. The slinky is simultaneously falling and contacting, and the upward, contracting pull on the bottom end of the slinky happens to balance the downward pull due to gravity. If the slinky's contracting force were significantly stronger than gravity, I suspect the bottom *would* move upwards as the rest of the slinky fell. Weaker than gravity, and the bottom might begin to fall, too, but slower than the top.",
"It is also related back to the speed of a signal being sent through the slinky. When you release the top of the slinky, the signal is being sent through the slinky in the form of it falling. It takes time for it to fall, so the bottom of the slinky will be suspended in the air until the top collides with the bottom. \nThe signal is also related to the spring constant of the slinky; with it being a softer slinky the signal would be sent even slower. \n[Veritasium explains it more in-depth](_URL_0_)\n"
]
} | []
| [
"http://imgur.com/2nQbv"
]
| [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiyMuHuCFo4&list=EC16649CCE7EFA8B2F&index=5&feature=plcp"
]
]
|
|
2qfffu | why is it that independent countries like canada, australia, new zealand, etc. still have their monarch as that of united kingdom? why can't these countries have one of their own? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qfffu/eli5_why_is_it_that_independent_countries_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn5m6ah",
"cn5mud4"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"We could, we just don't want to...mostly tradition. The terms and legislature passed over the years for Canada just gradually made us more and more independent from Britain, but they always still maintained that Canada would recognize the Crown and the Head of State would be the King/Queen (or their representative, the Governor-General). The position is almost entirely symbolic with all the actual powers residing in the rest of the House. We're a part of the British Commonwealth, which is mostly just a club of a number of former British colonies - we hang out and have tea from time to time, play the occasional tournament of games (the Commonwealth Games).\n\nBut ultimately, the Canadian Parliament could pass a bill that declares Canada a fully independent republic, removes the Queen as our head of state, and establishes whether there is or isn't a replacement. There's nothing in the books that says we can't, we just don't want to bother. It's not like having royalty does anything for us anymore.",
"Actually, they do have monarchs of their own. It's just it happens to be the same person.\n\nBut strictly speaking they are separate monarchies. There is no actual reason why the Queen of Canada has to be the same person as the Queen of Australia, or the Queen of Britain.\n\nIf you find the concept difficult to grasp, think of a wealthy businesswoman who owns several companies. She would be CEO of each company, but there's no legal or technical reason why she has to be CEO of all of them forever. It's perfectly possible to conceive of a situation where for some reason the board of directors of one of the companies gets themselves a different CEO even while she retains her position with the others."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
bvcjig | why it is effective to drink hot tea on a warm day to cool down. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bvcjig/eli5_why_it_is_effective_to_drink_hot_tea_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"epnz5px"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nIt triggers your body to start sweating a lot, so if the humidity is sufficiently low, that sweat evaporates, taking body-heat with it, resulting in a net cooling effect.\n\nNote that this would not work in high-humidity areas, and it's a bad idea if the individual is already suffering from dehydration or heat shock/stroke."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-hot-drink-on-a-hot-day-can-cool-you-down-1338875/"
]
]
|
||
ooj77 | why smoke cigarettes? | Everyone knows the dangers of it and the inevitable addiction, so why start in the first place? Whats the good side of it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ooj77/eli5_why_smoke_cigarettes/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3isn21",
"c3isnwo",
"c3iss4n",
"c3it037",
"c3it3t6",
"c3itano",
"c3iufwz",
"c3iuqjb",
"c3ivc4h"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
14,
2,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"If you're really stressed out and you hear about something that supposedly reduces stress you may be tempted. \n\nIt's like any recreational drug. There are supposed benefits that people are after.",
"They make you feel good. Is that worth the health risks? For some people it is. ",
"I probably started smoking so I could look cool or fit in, I don't really remember. I keep smoking because I'm addicted, and it's so habitual and stress relieving I don't want to quit enough right now.\n\nI think smoking will eventually be weeded out. Less people smoke now that they know the health risks compared to the huge amount of people who used to smoke before. It will take quite a few more generations, but the amount of people who start because of peer pressure etc will slowly go down due to it being much more widely frowned upon than it used to be. Nobody starts smoking because they like the smell or the taste; they start because their parents do, or their friends do, or the lead singer of their favorite band does.",
"Here is an answer from personal/current use:\nI have a group of red-neck friends so we smoke socially at parties but dip (chew) on our own. It is addictive yes, sometimes I just want a dip. But for me, it actually is financial/convenience. \n\nCopenhagen long cut (a more expensive but better can of dip) costs around $5, tobacco curbs your appetite and also can keep you awake. \n\nOver christmas break when my roommates where all gone I thought I'd try something out, how much I eat/snack for a week with/without dip:\nTurns out that I ended up eating ~$30 more worth of food that week, mostly snacking and just being randomly hungry and making food. \n\nAlso as a student it is pretty convenient to be able to be able to stay up later working on homework without needing to drink three $1-2 energy drinks a night when one can of dip can last a me a week or two. \n\nnot to mention, a buzz always feels nice\n\nregarding health risks, well.. damn. we all die eventually, I hope to kick the habit when I get a job and dont have to sleep deprive myself and am willing to spend more money on food \n\nTL DR: dont blame ya, walls of text are daunting. Saves money (my situation), better than energy drinks for 2-4am(opinion), A buzz is always nice. Health risks: Plan on smoking socially for awhile, but hope to quit dip",
"Basically, as a smoker, I got into it because I -loved- the smell of a burning cigarette. Also, to me, they taste like almonds. \n\n\nAnd it sucks. DONT EVER START.",
"While cigarettes get a real bad rap these days I feel I have to stand up for the act of smoking. Its true its not good for you but theres something great about the act of doing it. Its an enjoyable pastime and hobby. Passing the peace pipe isnt just a saying, it used to be a way make better relations and take some time out and just get to know your friends or take some time reflecting by yourself. Smoking is a short enjoyable activity that can facilitate that. Everything youve read about it causing disease and smelling gross and whatnot is true but its up to everyone to decide for themselves if they enjoy the hobby. I dont smoke cigs usually but i do occasionally. And i certainly have no oroblem smoking some flavoured tobacco out of my pipe so yeah to each their own but dont throw the baby out with the bathwater is what im saying.",
"At my job as a cook, we never really got breaks. However, if you smoked, the boss didn't care if you went on a smoke break when it slowed. He also didn't care how old you were. I started doing it with my friends at work. It also was, and continues to be, a bonding experience. We just hang out and smoke cigs after work now. But we're slowing down. It became such a great way to relieve stress.",
"Bertolt Brecht once wrote: \"Those who smoke look cold-blooded.\"",
"This might sound strange, but where I come from the clubs are loud and the people are closed off. Starting conversations in public is 10 times easier in the smoking area and usually the people are a lot more chilled out. You can be heard, nice conversations can be had and you and your new friend have something in common.\n\nAlso, smoking fits my idea of my self image. A brooding, pensive character. If you stare off into the distance with your hands at your sides, it looks kinda weird. By stare off into the distance while smoking and it fits. The smoke emanating about your person emphasizes your lack of movement, making you seem cooler, calmer and more in control.\n\nIf enjoyed as part of a balanced diet with regular exercise there won't be THAT much difference between a non-smoker and a smoker. Of course, if you smoke more than a few per day then the differences become more pronounced.\n\nTL;DR - Social Mingling, Overtly Kool, Enjoyable."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6jbo6g | why can youtube's mobile app seamlessly transition between video quality, where as on desktops, the video has to pause and buffer? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jbo6g/eli5_why_can_youtubes_mobile_app_seamlessly/ | {
"a_id": [
"djd3753",
"djd5sxf"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"I have an additional and releated question to this, why is it that the twitch app can stream flawlessly but the chat stops working after like 30 seconds?",
"Apps have a lot more control over their own video streaming than websites. In the YouTube app it can load the video into its own memory buffer and play from there, so when you change quality it keeps playing the previous quality video it's already buffered and starts buffering the new quality from that point onwards. As soon it hits the end of one buffer it can switch to the other one.\n\nYou can see it happen, if you change the quality while the video is playing you can see it takes a few seconds for the new quality\n\nBrowsers don't give you as much control over how the video loads. You can't load the video separately and play it from there like the app does you rely on the browser to load and play video itself, so it's not as easy to create seamless video changes like that."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
4ped2n | why does chewing gum stick to everything except the inside of our mouths? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ped2n/eli5why_does_chewing_gum_stick_to_everything/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4ka9r0"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Your saliva. It is a natural lubracant, so gum won't stick to much of anything. Push the gum up against like a wall, it spreads out and your saliva evaporates, so no more lubricant."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3b4ny9 | the non gmo movement. | So I've seen a little here and there regarding this. My girlfriend is the whole foods type and is very adamant about natural foods etc. I see restaurants like Chipotle supporting this non GMO movement. So.. Are GMOs bad? If not, why? And is it bad for health or bad in some other aspect?
Edit: okay so now that I'm reading I feel like I need to ask something else, too. So let me ask you this, are "organic" foods worth the money? My girlfriend also keeps mentioning how non organic foods have pesticides and the organic foods are a much better value. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b4ny9/eli5_the_non_gmo_movement/ | {
"a_id": [
"csit0pe",
"csit2zo",
"csit69f",
"csit8fk",
"csitdji"
],
"score": [
14,
9,
6,
17,
23
],
"text": [
"No, there is currently no evidence to suggest that GMOs are bad for you. There is, incidentally, no real distinction between \"natural\" and \"artificial\" food. \n\nGMOs do have some issues, such as Patent issues (can you patent an organism? What if it grows on it's own?), but that's a whole other can of worms. There's also some fear that reduced biodiversity can make our food supply very susceptible to diseases. Pesticide-resistant strains encourage the use of more pesticides, which have a negative impact on the environment. ",
"GMO just refers to genetically modified organisms. They are not necessarily good or bad. Farmers have been genetically modifying and cultivating their crops for THOUSANDS of years. This is how we get seedless bananas, seedless grapes, and bread so cheap. They cultivate their crops to have a better yield, better flavor, better nutritional value, or whatever. People assume GMO means that they are literally splicing genes in a laboratory or something. That is not usually the case. Usually it is a much less scary and more boring process. However, even in cases [where it is laboratory made such as golden rice](_URL_0_), this doesn't mean it's bad for you. In fact, it is better for you as more vitamins have been added and golden rice has saved many lives in areas where those vitamins are deficient in the population.\n\nI can understand, I guess, why people might think laboratory editing of our food could be bad. Maybe they're making stuff hyper-addictive so they sell more of it, or something. But usually, GMOs are created to make more money, which means more flavor, easier to eat (seedless for example), grow faster (larger crop yields), resistance to bugs or other ways crops get destroyed (larger crop yields), or many other things.\n\nSo GMO basically means something was changed. Why would people want to change things to make them bad? Wouldn't they want to change things to make them BETTER?",
"After thousands of studies, there is little to no evidence that GMOs are necessarily bad for you or the environment. There are a few how ever that could pose a threat if the are allowed. As the other poster said there are a few issues with conventional farming. Every one of the issues they mentioned however, are not a problem with GMOs. Patenting is allowed in any crop not just GMOs. Reduced biodiversity is a threat, but not a GMO specific one. ",
"The movement is popular because it aligns with the fears many people have about amoral corporations ruining the world.\n\n_URL_0_",
"GMO is just a tool, and there are different meanings. \n\nAnti-GMO is anti-science.\n\nTrillion of meals with GMO have been served without issues.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice"
],
[],
[
"http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GLP-Science-and-GMOs.pdf"
],
[]
]
|
|
2mb0by | if weed is a depressant, why does my heart start to beat faster whenever i smoke? | Everytime I smoke weed my heart starts to beat pretty quickly. I've never been able to measure my BPM after smoking, but it at least feels like it's racing, sometimes even at an almost frightening pace. Shouldn't weed lower my pulse and BPM because it is a depressant to the body systems? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mb0by/eli5_if_weed_is_a_depressant_why_does_my_heart/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm2jbiu",
"cm2jpal",
"cm2jppp",
"cm2ksyj",
"cm2li2v",
"cm2lsrq",
"cm2lwni",
"cm2p1k2",
"cm2qoig"
],
"score": [
18,
2,
5,
31,
2,
11,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it also acts as a stimulant for some parts of your body, mainly as you've noticed with an increased heart rate. Its both. Nothing to be alarmed about no ones ever toked their heart to death.",
"Weed is not necessarily fully a depressant. It can also be classified as a stimulant or psychedelic substance as well. However, that's besides the point. When smoke fills your lungs and slightly dilutes your blood with THC and/or CBD, your heart works a little harder to ensure there is sufficient oxygen in your bloodstream going to your critical organs.",
"THC is a psychoactive compound. It's like a minor form of tripping",
" > If weed is a depressant\n\nThat's just it. It's not a depressant. At the high level it's a psychoactive compound - it can cross the blood brain barrier and can act on parts of the brain. Depressants, stimulants, and hallucinogens are all psychoactive. Weed is basically in a category of it's own since it doesn't fit into any of those categories perfectly but rather can have effects from all three in varying combinations. ",
"In addition to all of the other medical reasons, if you're doing this in an area where it's not fully legal, there's also a measure of anxiety that can come along with doing something illegal.",
"Well weed is *not* a depressant, for one. \n\nAccording to Erowid, cannabis is a \"Intoxicant; Stimulant; Psychedelic; and Depressant\". Both a stimulant and a depressant at the same time?? It's really the only common drug that can't be pinned down into one category, and it would be best not to try and compare its effects to other drugs of a similar category.\n\nUsually when people talk about 'depressants', they are referring to Central Nervous System depressants, like alcohol, benzos, opiods, etc. These slow down the heart rate, slow your reaction time, slow the digestive system, they slow everything down.\n\nWeed does not depress the CNS. It is pretty well known that it increases the heart rate, but don't worry, it won't increase it to dangerous levels, and it does not have any effect on cardiac output. Part of the reason it is doing this is because weed is a vasodilator - it makes all your blood vessels bigger (this is also why your eyes turn red), so your heart has to pump more often to move the same volume of blood. Kinda like getting in a nice warm bathtub, which does the exact same thing. But your heart is not *working harder* (cardiac output), so no, it won't increase your risk of heart attack. If anything, it will decrease it. \n\nThe reason people think weed is a depressant is because it makes you sleepy. But it does this by flooding your brain with melatonin, the chemical that naturally gets released at nighttime in a dark environment. ",
"\"Weed\" isn't one drug with the same effects. It has multiple psychoactive compounds, just THC and CBD are the most common.",
"I read somewhere that this happens due to rapidly decreasing blood pressure. The heart then speeds up to compensate which can be extremely disconcerting and feed into a panic attack. It's best to just sit or lay back, calm down, focus on breathing slow and deep, and it will pass.",
"Hi, I work at a Medical Marijuana Dispensary. Before I started, I didn't know a whole lot about different types of cannabis. So essentially, there are some different types of cannabis plant. One called Indica which acts more on the mind rather than your body, and one called Sativa. Sativa generally is the type that will get your heart rate going, and make you a little nervous. I generally advise patients who have problems with PTSD, anxiousness, or any other stress related condition to start off with an Indica. Keep in mind that cannabis can affect everyone differently. And there may be other variables that can determine how it will make you feel. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3mt118 | why can we find skeletal remains of one ancient human specimen and be so sure that it's a new species (homo naledi)? what unique characteristics or features must a fossil or remain have that generates a new species? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mt118/eli5_why_can_we_find_skeletal_remains_of_one/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvhwqp9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well, in the case of Homo naledi, we did not find skeletal remains of one ancient human. We found the remains of at least fifteen individuals, which helps a lot.\n\nIt is really impossible to give a a guideline along the line of 'if X amount of new characteristics are present, it is a new species'. The whole way we classify species is a human invention and not fool proof (ever so often, we have to shake things up a bunch to account for new things we learn / new methods we can now use) but it also is a system subject to debate, especially when it comes to closely related species. There is pretty much no easy rule of thumb (can't interbreed / looks different / different diet) that can be applied in all situations. There is always going to be debate, but in general, you try to look at as much different factors as you can (skeletal characteristics, location, diet, genetics) and if there is a consistent difference that is bigger than the normal variation within a species, you can classify it as a new species. \n\nIn the case of Homo naledi, there was a mixture of characteristics that while not never seen before, had never seen before in those combinations (mixtures of relatively modern characteristics and certain primitive ones) that pushed the people who discovered and presented the find to say 'this is a new species'. And now it is up for the world of science at large to debate those findings, introduce a bunch of new opinions, and eventually, one opinion will become the most accepted one. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
a2v2n3 | the us yield curve just inverted - what does that mean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2v2n3/eli5_the_us_yield_curve_just_inverted_what_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb1dpp3",
"eb1emuj"
],
"score": [
19,
93
],
"text": [
"The yield on a bond is the percentage return the investor gets for agreeing to lend money to someone, in this case the U.S. Treasury. In this context, it can be thought of the sweetener that convinces someone to fork over their cash and have it tied up for a certain length of time.\n\nGenerally, if someone's cash is going to be tied up for 10 years, you need to pay them more (per year) than you do if they only agree to have it tied up for 2 years. So the yield of 10 year US Treasuries is almost always higher than 2 years.\n\nBut sometimes that relationship is reversed, and that is called the inverted yield. \n\nSo why would it ever invert? Well, that is because people suddenly think it's a better investment to park in treasuries over a long time rather than other forms of investment, like the stock market or the short term bonds. They effectively WANT to be ensured that rate of return, even for the inconvenience of having your money tied up.\n\nSo why would someone want that? Because they think the economy is going to tank. When the economy tanks, stocks plummet and the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates. So whatever the rate is now, it's going to be LOWER 2 years from now, so you might as well buy the longer term bond so you aren't stuck having to invest your money into a recession.\n\nSo today, the 3 and 5 year bonds inverted. That is not as extreme as the 2 and 10, which is the typical measurement for recession inverting, and there might be other pressures that caused it to tip considering how close to terms are (3 and 5). So it's a bit of a \"maybe it's not as bad as all that\" moment.",
"The US government sells treasury notes that mature in 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 20, and 30 years. These treasury notes sell for a price with a \n\"coupon\"(interest rate), with these two factors you can figure out the yield of the bond. Generally longer term bonds need to offer higher yields to sell because there is more risk for the investor\n\nThe yield curve is what you get if you plot the yield rate for all the bonds on a scatter plot. In general it should be relatively flat at the bottom but steadily increasing towards the high end. Today, the 2, 3, 5, and 7 year notes had yields of 2.83, 2.84, 2.83, and 2.90 respectively. You can see that the 3 year note had a higher yield than the 5 year note which is abnormal.\n\nNow this could indicate that investors see increased risk in the 5+ year window which is generally considered long term while those below are short term, or it could mean the Fed has been pumping out more bonds and needs to offer better rates to get people to buy them up.\n\nYield curve inversions have occurred before the previous recessions, but often by a few years(happened in 05 before the 08 crash) so people will likely be selling doom and gloom for a little while, but we'll have to wait to see if it actually means anything this time\n\n[Here's a Bloomberg article if you're into the technicals, skip it if you're not](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-03/u-s-yield-curve-just-inverted-that-s-huge"
]
]
|
||
erpyb0 | in the us what determines whether a product is a prescription versus otc? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/erpyb0/eli5_in_the_us_what_determines_whether_a_product/ | {
"a_id": [
"ff5l4jl"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Otc drugs are selected by the fda on the grounds of safety in a general population. \n\nThat means that they won't cause any harmful effect in most people, even if they don't have the condition the medication treats or cause any serious side effect in most people. \n\nSomeone in this thread mentioned metformin. The reason metformin isn't a good candidate is because metformin requires some education on its use and on diabetic education in general, or serious risks such as bottoming out your sugar may occur. \n\nIf you take an extra tylenol here and there, nothing is likely to happen as long as you don't do it frequently; if you take extra metformin, there is a good risk for lowering your blood sugar too low which can harm or kill you easily. Metformin also has a lot of other risks that require occasional monitoring of thinks like kidney function. \n\nOtc medications can be dangerous is misused, but it takes a lot more effort and theres little risk of accidently harming yourself from it vs other drugs."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
awnlpq | what does it mean to be falsifiable? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/awnlpq/eli5_what_does_it_mean_to_be_falsifiable/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehnsr79",
"ehnxyx7"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"If something is falsifiable, that means that it can be proven to be incorrect. This is important in science when hypotheses are tested to see which are falsifiable and which are not. ",
"Falsifiable means it can be proven wrong. Falsifiable is a good thing; it is different from 'false'. A couple of examples might help. If I say \"2019 is going to be a hot year\" it's not really falsifiable. Maybe you'll think it was cold but then I respond saying \"well it was hot in India\". My original statement was not specific enough to be proven wrong.\n\nIf I instead say \"the average measured temperature in India in 2019 will be at least 25 celsius\", this is falsifiable. The details of the statement are measurable and when 2020 comes around we'll be able to agree on whether I was correct or not.\n\nIn science, hypotheses are only treated seriously if they're falsifiable. After they're tested, we know more, because we can say whether the hypothesis was correct or not. When people make important predictions or claims that are not falsifiable, often they're trying to convince you of something they don't really believe themselves. They might be trying to protect themselves, so that after they're wrong they can say \"you misinterpreted what I was saying\".\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
34ub8z | why is hillary clinton not in ore trouble for using her private email address? as a fed gov employee, i would have been fired | ELI5 why is Hillary Clinton not in more trouble for using her private email address? As A Fed Gov employee, I would have been fired | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34ub8z/eli5_why_is_hillary_clinton_not_in_ore_trouble/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqy435k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hillary Clinton cannot be fired from any position because she is not currently a government employee.\n\nThe way that politicians are typically \"fired\" is by not being reelected."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
715zv2 | why is yogurt usually considered good for you, while ice cream is almost considered bad for you? what makes them so different? | They're both dairy products which are usually loaded with sugar. what makes one good for you while the other is relegated to dessert only status? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/715zv2/eli5_why_is_yogurt_usually_considered_good_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn8coy8",
"dn8dl9i",
"dn8klb6",
"dn8yk7h"
],
"score": [
10,
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Yogurt has bacteria that is purportedly good for you, combined with the fact that it generally has less sugar and fat, makes it a healthier option. The probiotic part is debatable, because studies seem to indicate your gut microbiome returns to its original state after a relatively short time.\n\nIn some ways, unless you go for low sugar and fat yogurt, it's like comparing a cheeseburger with a double cheeseburger. The lesser of two evils.",
"Plenty of yogurt isn't good for you, and potentially as bad as ice cream or candy. It is often *marketed* as good for you, but marketing is not necessarily to be trusted.\n\n*Certain* yogurts are not particularly unhealthy.",
"Almost nobody. the plain yogurt is the one you should eat. Yeah it doesn't have the best taste, but then hardly any food that's good for you does. So it is what it is. lol",
" > They're both dairy products which are usually loaded with sugar.\n\nI think you've answered your own question. Neither is particularly good for you."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
853i75 | why do p-waves travel faster than s-waves? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/853i75/eli5_why_do_pwaves_travel_faster_than_swaves/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvugeka"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"By definition arguably. P stands for primary, S for secondary.\n\nBeyond that, it's because the shear modulus is lower than the bulk modulus. Transmitting force between two particles is easier if the particles move towards each other rather than perpendicularly"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
fqoz7u | walking on sand dunes | I never noticed in movies how people walked along the ridge/peak of the dune until I visited the great sand dunes in Colorado. Trying to get up the slope of the dunes I was sinking in almost thigh high, but once I got to the top it was sturdy. Why is it that the ridge of the dune can support weight but the slopes cannot? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fqoz7u/eli5_walking_on_sand_dunes/ | {
"a_id": [
"flrg61m"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Loose, particulate matter made of small hard objects [materials like sand, gravel, etc] will be able to hold your weight decently well if you just try to compress it directly down - it will disperse a little bit as you apply weight, but eventually, it will settle and support you just fine. \n \nParticulate matter, however, is very weak when it comes to the amount of [*shear force*](_URL_0_) that it can endure, which is basically sliding between the layers of the sand. \n \nIn a solid like iron or wood, if you try to slide the layers like that, nothing will happen, because all the particles are bonded to each other so it resists that motion. But in something loose like sand, there's nothing to stop the top layer of sand grains sliding and moving freely, because the grains aren't stuck to each other. \n \nSo, when you're just standing directly on top of a dune, with all of your weight applied downwards, the first case happens - the force is directed downwards and it can support the weight quite easily. But when you're travelling up the side of a dune at an angle, each time you push off with your foot to try and move up, you're making a shear force that drags the top layers of sand in the direction your foot is pushing, which is down the dune. \n \nThe easiest way to picture this is thinking about the fact that it's perfectly easy to stand directly in the middle of a puddle, because your weight is applied directly downwards. But the second you try to push off with a foot to move, your foot will slip, because the shear force causes the water to slide with your foot, meaning you get no traction like you would if you were pushing against a hard solid. \n \nIn short, stuff like sand and gravel can support weight fine, but it can't support you sliding across it, because there's no attraction between the layers. When you're travelling up the slope, you're inducing a slipping force downwards, which makes your foot sink and dig in to the sand as you try to move up."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Simple_shear_in_2D.svg/1200px-Simple_shear_in_2D.svg.png"
]
]
|
|
k35yq | the story of the half-life series. | I have not played any of the old games. I've played a good portion of Half-Life 2 and the Episodes and I have played plenty of Portal. I still barely understand the plot to any of it at all. Could someone please explain the story behind Gordan Freeman, Black Mesa and Aperture Science? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k35yq/eli5_the_story_of_the_halflife_series/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2h5mv0",
"c2h68n9",
"c2h6duy",
"c2h5mv0",
"c2h68n9",
"c2h6duy"
],
"score": [
28,
3,
4,
28,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Gordan Freeman is a physicist at Black Mesa, a company involved in portal research and development.\n\nOne day, he's involved in an experiment with portals. The experiment goes wrong, and this opens up a portal that lets aliens into Earth.\n\nThe rest of Half-Life is Freeman fighting aliens and soldiers sent to contain the result of the the experiment that has gone wrong, now known as the \"Black Mesa Incident\" (BMI).\n\nFast forward to HL2, the bad aliens (known as the Combine) have taken over Earth and enslaved the humans.\nHL 2 and its episodes are essentially Freeman, some human resistance fighters, and some friendly Vortugaunts ('good' aliens brought to earth by the BMI) generally trying to ruin the Combine's day. All the while there's Dr Breen who was admin of Black Mesa and has made some sort of deal with the Combine, but that's not very important.\n\nThen there's the shadowy G-man (the creepy dude in a suit) and nobody knows who he is or what role he plays in all of this. That's part of his mystique.\n\nThe way this ties in with Portal is that Aperture Science is Black Mesa's rival - the Apple to their MS, or the MS to their Apple, however you want to look at it - and is also involved in portal research and development. \n\n\nSo there it is. In a nutshell, the story is about an alien invasion brought on by a physics experiment gone wrong. Hopefully that's straight forward enough for you. Feel free to ask any questions.",
"Some of these people summed it up pretty well, but here is a timeline if you're interested, the Half Life wiki has a [detailed timeline](_URL_0_).\n\nAlso, there is HL: Opposing Force, where you play as Adrian Shepard, a grunt in the military who goes in to \"cleanse\" Black Mesa, and HL: Blue Shift, where you are Barney Calhoun, the security guard.\n\nThese games age really well, I think. 13 years old, and I played HL1 again this summer. If you can get past the dated graphics, they're as much fun as ever! Definitely worth picking up (at least the original Half Life), if you enjoyed the newer ones.",
"[Has already been asked and answered](_URL_0_) (well the first 2 games anyway, not the episodes)",
"Gordan Freeman is a physicist at Black Mesa, a company involved in portal research and development.\n\nOne day, he's involved in an experiment with portals. The experiment goes wrong, and this opens up a portal that lets aliens into Earth.\n\nThe rest of Half-Life is Freeman fighting aliens and soldiers sent to contain the result of the the experiment that has gone wrong, now known as the \"Black Mesa Incident\" (BMI).\n\nFast forward to HL2, the bad aliens (known as the Combine) have taken over Earth and enslaved the humans.\nHL 2 and its episodes are essentially Freeman, some human resistance fighters, and some friendly Vortugaunts ('good' aliens brought to earth by the BMI) generally trying to ruin the Combine's day. All the while there's Dr Breen who was admin of Black Mesa and has made some sort of deal with the Combine, but that's not very important.\n\nThen there's the shadowy G-man (the creepy dude in a suit) and nobody knows who he is or what role he plays in all of this. That's part of his mystique.\n\nThe way this ties in with Portal is that Aperture Science is Black Mesa's rival - the Apple to their MS, or the MS to their Apple, however you want to look at it - and is also involved in portal research and development. \n\n\nSo there it is. In a nutshell, the story is about an alien invasion brought on by a physics experiment gone wrong. Hopefully that's straight forward enough for you. Feel free to ask any questions.",
"Some of these people summed it up pretty well, but here is a timeline if you're interested, the Half Life wiki has a [detailed timeline](_URL_0_).\n\nAlso, there is HL: Opposing Force, where you play as Adrian Shepard, a grunt in the military who goes in to \"cleanse\" Black Mesa, and HL: Blue Shift, where you are Barney Calhoun, the security guard.\n\nThese games age really well, I think. 13 years old, and I played HL1 again this summer. If you can get past the dated graphics, they're as much fun as ever! Definitely worth picking up (at least the original Half Life), if you enjoyed the newer ones.",
"[Has already been asked and answered](_URL_0_) (well the first 2 games anyway, not the episodes)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Half-Life_universe"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jl1yd/eli5_the_story_of_halflife/"
],
[],
[
"http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Half-Life_universe"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jl1yd/eli5_the_story_of_halflife/"
]
]
|
|
1wojy9 | how do chairlifts remain at a quick pace, while simultaneously slowing down to pick/drop off skiers & snowboarders? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wojy9/eli5_how_do_chairlifts_remain_at_a_quick_pace/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf3yr5a"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"They detach from the main cable and go onto a slower-moving one at the top and bottom of the hill."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1ziffk | how come computers can complete an action so much faster than us, but even super computers take several minutes to simulate one second of human brain activity? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ziffk/eli5_how_come_computers_can_complete_an_action_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cftytyr",
"cftywwq",
"cftyx4f",
"cftz4gu"
],
"score": [
2,
20,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"It depends on the action. Well structured, clearly defined tasks are quite easy for computers to do quickly, while human brains can do much more complex, fuzzy pattern matching quickly. A computer will \"find the cube root of 239870\" almost instantaneously, whereas a person will be able to quickly \"draw a circle around each of the dogs in this picture\".",
"A lot of these answers are wrong and misleading. There's no \"creativity\" in the brain that trumps all computer based logic. The key word is *simulation*, the computer is trying to pretend to have and replicate every electrical and chemical reaction in the brain.\n\nIt's really easy for computers to tally up the votes of an election. But if the computer was told to *simulate* an election, that's much more work. It'd have to invent millions of people, have them go to a voting station, have them fill out a form, have them deposit their vote, and so on.\n\nThis is much more work, and *simulating* a brain is similar. The computer has millions to billions of synapses and interactions to invent and manage.",
"I am no neurologist but...\n\nThe easy answer is, they're two different kinds of machines built for two different kinds of demands. Computers will do calculations that are straightforward but extremely precise, really fast. Brains, however, came into being for the task of managing real-world physical actions and reactions with rough estimates, intuitive guesses, and a sense of self-awareness, so that we're constantly reprogramming ourselves rather than getting stuck in logical loops.\n\nA deeper angle to understand is that they're so physically different, where the brain actually sends chemical signals rather than electric current directly, and so *simulating* the physics of one kind of machine with another is usually going to be a slow process. Add to this the fact that we're still half lost as to the deeper mysteries of the brain, and it seems that, in every simulation, we're probably just using basic neurochemistry in a brute force effort to slowly figure out what happens next. Maybe when our simulations have revealed more patterns, we can optimize that to be more easily calculable, but I'm wandering off into uninformed speculating now if I haven't already. ",
"You say that like humans are any good at simulating human brain activity. We don't even know what most of the activity really means, never mind how we'd simulate it accurately."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
76joa1 | why does the sun shine ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76joa1/eli5_why_does_the_sun_shine/ | {
"a_id": [
"doegkzu",
"doegpeb"
],
"score": [
3,
15
],
"text": [
"Light, heat, and other forms of radiation are by-products of the nuclear reaction occurring inside the sun.",
"The sun is so massive that the force of gravity on the inside is strong enough to start nuclear fusion. It's shining from the energy released by literally pressing hydrogen atoms together until they're helium."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2tcw54 | why would oil falling below $30 a barrel cause a world wide recession? | I read a post on the msn homepage that said this. Why wouldn't cheaper gas be a good thing for everyone?
Link Here: _URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tcw54/eli5_why_would_oil_falling_below_30_a_barrel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnxvbff",
"cnxvp5n",
"cnxvuid"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It won't. It will cause a recession in the oil industry, and a recession in those nations that that industry is a major part of the GDP (like Russia) but not a global one. It will also not cause a recession in the US because the oil industry is about 2% of our GDP. ",
"Because most people that have money make it by owning things that a lot of people need and use that are hard to get or that there is a very limited amount of.\n\nOil is one of those things. Since there is usually a limited supply of oil the people who extract and refine it can charge a lot of money for it. But if there is suddenly a whole lot of it, like right now, then the price goes down and all of those people who were planning on it being hard to get suddenly can't charge people as much as they would like to. \n\nWhat this means is that those people that were planning to make a lot of money are making less money and as a result they are likely to spend less money or spend their money less freely. \n\nLess money from the rich means less money for everyone since they have 80% of all of the money and resources on the planet.",
"Maybe not a big recession.\n\nFalling gas prices will have a big impact on... everything. Prices of everything should see a bit of a drop this year because of the reduced cost of shipping. \n\nThis WILL affect areas that produce oil though. I live western Canada and we were never really hit that hard by the recession in 2009 because of our growing oil and gas, and mining industry. Over the last year we've seen coal prices fall through the floor and now we are watching the oil industry wash down the drain.\n\nWe took the big hit from the coal prices already, lots of coal mines shut down already and a few I believe are still just winding down. Next will be oil and gas, alberta will be hardest hit by that and we'll see a *massive* loss in jobs.\n\nThe result in the massive loss of jobs in Alberta will be that many of these people will no longer have money to spend in the local economy, so businesses suffer. Also rig workers are notorious for overspending and taking out loans for lots of toys like big trucks and snowmobiles. Soon we will see these workers failing to pay their loans, we'll then see them try to sell all their shit to pay off debt, as a result prices of used cars/trucks and other \"toys\" will plummet, further hurting businesses who will have a hard time competing with the crazy cheap used market. This may also cause a large housing sell off (laid off workers might not be able to afford those either) and a resulting massive drop in housing prices.\n\n\nI don't think this will cause a *global* recession but its REALLY going to hurt for some of us. "
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/if-oil-drops-below-dollar30-a-barrel-brace-for-a-global-recession/ar-AA8tW0j"
]
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
69yhi9 | why parties in the us can redraw district borders? | Hi, I resently came acros the term "Gerrymandering", since I'm not a US citizen and English is not my language I decided to google it up.
& nbsp;
I now understand the concept, but a doubt remains.....Gerrymandering is only possible because parties (? not sure) can redraw the district borders, why do they have such a power and who decided that that was a good idea? From where I'm from, and afaik that is not the case, and districts are not redraw when election time comes around
& nbsp;
Thanks in advance,
Lucas
& nbsp;
( BTW the country is Argentina, maybe someone can check if what I just said is correct, I wasn't able to google it since "gerrymandering" is an English lingo and has no translation to spanish that I know of) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69yhi9/eli5_why_parties_in_the_us_can_redraw_district/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhaa5hd",
"dhaa8lr",
"dhaadiv"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The power to redraw the districts isn't inherently given to the party, it's given to the legislature. Then one party or another gets enough of a majority of legislators to vote on a district redrawing plan that benefits them in future elections, which allows them to keep the majority and re-adjust the gerrymandering as needed in the future.",
"Parties don't redraw borders. State Governments get to decide what district borders look like, both for their seats to the Federal Legislature, and their State legislature. How this works varies, but usually the State legislature is responsible for drawing districts. This inevitably leads to legislators drawing the boundaries of their own district to maximize advantages for themselves, and other people in their parties. However not every State does it like this. California has an independent commission that draws boundaries.",
" > From where I'm from, and afaik that is not the case, and districts are not redraw when election time comes around \n \nSo how do you deal with a bunch of people leaving one district and going to another? \n \nIn the US the general rule is that the districts are supposed to be roughly the same population. Every 10 years there is a census where they count the populations, and after that the districts have to be adjusted. This can take two forms: \n1) The number of districts may change - For example: if a state loses a lot of people they'll get fewer representatives in the House of Representatives and therefor fewer \"House\" districts. This would then require new districts to be drawn (otherwise there would be big holes in the map). \n2) People move between districts and therefor the boarders need to be changed. \nNow, for whatever reason the general system in the US is that the state governments get to decide what the district boundaries are. This means that if one party controls the government of a state then they have a significant amount of power over where the new districts will be, and can use that to give themselves an advantage. This process is known as \"gerrymandering\" after Governor Elbridge Gerry, whos government create some districts with very interesting shapes (the \"mander\" bit comes from \"salamander\", a kind of lizard, and was based on one of the districts looking like some kind of creature).\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
cj3j5q | how did we initially measure the distance to other planets precisely enough to send probes to them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cj3j5q/eli5_how_did_we_initially_measure_the_distance_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"evawe1b",
"evayvud",
"evazh18"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"We can estimate their distance through parallax (measuring the angle between them and the sun, and using geometry to find their positions). We can also measure the time they take to orbit, and use this to predict their positions based on gravitational equations.",
"We track their movement through the sky. There is actually a lot of interesting history behind this.\n\nThe effects of gravity and the math of orbits were always well understood. Kepler and Newton figured out how gravity and orbits worked (which is interesting since Kepler somehow figured out his three laws decades before Newton figured out how gravity worked, nonetheless it was quickly found that Newton's law of gravity produced Kepler's laws as a consequence). \n\nFor instance Kepler's third law states that \"The square of the period (time of a year) of any planet is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis (distance from the sun) of its orbit.\"\n\nThe interesting thing about this was this led to the existence of the astronomical unit. We knew that the period of Earth's orbit is 365 days, we could observe the orbits of other planets to see how long they orbit, this means we could calculate how far a planet was from the sun based on how far the sun was from the Earth.\n\nBut finding out the distance from the Earth to the sun was a vastly trickier undertaking, which is why many early measurements are expressed in astronomical units, the distance from the Earth to the sun which we just didn't know at the time. The best way we knew of measuring it was using parallax but that itself was pretty difficult due to the sheer scales of the distances we used, and often the best measurements would only happen by observing transits of Venus from different points on Earth which is why there was a bit of a scramble during this time to send out explorers all over the world to observe this. The basic logic was that we worked backwards from here, using parallax geometry we could calculate the distance to Venus, thus knowing the distance from Venus to earth in terms of AU, we could figure out the distance from the sun to earth. \n\n\n\nWe got pretty good estimates from these, with accuracy to a few percent. We continued to refine our estimates by taking more measurements but the big breaks only happened in the 20th century, when we used radar technology to send a lot of microwaves to near earth objects like venus where the microwaves would bounce off and hopefully be detectable by antennas here on the ground after a while, using this time and the speed of light we could calculate distance to these things.",
"The quick answer is RADAR. The distance to Venus was first measured in this way in 1961.\n\nDistances in the solar system could be worked out very accurately relative to the size of the earth's orbit using the theory of gravity. The average distance from the earth to the sun is called the AU, the Astronomical Unit. For example, we knew Venus was 0.722 & #8239;AU from the sun but we didn't know exactly how may kilometres there were in an AU. The reason James Cook sailed to Hawaii in 1769 was to get a better estimate, essentially by observing Venus during a transit from both sides of the earth.\n\nCheck out the [history of the AU](_URL_0_). Once we could work out an earth-Venus distance accurately with RADAR, that allowed us to work out the AU much more accurately than before, which in turn gave us more accurate distances for the whole solar system."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit#History"
]
]
|
||
128yht | h.p lovecraft fanaticism and cult following | I understand he was a literary genius of great talent, but what exactly makes him so incredibly different than the other brilliant authors of our time? His following is so unique and has such a presence online that I can't understand it.
* Who is he?
* What makes him special?
* What from him would I be most familiar with without even knowing? (Any artistic movements he spurred, recognizable references he's responsible for, etc.) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/128yht/eli5_hp_lovecraft_fanaticism_and_cult_following/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6t8fs2",
"c6tbcrd"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For the last question, Cthulhu is his, and his influence can be seen in, for example, the Ood in Dr Who.",
"* An author who wrote pretty much only short stories set in New England and involving horror and mystery elements.\n\n* Those short stories are quite good, especially at capturing fear of the unknown.\n\n* The Call of Cthulhu influenced much of sci-fi design when it comes to \"terror from the great beyond\" style aliens, like the Xenomorph from Alien. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
32nr1k | how did the chinese know to use potassium in gunpowder? and how did they know what it was/where to get it? | So all I can find is that it came from manure, but how did they extract the potassium from the manure? Was it trial and error or did they somehow know that potassium would work and know where to find it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32nr1k/eli5how_did_the_chinese_know_to_use_potassium_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqcxqes",
"cqd02nf"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"The potassium is actually from saltpeter. Saltpeter occurs naturally as an encrustation on rock. The ingredient is actually saltpeter and not potassium. \n\nThe Chinese knew that mixing saltpeter and other ingredients created gunpowder by at least the 10th century. Natural saltpeter mines exist all over the world.\n\nThe Chinese also had a tradition of alchemical experimentation due to esoteric taoism, which was obsessed with finding the formula for the elixir of immortality.",
"the chinese during the time were trying to make immortality formulas they kinda just stuck stuff together and accident made gunpowder"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3tnaev | we have seen that honda robot tentatively tiptoeing around for the last decade, why can't we build a robot that can walk in an anatomically correct way? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tnaev/eli5_we_have_seen_that_honda_robot_tentatively/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx7lqp6",
"cx7lw35",
"cx7nv4w",
"cx7r72c",
"cx7rqv3",
"cx7sa8q",
"cx7v1bp"
],
"score": [
19,
20,
20,
2,
7,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"I guess what I am asking is how many years are we away from Blade Runner or Terminator?",
"There are some bots who can walk pretty well. But it is very difficult, especially on uneven ground. There would be a huge push to figure it out and you'd see them all over the place if it wasn't WAY easier to slap some treads on that motherfucker and be superior, more stable, more mobile in every way.",
"Have a look at Atlas by Boston Dynamics\n\n_URL_0_",
"The main reason is that robots have do not have the \"feel\" that is needed in order to maintain their balance. Humans subconsciously make adjustments as they walk based off of subtle clues both visual and through actual contact with the ground. To try it out for yourself stand on one leg and watch how you adjust your body weight as you sway in order to stay upright. A robot has a very hard time doing this, but theoretically the problem could be solved someday. There is no real push to solve it because having a two legged robot is not necessary (it just looks cooler) so most research is done on easier to manage robots with more legs or wheels ",
"Because robotics research is focused on other places. There's no real need for a robot to walk on two legs, especially in an anatomically correct way (they're robots, what anatomy?), when treads or wheels or even 4 legs would be easier and more efficient. ",
"It's walking in a static balanced mode. This means that at all times and during all movements, it is balanced and it's joints could be frozen and it wouldn't tip over. That's why it moves so slowly and stiffly. People walk in a dynamic stability mode. Basically you are only balanced if you add your center of gravity *and* it's current momentum. It's quite a bit more difficult, but with increased computing power more is possible.",
"Keep in mind that walking is really controlled, repeated, falling forward. Every time you lift your foot and lean forward, you are completely committing to falling and catching yourself with that foot. You cannot \"go back\", and must adapt your landing on the fly. So much is happening subconsciously to prepare for and adapt to the landing, and when it's even slightly out of whack like on ice, we slip. Most robots still don't have the dozens or even hundreds of sensors required to measure and calculate all the possible ways that \"landing\" can be affected, so they still take a safer approach of lifting a foot and not transferring the weight of the robot until that foot has touched down and the weight sensor says \"Yes, I'm on solid ground and you can shift the weight of the load forward now\", or otherwise \"No, the surface is not stable, don't move yet\". Hence the up and down or \"tap tap\" baby step type of walking instead of the controlled falling that we do as humans. They are getting there, but we are far more biologically complex than any mechanical robot, and we still fall constantly. Also, consider that when we do fall, getting up takes many, many, times more brain computing power and biological complexity to perform, so if you make a robot that is more likely to fall, you must make it mechanically far more complex to allow it to get back up too. KISS "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwrjAa1SgjQ"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3vgy44 | how does a baby survive on just formula and fluids for 6-12 months? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vgy44/eli5_how_does_a_baby_survive_on_just_formula_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxnfzmg",
"cxngci2"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The texture of your food is not particularly important at any point in your life. While we make good use of fiber later on, even this would not be all that important to liquid diet. Breast milk has pretty much exactly what a baby needs. Formula is based upon breast milk. \n\nTL;DR: fluids can be food too.",
"You could probably survive on nothing but liquid soup for months and months, as long as the soup had enough calories for you to survive and enough vitamins to keep you going. \n\nIt doesn't matter how solid the food is - it just has to contain the right stuff. Breast milk and formula are basically chock-full of calories (sugars and fats) and vitamins."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
ad7ll2 | what determines the maximum speed of my muscle movements? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ad7ll2/eli5_what_determines_the_maximum_speed_of_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"edeffze",
"edefhtb",
"edeh36d",
"edehai8",
"edenge1",
"edeq0tt",
"edetpwo"
],
"score": [
8,
25,
59,
4,
14,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Mass would have something to do with it. The force to weight ratio of your finger is far better suited to quick movement than your leg. Think of it like moving a pencil back and forth vs doing the same with a hammer. ",
"I’m no scientist but\n\nThere is more weight in your legs, which means more power required to move it, which means slower mowements",
"To throw equine anatomy into the fray; horses have no muscle below the knee, just tendons playing puppeteer with the hooves. This gives horses their incredible speed/endurance capabilities.",
"Your genetic make-up of fast vs slow twitch fibers and the amount of nerves influencing those fibers. Chimpanzees are so strong because they have more neural connections in their muscle groups. ",
"[Muscle fiber types](_URL_0_). The human body has different types of muscles for different types of functions and uses.",
"Follow up question about speed. What makes people with the same physique and training faster than others? \n\nWhy is Usain Bolt the fastest when other olympians are training just as hard as he is and he doesn’t seem to be overly bigger or stronger than they are? ",
"Your muscles are made of slow and fast twitch fibers. They do exactly what they sound like. Slow ones contract slower fast ones contract faster. Slower ones are generally a bit more powerful - found more in the legs, glutes major muscles. Dumbing this down a lot. \n\nSource: Med student"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.verywellfit.com/fast-and-slow-twitch-muscle-fibers-3120094"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
273z01 | why should i apply faraday's law but not kirchhoff's first rule when analysing an lr circuit? | I am in the process of watching Professor Walter Lewin's MIT lectures on Electricity and Magnetism.
In [Lecture 20](_URL_0_), during the first fifteen minutes, Prof. Lewin criticized many textbook authors for misapplying Kirchhoff's rule when analyzing LR circuits, and clarified that Faraday's Law should be used instead. My study partner insisted that Prof. Lewin was wrong, and that Kirchhoff's rule applied in this case because the inductance came from within the circuit itself.
I would really appreciate it if anyone here could help me understand whether Kirchhoff's rule is applicable here. If not, why?
I would also appreciate any links to relevant sources. Thank you in advance for all your help! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/273z01/eli5_why_should_i_apply_faradays_law_but_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"chx6bld",
"chx6fku"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The reason he states to apply Faraday's Law first, which I think is quite correct, is that the Emf across any circuit is going to be affected by self-inductance right out of the gate.\n\nHe says pretty early on why this works; because self inductance L only depends on the physical geometry of the circuit and the Emf. The current going through it has no bearing on it, which means you don't need to know anything about I or R of the circuit in order to determine L/\n\nAll you need is Emf and the dimensions of the circuit in order to determine what L is, which you can then add in to your other calculations in order to correct for L.\n\nI'd disagree with his criticism for an important reason - I think concepts should be taught from simple to complex, with layering levels of complexity over more simple basics.\n\nKirchhoff's Rules are the basics that people need to understand first. Inductance is a lot more complex a subject, and requires a firm grasp of the basics before it can be understood.\n\nYour study partner is partly wrong. Inductance does come from the individual circuit components, it ALSO comes from the entire circuit - driven by the Emf, and geometry of the circuit (as he demonstrated with the solenoid at the 3-ish minute mark, the current cancels out when solving for L)\n\nSo in an LR circuit, the inductor would have self-inductance, but the entire circuit would also have self-inductance which reduced the Emf of the circuit.\n\nApplying this circuit-wide L first lets you then use the correct number for the Emf to figure out the rest of the circuit.",
"Hi there, I'm from MIT too. I assume you mean Kirchhoff's 2nd Law, which says that the voltage around any loop has to equal zero.\n\nProf Lewin is making a very confusing/bad point here by saying that the \"Electric field in the inductor is zero because it has no resistance\". The inductor DOES have a voltage across it - that voltage is simply not dependent on the resistance. So Kirchhoff's 2nd law does apply. Just treat the inductor as if it were a battery with a changing output.\n\nIn case you aren't convinced, imagine a circuit where Kirchhoff's 2nd law is not true. If the voltage doesn't add up to zero, then an electron going around the loop will endlessly accelerate, resulting in an infinite current. That's clearly unphysical."
]
} | []
| [
"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2002/video-lectures/lecture-20-inductance-and-rl-circuit/"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2cxopr | why do gunshots in older movies sound different than the ones in more modern movies? | In this fantastic [scene](_URL_1_) from *The Longest Day* (1962) recreating the assault on Ouistreham, the sounds effects, especially at around 1:15 - 1:30 and 2:15 - 2:30 include this distinct high-pitched whining that is familiar to anyone who's watched older war movies and westerns.
Compare this to the attack on Carentan [scene](_URL_0_) from *Band of Brothers* (2001). The sounds effects are quite different here, as seem to be in most modern movies.
I'm assuming all of these movie sounds were part of the sound design process at their respective times. But what caused this change in sound design? And which (if either) is more realistic? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cxopr/eli5_why_do_gunshots_in_older_movies_sound/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjk22bh",
"cjk243x"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The methods used back then were to use blanks (or sometimes real bullets) along with other sounds like a hammer on steel or concrete for the sound effects. These were picked up differently on older microphones and tended to sound differently.\n\nWhereas today, the gunshots are often added in post, and have the volumes changed, the gunshot itself will be less loud and the bullet whizzing through the air will be louder in order to allow everyone to hear everything, instead of being left with ringing ears.",
"Older films had a different set of stock sounds than modern films. Modern technology allows much more accurate recordings under many different circumstances. Films like Saving Private Ryan have realistic gun sounds, mostly due to rifles and machine guns firing blanks, while older films will had to make do with the library of sounds available to them. For the record, older movie gunshots tend to be hilariously out of place and sound more like laser guns or cannons than actual firearms. Real guns don't go \"PTEWW\" when you shoot them. They just make a loud pop."
]
} | []
| [
"http://youtu.be/7po52DQytEs",
"http://youtu.be/3eZMkleDjWI"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
9z6jrg | when building tolerance to a substance, does your body get more efficient at removing it (reducing its affect) or do you subconsciously get better at managing the affects? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9z6jrg/eli5_when_building_tolerance_to_a_substance_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea6p35o",
"ea6t2x4"
],
"score": [
9,
12
],
"text": [
"Enzymes are used to metabolize various chemicals in your body, from foods to poisons like nicotine, caffein, and alcohol.\n\nThe more you introduce these things to your system, the more enzymes your body produces to process and break them down, thus they are filtered out more quickly. Your body is constantly fighting you to maintain relative normality and chemical balance. ",
"Depends on the drug. What happens with opioids, for example, is that your body will start reducing the number of dopamine receptors in your brain. When you take an opioid, it causes your brain to release more dopamine. With the increase of dopamine, your brain says \"whoa! Sensory overload!\" and starts to reduce the number of dopamine receptors that are available. So, in order to get the same effect, you need to take higher doses because you now have fewer dopamine receptors to stimulate, so you need to stimulate them more often. This is what we call \"tolerance.\" Generally, tolerance is not due to increased removal of drug or increased enzyme production. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5har1v | why haven't concert venues raised the prices of tickets to the match what scalpers charge, since people are clearly willing to pay that much? | Even if they charged what scalpers sell them for minus the ridiculous Stubhub/Ticketmaster fees they would make a killing and pretty much eliminate the resell market by making it unprofitable.
Wouldn't it make sense for the venues to charge the most that people are willing to pay for their product? It doesn't match what I know about supply and demand.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5har1v/eli5_why_havent_concert_venues_raised_the_prices/ | {
"a_id": [
"dayqb3p",
"dayqdxo",
"dayqst9",
"dayr2ar",
"dayr2kg",
"daysssr"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"1) Scalpers are normally illegal. That is what allows them to charge insane prices. \n\n2) Most people are not willing to pay those prices. Only some are willing to pay those prices. ",
"Because, while the venue hosts the event, they are making money from the promoter who booked it at a flat fee and regardless of the price of tickets. Why promoters don't raise the price? This I don't know. I know that when I promoted parties I would routinely charge two to three times as much at the door than competing events and give everybody free or extremely reduced guest list if they arrived before midnight. This would jam the doors at midnight-ish and attract a ton of people who wanted to know what was up who would pay full price. Plus I'm already profiting from sponsors. So to answer our question, it's because they don't want to test the upper limit tolerance of a perfectly great solution to printing tons of money. ",
" > It doesn't match what I know about supply and demand.\n\nIt actually represents supply & demand pretty well. \n\nConcert venues have to sell tens of thousands of tickets on an open market over a long period of time. So in that instance there is a large supply, with moderate - high demand. \n\n\n\n\nScalpers, on the other hand, only have to sell a few tickets in what is essentially a monopoly in a very short amount of time. Or, to put it another way, they have a very limited supply with extremely high demand. \n\n\n \n\n",
"Scalping can be thought of as a result of imperfect information in the market.\n\nIf the ticket seller had perfect information on all their customers, they would know each customer's \"maximum willingness to pay\" for a ticket, and they would charge each customer exactly that price, and keep selling until they run out of tickets or until no customer is left with a willingness to pay that is high enough to offset the marginal cost of the ticket. That is called first degree price discrimination.\n\nIn reality, however, the venue does not have this information for however hundreds/thousands attendees. They do their market research, consider similar/past concerts, the popularity of the artist, to make an estimate of the market demand for tickets, and then they solve the profit maximization problem to figure out a price. That price is the same for ll customers (at least for each individual \"class\" of ticket, such as orchestra level, mezzanine, box, etc). This one price will probably be lower than a lot of people's maximum willingness to pay; the company gives up some surplus to the consumer because they cannot identify that consumer and charge them their whole WTP.\n\nA scalper knows that there must be some super fan out there that would be willing to pay triple the ticket price to get their hands on it. So they buy a ticket at normal price, and then the scalper is willing to wait until this superfan identifies themselves as a \"high paying\" type of customer. The scalper charges a higher price for the ticket, and makes a bit of profit for themselves.\n\nIf ticketmaster/stubhub tried to identify each and every person that buys tickets, they would run into a logistical nightmare, and it is a reasonable assumption that it would cost them way too much, making such a scheme unprofitable in the first place. Do they have enough people and/or time to figure out everyone's maximum willingness to pay? \nIt would also give rise to non-economic issues, such as privacy concerns over a company knowing your exact willingness to pay for that good.\n\nHaving said that, venues do try to identify consumers by type. When the tickets first go on sale, they are more expensive; because it is a fair assumption that a big fan of the show will go and buy a ticket immediately. After a while, they can decrease the price a little bit, which attracts the second wave of fans, that like the show buy aren't die-hard fans, and so on. That's a form of imperfect price discrimination that makes the concert promoter more money.\n\nAnother issue to consider is that when you have a demand and supply problem, consumers (and suppliers) are neatly ordered. Look at your demand curve: price is decreasing as quantity increases. You could interpret this as \"the first unit will be sold to the guy with the highest willingness to pay, the second unit will go to the second, and so on\". But in the real world, consumers are not as neatly ordered. Maybe the super-fan was at the hospital when the tickets went on sale, and by the time he or she was able to exit the ER, all tickets are gone. The scalper will be able to charge this one fan a ton of money over the ticket's price. But stubhub couldn't wait for this person to claim the highest priced ticket before decreasing the price for the second person to buy.",
"Just because scalpers sell *some* tickets at incredibly high prices, doesn't mean that the majority of buyers are willing to buy at that price. And having the highest price possible, doesn't necessarily translate into the highest profits. Concert tickets are very much a luxury item, which means a fairly elastic demand curve. That is to say, any changes in price will severely affect the likelihood people will buy that items. This as opposed to products like meds where people are going to pay the price no matter how high it gets (this is an inelastic demand curve).",
"Many possible reasons, some of which have already been mentioned by previous comments. \nThe thing is that sometimes a lower price for a product will eventually create the market for high prices in isolated instances of high demand for a limited resource (basically, the resource is limited because a lower initial price caused it to be limited). \nAn additional factor is that some venues have a promotional purpose. The price is set at a rate which generates the most amount of interest in a product which is sold outside the particular venue. \nThen there is a possible negative backlash if promoters use the profit-maximizing strategy for events: They might be seen as unusually greedy which in turn might damage future sales or the image of the product featured in a venue. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2fwfsi | why do men like the "money shot" in porn where a guy jizzes all over a girls face and/or body? | It's my understanding that heterosexual porn is mostly marketed to men who must find this appealing. As a woman, I just don't get it.
Edit: Thanks so much to all the men who posted comments. I've got a much better understanding now. Some men don't like it, some see it as the only way to show that orgasm was achieved by the man, some enjoy the domination of women, and for some it's just a fantasy to be with someone who's into it and that likely won't happen in real life. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fwfsi/eli5_why_do_men_like_the_money_shot_in_porn_where/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckddfzr",
"ckddgzs",
"ckdenfw",
"ckdhohv",
"ckdll4d"
],
"score": [
18,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a combination of a few things:\n\n- It gives a certain level of dominance of the man over the women. Some men and women enjoy the idea of a man being dominant in a sexual encounter and that can manifest in many ways, from being physically stronger or taller to engaging in a particular position that shows he is in control. A man being on top of a woman is the most obvious way to show that the woman is in the more submissive position, but if she is tied up, has her mouth covered, or she is the recipient of a \"money shot\" are other ways. To take it to an extreme level, some men enjoy seeing women degraded, too.\n\n- It shows a level of acceptance from the woman that is not normally seen in society. The social norm for quite awhile has been that men are sexual beings, while women are largely not. There are stereotypes of teenage girls being coerced into sex, married couples experiencing problems when the wife has a severely diminished sexual capacity, and a general sense that women enjoy sex to a lesser degree - both in frequency and duration. And thus, a woman who is willingly accepting of this sexual act must really enjoy sex in many forms. It's usually the culmination of providing oral sex to the man and penetration in PIV sex. \n\n- It's not something that's common in most sexual relationships men have with women, whether it's a wife, girlfriend, or FWB. Anything that it exotic will appeal to a certain segment of the population. There was a time when a woman providing oral sex to a man was not common in America, so some men sought out prostitutes who would provide this particular service - \"French style\". It was actually MORE expensive than penetration.\n\n- It's very visual. It's the other side of seeing women in porn films \"squirting\". You see a clear indicator that the man has achieved an orgasm from the ministrations of the woman. Additionally for some men, it allows them a good point of view fantasy, as if HE is having sex with that particular woman and as the male actor finishes, so does the viewer. The term \"money shot\" originates in film from the fact that it's expensive to produce, but creates the greatest visual effect.\n",
"It's basically your reaction as a woman. There's really no strong argument for any direct evolutionary benefit, but men like to see women's faces, their emotions, their reactions to the sexual acts acted upon them-- the face is a window to those emotional reactions-- regardless of the reaction (even if the reaction's disgust, it can register as a sort of submissiveness).\n",
"Guy here. I don't enjoy that.",
"I doubt most men find that appealing. Porn tends to be rigidly stereotyped by country, for some reason. It's a sort of artistic form, if you want to call it that, which goes by strict rules. One of the older rules of the American form insists on closing with the \"pull out and masturbate\" final act.",
"It makes the sex seem more \"real,\" that the viewer has evidence that the male actor actually ejaculated (though there is plenty of film magic that increases or simulates the effect) as opposed to it appearing that the director called \"Cut!\" and everyone got up and left. It is also somewhat anticlimactic, no pun intended, for the sexual acts to end with no evidence of the actor having ejaculated."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
43y38f | when using a vpn, how is outgoing data encrypted before reaching the vpn? can a vpn be used / is it secure with public wifi? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43y38f/eli5_when_using_a_vpn_how_is_outgoing_data/ | {
"a_id": [
"czlwhbp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"All a VPN is, is really a secure encrypted tunnel between your computer and some computer \"out there\". The encryption of your traffic is done by your VPN client on your computer. Decryption is done by the VPN exit end of the tunnel. \n\ni.e. Lets say I use a VPN to watch US Netflix here in Canada. My request from my browser gets encrypted by my VPN client. VPN client sends that request to some server in the US. That server decrypts it, then sends it on its way to _URL_0_ - Netflix thinks the requesting computer is the VPN server. The VPN server is really just a proxy for my computer.\n\nYou should be able to use most VPN software regardless of where you're connected. A Starbucks, a hotel room, wired or wifi. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"www.netflix.com"
]
]
|
||
mww1z | how are murder cases solved? | If I drive up to a random person who I have never talked to or seen before, and there's no one around, and I just shoot him dead, how can the police find out that I was the one who killed him? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mww1z/eli5_how_are_murder_cases_solved/ | {
"a_id": [
"c34hijj",
"c34ld64",
"c34noi0",
"c34hijj",
"c34ld64",
"c34noi0"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You should watch an episode of the tv series \"[the first 48](_URL_0_)\". \n\nThe idea is they look for clues around the crime scene that could isolate who it was. This includes weapons, blood, witness reports, cctv, clothing, dna, foot prints, or finger prints. They also do things like checking the victims nails for DNA evidence. They also check if there was a reason why the person was murdered, and follow possibilities based on that. They also speak to the family and find out if they were hated, what their real job was etc etc\n\nThere is no specific way to solve the crime, they look for evidence then react based on that evidence. There are very dumb criminals too, who incriminate themselves by dropping their wallet, or hat, or something really dumb. Even clever criminals get unstuck, many times crimes aren't solved for 50 years, then when they find the bodies, it gives clues to the killer.",
"Other people have talked about how the investigation might progress, but I thought I'd look at evidence that you might have missed. In your hypothetical example, things which *might* be used (in conjunction) to incriminate you could include:\n\n* No convincing alibi (in conjunction with some non-circumstantial evidence)\n* Tyre tracks matching your car\n* CCTV\n* Ballistics linking the bullet used to your gun\n* Your DNA or fingerprints left anywhere\n* Witnesses who saw your car heading to or returning from the scene of the crime\n* Witnesses who heard the gunshot, even if they didn't see the crime, being able to place the time of the murder\n* The fact that you posted an interest in performing such a crime to an online forum (circumstantial, of course, but could corroborate other evidence)\n\nYours would be a hard crime to solve, though, because there'd (probably) be no direct link between you and the person you killed. This is quite rare: virtually all perpetrators of premeditated murders can be connected to their victims in some way.",
"Nice try prospective serial killer.",
"You should watch an episode of the tv series \"[the first 48](_URL_0_)\". \n\nThe idea is they look for clues around the crime scene that could isolate who it was. This includes weapons, blood, witness reports, cctv, clothing, dna, foot prints, or finger prints. They also do things like checking the victims nails for DNA evidence. They also check if there was a reason why the person was murdered, and follow possibilities based on that. They also speak to the family and find out if they were hated, what their real job was etc etc\n\nThere is no specific way to solve the crime, they look for evidence then react based on that evidence. There are very dumb criminals too, who incriminate themselves by dropping their wallet, or hat, or something really dumb. Even clever criminals get unstuck, many times crimes aren't solved for 50 years, then when they find the bodies, it gives clues to the killer.",
"Other people have talked about how the investigation might progress, but I thought I'd look at evidence that you might have missed. In your hypothetical example, things which *might* be used (in conjunction) to incriminate you could include:\n\n* No convincing alibi (in conjunction with some non-circumstantial evidence)\n* Tyre tracks matching your car\n* CCTV\n* Ballistics linking the bullet used to your gun\n* Your DNA or fingerprints left anywhere\n* Witnesses who saw your car heading to or returning from the scene of the crime\n* Witnesses who heard the gunshot, even if they didn't see the crime, being able to place the time of the murder\n* The fact that you posted an interest in performing such a crime to an online forum (circumstantial, of course, but could corroborate other evidence)\n\nYours would be a hard crime to solve, though, because there'd (probably) be no direct link between you and the person you killed. This is quite rare: virtually all perpetrators of premeditated murders can be connected to their victims in some way.",
"Nice try prospective serial killer."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_48"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_48"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2twzqz | how do unripe bananas develop at home? | I buy green bananas from the supermarket so they can last longer, I leave them out and they magically turn yellow and are ready to be eaten, how can they ripe without being attached to a tree to supply them with nutrients and water? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2twzqz/eli5_how_do_unripe_bananas_develop_at_home/ | {
"a_id": [
"co32r1n"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They're fully grown before they start to ripen. The ripening process is caused by the plant growth regulator (like a plant hormone or plant neurotransmitter) 'ethylene', and begins to turn starch in the banana into sugar.\n\nBananas are not the only fruit to work this way (storage then ripening). It's a common survival strategy because it lets you make sure your seeds and fruit are fully mature before anything tries to eat it (as opposed to ripening while growing)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4huudw | why do some companies limit online services in certain countries? | For example, Netflix. Wouldn't they have more customers if they provided all services all over the world? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4huudw/eli5_why_do_some_companies_limit_online_services/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2shew9",
"d2shwfo"
],
"score": [
4,
12
],
"text": [
"Someone bought the rights to that territory, so they restrict access. Of course they would allow access if they had not sold it, but who would buy the rights if they didn't cut off their own service?",
"If a company is restricting services, it is generally either because they cannot carry out those services in that area (no supply network, for example), it is simply too expensive to carry out their services in that area (taxes and tariffs there might be higher and eat into the margin until it is not profitable) or it is not legal.\n\nWith Netflix in particular, the right to stream a certain program is bought per region / country. So if Netflix USA buys the right to air Supernatural, that doesn't mean Netflix in France has those same rights. Often what happens is that rights to air in particular regions have already been contracted out to other services, or that they are asking a higher price than Netflix is willing to pay for those rights, so Netflix doesn't / cannot acquire them. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2ozg07 | why is there no inflation in us despite quantitative easing? | Lots of people were predicting that there will be significant inflation due to quantitative easing which is pumping money into the economy. Why has it not happened? Or has it not happened yet and will sometime in the future when the chickens come home to roost? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ozg07/eli5_why_is_there_no_inflation_in_us_despite/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmrws6k",
"cms3q20",
"cms4ewj"
],
"score": [
21,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is inflation in the US. It's just really small and fairly stable (Averaging about 4%). I'll give a brief overview of inflation and the mechanics of it in the US, see if it helps. I can go a bit more in depth if you need. Feel free to ask!\n\nWhy is it stable? Because we're pretty good at it. In economics there is a concept known as the Phillips curve. It defines the change of inflation in the short run in relation to output (GDP). In short, the higher the output, the higher the increase in inflation. \n\nQuantitative Easing is a tool of the Federal Reserve to adjust output of the US. Now, here's the fun part. The Fed does not want the US to grow too much. When we're in a slump, we drop interest rates, increase the money supply and as a result output and inflation goes up. When we start booming, we ease back. Drop the money supply and increase interest rates, and as a result drop output and inflation. \n\ntl;dr - people have a deep mistrust of the Federal Reserve and a fundamental misunderstanding of how an economy works. Yes. An increase in money will increase inflation. But inflation itself is not bad. It's directly linked to growth. It's only really bad when we lose control over it.\n\nThe idea is that we keep a fair balance. ",
"Our current inflation rate is 1.7% (_URL_0_) The Fed has a target of 2% but has not been able to get it that high. It would really be better to get about 4%, but we have little hope of that.\n\nWe are not getting significant inflation because the natural rate of interest is currently negative. Just making money available wound cause inflation if people do not borrow it and spend it. \n\nWhen the bubble burst in 2008, many people were left with a lot of debt. This led to a drop in demand because people felt the need to cut back. This led to lay-offs which led to a further reduction in demand.\n\nMost of our recent recessions since the Depression have been Fed induced. When the Fed thought inflation was getting too high, it would raise rates making it too expensive to borrow and and expand, so business would not hire. After this drove inflation down enough, the Fed would lower rates, and the economy would pick up pretty quickly.\n\nBut with a demand driven recession, you really need fiscal stimulus. But we have not been able to get any since the Republicans took over the house in the 2010 midterms. Instead we have had budget cuts at both the Federal and State levels, which have really hurt the economy. So the Fed has been trying monetary policy, but it is not nearly as effective. It can put all the money out there it wants, but it does not do much if companies are not willing to borrow and expand. And they won't do that until there is demand to justify it even if the money has a very low interest rate. ",
"If a 5 year old ever asked this I would marry him/her as a retirement plan."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/"
],
[]
]
|
|
1gwqpc | why are women encouraged to abstain from sex or use alternative methods of contraception when they miss one or two bc pills, but not when they miss 7 in a row (period week)? | I've never really heard a definitive answer to what you should do when you miss a birth control pill (other than double up), the guidelines on each brand tend to vary and my doctor and OBGYN's advices differ as well.
Looking at answers on the internet, many people recommend alternate forms of BC for anywhere from 1 week to a month, but I don't understand why you can (and are encouraged) to go without taking the pill for a week and not have the effectiveness diminished like when you only miss a few?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gwqpc/eli5why_are_women_encouraged_to_abstain_from_sex/ | {
"a_id": [
"caokt50"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because the dosages get higher that third week right before period week, and last long enough to cover you. I always use a second form if I miss one pill but if you look at the instructions accompanying the pill you will see that if you just miss, it only matters if it's that third week. The first two weeks it's only trouble if you miss two or more.\nBetter safe than sorry, but that's what I've learned from reading my packet/some internet searching. Really read your meds instructions because yours might be different and they're really helpful!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
fe4ehb | what are the pragmatic reasons why business people give away their money to charity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fe4ehb/eli5_what_are_the_pragmatic_reasons_why_business/ | {
"a_id": [
"fjlq99t",
"fjlqgut",
"fjlqn5r",
"fjlqrgm",
"fjlr8ov",
"fjly4et"
],
"score": [
8,
8,
7,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Being seen as a good person/company is good for business. \n\nIt’s also been shown they many charities are run by people taking a large salary and there may be an informal “I’ll donate to your charity if you donate to mine” so they wind up loosing no money at all after the tax breaks you get for the donation.",
"Tax a avoidance can be one reason. If you make a lot of money, the (US and state) income tax can take close to 50% of it. If you set up a private charitable foundation, you can put up to 30% of your income into that, and avoid taxes on that income. You still have control of the money for charitable giving purposes, and money buys influence and connections for you while you are alive, and for your family after you die (if you give your kids control of the foundation.)",
"Tax write offs. Plain and simple. For example, let's say Richie Rich decides to donate 10 million dollars for \"x\" cause or organization. Now this is the interesting part, nothing explicitly states by when those 10 million dollars have to be paid out and so in the meantime Richie Rich can still get his tax write off whilst also reaping the social benefits of \"being charitable\". I think this little [clip](_URL_0_) can go into a bit more depth in less than 10 minutes. And if you want to learn even more Hasan Minaj did a whole episode on this very [topic ](_URL_1_)",
"It is pragmatic - it's a marketing thing. If people think that buying a particular product will help charitable causes, they're more likely to buy that over a competitor product.\n\nFor example, in Australia, some bottled water brands do this with breast cancer charity. They pay a certain charity a fee to use their branding and give the bottles a pink colour, and people buy that bottle over other bottles because they think some of their money is going to charity",
"It's a subsidized form of image advertising. The image of your company \"Grocery Store XYZ supports the homeless and hungry\" has a direct impact on consumers choosing to become customers, and then remaining customers. This is very valuable to your company. These expenses are legitimate business expenses, approved by the IRS, because this is a recognized business choice. You don't see companies donating money anonymously. It's always a giant golf-check at a photo op. Other ads are less effective, because they are just a sales pitch.",
"If your kid pays for the local soccer team, you can give his club money and still claim as a tax write off. \n\nSome owners feel a responsibility to donate if they’ve done well in business and sometimes it can raise your profile leading more business decision makers to seek you out"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/H32z45o0WxA",
"https://youtu.be/mS9CFBlLOcg"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
kygum | when i first learn a word, i see it a billion times in the next two weeks. | Same deal with concepts; just heard about the whole "Holocause denial" thing last week and have seen it four times since then. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kygum/eli5_when_i_first_learn_a_word_i_see_it_a_billion/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2oa3n0",
"c2oaib7",
"c2oampa",
"c2ocr17",
"c2odg0u",
"c2odulh",
"c2odwi3",
"c2oedg6",
"c2oej4h",
"c2oeqjs",
"c2oa3n0",
"c2oaib7",
"c2oampa",
"c2ocr17",
"c2odg0u",
"c2odulh",
"c2odwi3",
"c2oedg6",
"c2oej4h",
"c2oeqjs"
],
"score": [
72,
39,
69,
2,
3,
4,
4,
5,
3,
2,
72,
39,
69,
2,
3,
4,
4,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"[The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon](_URL_0_)",
"It's because your brain likes to notice *patterns*. It has evolved that way because patterns recognition is important in learning. If you combine this with [confirmation bias](_URL_0_), meaning you don't remember the times when you learn a new word and don't see it everywhere, you get the so-called Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon which is basically what you describe.",
"Woah what the hell. Mind-blown right now: I just heard of \"The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon\" yesterday and I just saw it again. I'm not even joking..WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING TO ME",
"Same reason why the clock is always 13:37 when you look at it.",
"There's a story called the Joshua Tree Epiphany, that basically follows Baader-Meinhof. It goes like this. A girl receives a book about tree identification as a gift, and she finds a tree called the Joshua Tree in the book. She thinks, \"I definitely would have recognized this tree before, it's so distinctive.\" The next day, she goes for a walk and realizes that almost everyone in her neighborhood has a Joshua Tree in their yard.\n\nOnce you can identify something, you start to see it everywhere.",
"Glitch in the Matrix? ",
"holy shit, I thought I was the only one.",
"It's a form of bias - people are very good at recognizing things that are important to them and ignoring things that aren't. When you learn a new word, it becomes more important and you start noticing it.\n\nThe same thing happens when you buy a particular type of car (they're suddenly *everywhere*).",
"I have a Nissan Pathfinder. Never remember seeing on in my life before I got one. When I got it I swear that everyone I saw had the same car. I still see them everywhere.",
"Sometimes I don't know what a new word means, but then I just masturbate it into my sentences until I figure out what it means!",
"[The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon](_URL_0_)",
"It's because your brain likes to notice *patterns*. It has evolved that way because patterns recognition is important in learning. If you combine this with [confirmation bias](_URL_0_), meaning you don't remember the times when you learn a new word and don't see it everywhere, you get the so-called Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon which is basically what you describe.",
"Woah what the hell. Mind-blown right now: I just heard of \"The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon\" yesterday and I just saw it again. I'm not even joking..WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING TO ME",
"Same reason why the clock is always 13:37 when you look at it.",
"There's a story called the Joshua Tree Epiphany, that basically follows Baader-Meinhof. It goes like this. A girl receives a book about tree identification as a gift, and she finds a tree called the Joshua Tree in the book. She thinks, \"I definitely would have recognized this tree before, it's so distinctive.\" The next day, she goes for a walk and realizes that almost everyone in her neighborhood has a Joshua Tree in their yard.\n\nOnce you can identify something, you start to see it everywhere.",
"Glitch in the Matrix? ",
"holy shit, I thought I was the only one.",
"It's a form of bias - people are very good at recognizing things that are important to them and ignoring things that aren't. When you learn a new word, it becomes more important and you start noticing it.\n\nThe same thing happens when you buy a particular type of car (they're suddenly *everywhere*).",
"I have a Nissan Pathfinder. Never remember seeing on in my life before I got one. When I got it I swear that everyone I saw had the same car. I still see them everywhere.",
"Sometimes I don't know what a new word means, but then I just masturbate it into my sentences until I figure out what it means!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
jjpl8 | what is being discussed in contemporary philosophy? | Is there something like one common problem that a lot of people try to solve? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jjpl8/eli5_what_is_being_discussed_in_contemporary/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2covq8",
"c2cphkr",
"c2cqrnb",
"c2csibj",
"c2ctazv",
"c2covq8",
"c2cphkr",
"c2cqrnb",
"c2csibj",
"c2ctazv"
],
"score": [
2,
16,
3,
2,
3,
2,
16,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I dont think anyone important is thinking about stuff like in ancient Greece like dualism or solipsism or whatever, I think the big issues today are ethics in advancing science and espeically in the us religion vs reality within politics",
"A famous modern philosopher is Zizek, who ponders (among many other things) the philosophical and sociological implications of today's economy - especially regarding capitalism.\nIt could be argued that some of the more famous economists (Hayek, Keynes) are, in a sense, also modern philosophers. They are polymaths; experts on history, finance, mathematics, sociology and economics. Drawing on their extensive knowledge and observing existing patterns of behavior, they conduct thought experiments and try to best determine what forces are shaping how the economy unfolds and why.\nKeep in mind also that slightly more recent philosophers (Nietzsche, Heidegger) lived within the last 100 years - their ideas aren't exactly as old as Plato or Atristotle. ",
"Philosophy is kind of playing second fiddle to cosmology at the minute in terms of the 'why/how are we here?' questions which it used to dominate. There's nothing wrong with that imo; philosophers still have the job of interpreting the findings, which is arguably the most important bit.\n\nOther than that, modern philosophy seems to be converging with maths a lot more, which kind of started with the early 20th century logicians I guess. I get the impression that science and philosophy are more co-existent now than they ever have been, but that might just be the stuff I'm reading about, so take this whole post with a pinch of salt. ",
"Recently there has been a movement for experimental philosophy, which is more or less a version of moral psychology where philosophers search for real-life evidence about what the layman actually believes is ethically good through analyzing surveys. There are also other issues that these philosphers are interested in and their main goal is to transform philosophy into a practical science.\n\nPhilosophy of science is also more popular since the 1980s with Bas Van Fraassen's book the Scientific Image where he discusses whether or not observable scientific data are actually REAL and describe the universe, or if they are merely spurious representations of what we will never be able to truly know (much like Kant's phenomena/noumena problem about the perceived universe and what actually exists), however, I'm not sure if that is contemporary enough for you. But the thing about philosophy is that most professors have their own set of research that ranges depending on what they were specifically interested in. There didn't seem to be a consistent issue throughout all areas. ",
"We don't really know what consciousness is, or how it is realized in the brain. Hofstadter and Searle are two living philosophers of mind (who disagree with each other) that have interesting ideas on the subject. ",
"I dont think anyone important is thinking about stuff like in ancient Greece like dualism or solipsism or whatever, I think the big issues today are ethics in advancing science and espeically in the us religion vs reality within politics",
"A famous modern philosopher is Zizek, who ponders (among many other things) the philosophical and sociological implications of today's economy - especially regarding capitalism.\nIt could be argued that some of the more famous economists (Hayek, Keynes) are, in a sense, also modern philosophers. They are polymaths; experts on history, finance, mathematics, sociology and economics. Drawing on their extensive knowledge and observing existing patterns of behavior, they conduct thought experiments and try to best determine what forces are shaping how the economy unfolds and why.\nKeep in mind also that slightly more recent philosophers (Nietzsche, Heidegger) lived within the last 100 years - their ideas aren't exactly as old as Plato or Atristotle. ",
"Philosophy is kind of playing second fiddle to cosmology at the minute in terms of the 'why/how are we here?' questions which it used to dominate. There's nothing wrong with that imo; philosophers still have the job of interpreting the findings, which is arguably the most important bit.\n\nOther than that, modern philosophy seems to be converging with maths a lot more, which kind of started with the early 20th century logicians I guess. I get the impression that science and philosophy are more co-existent now than they ever have been, but that might just be the stuff I'm reading about, so take this whole post with a pinch of salt. ",
"Recently there has been a movement for experimental philosophy, which is more or less a version of moral psychology where philosophers search for real-life evidence about what the layman actually believes is ethically good through analyzing surveys. There are also other issues that these philosphers are interested in and their main goal is to transform philosophy into a practical science.\n\nPhilosophy of science is also more popular since the 1980s with Bas Van Fraassen's book the Scientific Image where he discusses whether or not observable scientific data are actually REAL and describe the universe, or if they are merely spurious representations of what we will never be able to truly know (much like Kant's phenomena/noumena problem about the perceived universe and what actually exists), however, I'm not sure if that is contemporary enough for you. But the thing about philosophy is that most professors have their own set of research that ranges depending on what they were specifically interested in. There didn't seem to be a consistent issue throughout all areas. ",
"We don't really know what consciousness is, or how it is realized in the brain. Hofstadter and Searle are two living philosophers of mind (who disagree with each other) that have interesting ideas on the subject. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2wfqq0 | why can projectors project image onto human skin but monitors can't? is it just the intensity of the light or is there some subtler optical phenomenon at play? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wfqq0/eli5_why_can_projectors_project_image_onto_human/ | {
"a_id": [
"coqmnrk"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The current answers seem to be missing something important.\n\nLenses.\n\nMonitors don't have lenses (AFAIK) because the light sources are so close to the viewing surface that there's really no bleed between pixels to blur the image. For all intents and purposes you're looking at a grid of light bulbs. Once the light leaves the monitor, it's free to fly off in any random direction, and the image is completely lost within a few inches of the surface.\n\nA projector, on the other hand, has lenses that focus the light with the intent of preserving the image in focus over a long distance. If you put your hand or another surface too close to the projector, it will be out of focus, and look pretty much like the monitor does on your skin."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3d31p0 | why is it okay to mock christianity but not politically correct to mock islam? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d31p0/eli5why_is_it_okay_to_mock_christianity_but_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct1c6i8",
"ct1cbwt",
"ct1ci3c",
"ct1d4kg",
"ct1d7do",
"ct1dbfo",
"ct1dykw"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Extremist Muslims have, in some instances, killed or threatened to kill people based on insulting their religion. There haven't been regular threats along the same lines for Christianity. So, while to a Western audience, both can be considered equally insulting and equally politically incorrect, there is the issue specific to Islam that their religion has some members who cannot take a joke and react violently. Needless to say, provoking a violent response, even if the response is inappropriate, is considered a bad idea. ",
"Firstly, most people mocking Christianity are Christians themselves, and belonging to a certain group means you can say certain things about that group. You get it within Christianity too, lots of Catholics can get a bit funny when Protestants insult the Catholic Church, even though they think it's okay for them to say the same things.\n\nSecondly, a lot of people use mocking Islam as an excuse to mock Muslims, and label them all as evil. So people tend to be a bit more cautious, because usually you are not calling anyone raised in the Christian faith evil, while the same can't be said for insulting Islam. It's also used as a way to tar all Muslims as terrorists, taking passages from their holy book or using their beliefs to say they can never fit into western society or live alongside Christians, which has damaging effects in real life when Muslims are often made feel unwelcome in certain communities in the west, or discriminated against. This does not happen against Christians.",
"Neither are okay, though if you're born into a Christian country, where Christian values are used in your daily life, then 'mocking' Christianity is fairly accepted because it isn't foreign or something you're likely to be ignorant about.\n\nMost people who mock Islam have no clue what Islam is about or its values.",
"In a recent interview with Bill Maher, he condemned this double standard. I'll try to paraphrase his argument: \n\nPolitical correctness in America is advocated for and guided by liberals, who use it to advocate for tolerance for one another's religions, cultures, sexual attitudes, etc. The people usually opposing this in America are the conservatives, who are also generally members of the majority: white, American-born Christians. Since they represent America's traditional majority (and as liberals would describe it, its ruling class), they don't feel any need to protect the sensitivities of this particular group. White Christians they would rather mock as the ignorant part of our society. \n\nAs Maher less diplomatically put it: all religions are dumb, but \"brown people get a pass\"",
"[Extremists](_URL_0_) \n\nNope, the biggest influence to ban islam mockery is found in [politics](_URL_1_). \n\nMost politicians want to appeal as broad as possible, and at least in the EU, want to appeal to the brotherhood of 'everyone', which means nobody is condemned. \n\nAlso Saudi arabia, although I don't think they give a shit.",
"It comes from the foreign element. In a true ELI5 fashion it's basically that people don't like those that are different then them. Most Americans are Christians, and religions in particular don't play nice when it comes to someone being different for more reasons then one could count. Because Islamic people are different they simply face more persecution for being different. It's a similar situation for Christians in mostly Muslim countries, and in reality the two faiths aren't that much different from one another, both have their nutcases, although I'd say Christianity rooted out a lot more of its warmongering extremist followers than Islam has at this point. Couple that with 9/11, Middle Eastern Conflicts, Terrorism, etc., there's a general distrust of Islam in America. It's incorrect to say that it is accepted to make fun of Christianity in America, in fact I would argue it would make you much more vicious enemies than critizing Islam. It's simply so well understood in America that if you were to, say as a politician, speak out against Christianity, you would commit social suicide, it's become a non-issue. Islam is a minority faith in this country, however, and because of that and the pre-existing tension between the people of these faiths it's actually an issue worth discussing. Do you care about this minoritys reputation? Do you want to deport them all? Etc, etc, TLDR: Islam seems like a sensitive issue because as of now Christianity is a settled one. You insult the Christian faith and most of the country is out to demonize you. Islam isn't the same case so there's political tenderness. It's so obvious you shouldn't insult Christianity that in this country it goes without saying.",
"There are many different ways to answer this.\n\nFirst we need to ask if we are mocking the religion or the practitioners. Because if it's the religion they are both equally sacrosanct, and it is equally offensive, one is not more (I really dislike the term \"politically correct\" because it does a disservice to the idea of cultural sensitivity, which is what it is basically a place holder for, but since there is no better term at the moment) politically correct than the other. It might be more socially acceptable to mock one more than the other, depending on the people doing the mocking, but that doesn't mean it's right, just that said social circles share the same prejudices and beliefs.\n\nIf it is just the practitioners, in what way are we mocking them? Is it based on ideology, actions, or is it just an excuse towards racism (either towards Arabs, or a general non-white group - as there are more Black and Asian Muslims than there are Arab ones). If it's an excuse for race based hatred, then it's no longer a matter of religion and it becomes something more than mocking an idea, and that is always more frowned upon than mocking ideas.\n\nIf it's just about ideas and the extremists of both Christianity and Islam we must look at the way in which we do. When we mock Christianity and the extremists, are we mocking all Christians? Generally (unless coming from an anti-thiest perspective) the answer is no, just the ones that we (as a western power where the majority is christian or comes from a christian background) find to be wrongheaded. \n\nCan we say the same when we mock Islam? If we can say the same, then you have no problem, if you cannot (e.g. painting all Muslims with the same brushstroke) then you have jumped from mockery to hate speech. Which is far more \"politically incorrect.\"\n\nIt also has to do with being part of the group and being an outsider. I'm betting Bassam Yousef can get away with mocking the Arab world in a way no westerner can. This is because it comes from within the community. In the same way that Jon Stewart can mock aspects of America that would be insulting were it to come from a Non-American. \n\nSince we come from a culture steeped in Christianity Mocking it is a form of \"self\" (the larger self of society) reflection.\n\nIt's also about balance of power. Christians, or at least christian culture (as in the govt. closes for christmas) is the dominant culture in the west. Mocking those in power (punching up, as they say in comedy) is fine. Mocking the disenfranchised (punching down) is much more frowned upon, because it hurts the community more and they have less power and don't have the option shrug it off and still retain their standing.\n\nIn conclusion it's not necessarily more politically incorrect to mock Islam, it's generally how the mocking is done that makes it more insensitive.\n\nBut this doesn't stop people, and hateful things are said about all peoples all the time, especially on reddit."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://charliecowan.co.uk/qiklaxon/klaxon.php?text=extremists",
"http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx"
],
[],
[]
]
|
||
9820po | why does the sound of an alarm clock from my cellphone seems to put me asleep instead of waking me up even if a few minutes earlier i opened my eyes but not as sleepy as i am when the alarm rings? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9820po/eli5_why_does_the_sound_of_an_alarm_clock_from_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4cofr6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It’s because you’re interrupting a fresh sleep cycle, your body naturally wakes up around your alarm clock because it’s subconsciously falling into your daily schedule. When you open your eyes up naturally you feel refreshed because that was a completed sleep cycle, going back to sleep and then waking up minutes earlier essentially starts a new sleep cycle and interrupts it shortly after, leaving you more tired than before.\n\nMy recommendation is the app called Sleep Cycle alarm, it uses your phones metrics to determine when your cycle is about to end and wakes you up at the ideal time."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
njjbf | what does the sleeping drug ambein do to your brain? | I just would like to know for my mother who takes it.
She feels like it makes her trip, and often describes euphoria?
Does reddit have an answer | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/njjbf/what_does_the_sleeping_drug_ambein_do_to_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"c39mhds",
"c39nivc",
"c39mhds",
"c39nivc"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\nELI5: You know how when you have those slumber parties with your friend Timmy? And then late at night when you would usually be asleep, you lay there and talk to Timmy and stay awake longer? Well your brain works the same way. Ambien puts a muzzle on those Gossippy Gus's some parts of your brain use to communicate with other parts that are called neurons. This allows your brain to go to sleep. Now shut your piehole and grab your favorite Uncle Kicker a beer. ",
"**Normal Activity**\n\nImagine your brain is a city, and there are postmen and postwomen that carry messages from one part of the city to another part of the city. They all start off from the post office in the city. From here they go to different parts of the city and deliver letters that tell the shops of the city to keep working. Because of these postmen and women the shops are busy working in the morning. At night the post office stops sending letters to the shops and the shops shut down.\n\n*[the postmen and women are neurons, and the letters/notices are GABA, an acid that keeps brain cells' level of activity constant]*\n\n**People with Sleeping Problems**\n\nThe problem with some cities is that the post office doesn't work really well. So sometimes during the night it doesn't stop sending out letters and the shops have to keep on working because they keep receiving these notices. The problem with this is that the shopkeepers start getting tired and tired but they just can't stop working.\n\n*[without ambien you may feel drowsy but unable to sleep because GABA keeps getting released into the brain]*\n\n**Ambien**\n\nAmbien is like the police. When the post office doesn't stop sending notices to the shopkeepers the police come in and stop the postmen and take their letters. Then they change their letters and tell them to keep going to the shops. But the new letters tell the shops to close down for the night instead of to keep working and so the shopkeepers go to sleep.\n\n*[ambien doesn't stop the GABA release, instead it changes the structure of GABA to tell brain cells to \"shut down\" instead of keeping them active; this is why it's important to take your full 7 hours of sleep after taking ambien - if you wake up early Ambien will still be actively modifying GABA and this can lead to problems]*\n\n**Euphoria and other Side Effects**\n\nBecause Ambien police are changing the letters as they're sent out, sometimes it may take a while before all shops receive their letter to close down. Sometimes shops may receive a combination of letters telling them to close down and keep working at the same time. And finally, because the city itself goes to sleep only when all shops have been closed, and shops can't all close down at the same time, the city has to turn off the lights street by street.\n\n*[Usually this state of euphoria and tripping is a result of the brain shutting down bit by bit. Have you ever had something or someone keeping you awake while you're extremely tired, and you start \"dreaming\" while still \"awake\"? It's that middle point in between. This can be prolonged by Ambien if the brain doesn't just 'shut down'.]*\n\n---\n\n**As a sidenote, Ambien Police would make a great indie/psych band name.**",
"_URL_0_\nELI5: You know how when you have those slumber parties with your friend Timmy? And then late at night when you would usually be asleep, you lay there and talk to Timmy and stay awake longer? Well your brain works the same way. Ambien puts a muzzle on those Gossippy Gus's some parts of your brain use to communicate with other parts that are called neurons. This allows your brain to go to sleep. Now shut your piehole and grab your favorite Uncle Kicker a beer. ",
"**Normal Activity**\n\nImagine your brain is a city, and there are postmen and postwomen that carry messages from one part of the city to another part of the city. They all start off from the post office in the city. From here they go to different parts of the city and deliver letters that tell the shops of the city to keep working. Because of these postmen and women the shops are busy working in the morning. At night the post office stops sending letters to the shops and the shops shut down.\n\n*[the postmen and women are neurons, and the letters/notices are GABA, an acid that keeps brain cells' level of activity constant]*\n\n**People with Sleeping Problems**\n\nThe problem with some cities is that the post office doesn't work really well. So sometimes during the night it doesn't stop sending out letters and the shops have to keep on working because they keep receiving these notices. The problem with this is that the shopkeepers start getting tired and tired but they just can't stop working.\n\n*[without ambien you may feel drowsy but unable to sleep because GABA keeps getting released into the brain]*\n\n**Ambien**\n\nAmbien is like the police. When the post office doesn't stop sending notices to the shopkeepers the police come in and stop the postmen and take their letters. Then they change their letters and tell them to keep going to the shops. But the new letters tell the shops to close down for the night instead of to keep working and so the shopkeepers go to sleep.\n\n*[ambien doesn't stop the GABA release, instead it changes the structure of GABA to tell brain cells to \"shut down\" instead of keeping them active; this is why it's important to take your full 7 hours of sleep after taking ambien - if you wake up early Ambien will still be actively modifying GABA and this can lead to problems]*\n\n**Euphoria and other Side Effects**\n\nBecause Ambien police are changing the letters as they're sent out, sometimes it may take a while before all shops receive their letter to close down. Sometimes shops may receive a combination of letters telling them to close down and keep working at the same time. And finally, because the city itself goes to sleep only when all shops have been closed, and shops can't all close down at the same time, the city has to turn off the lights street by street.\n\n*[Usually this state of euphoria and tripping is a result of the brain shutting down bit by bit. Have you ever had something or someone keeping you awake while you're extremely tired, and you start \"dreaming\" while still \"awake\"? It's that middle point in between. This can be prolonged by Ambien if the brain doesn't just 'shut down'.]*\n\n---\n\n**As a sidenote, Ambien Police would make a great indie/psych band name.**"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.livestrong.com/article/84007-ambien-work/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.livestrong.com/article/84007-ambien-work/"
],
[]
]
|
|
1qnvk7 | why does boiling water smell good? | I know you know what I mean | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qnvk7/eli5why_does_boiling_water_smell_good/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdeo0n0",
"cdf3rlq"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If this is some euphamism that I'm not familiar with, I'm sorry, but here is an explanation of how boiling water affects the olfactory experience.\n\nWe smell things when substances go into our noses, they dissolve a bit into the mucus in the nasal cavity, and they interact with receptors. Boiling water doesn't have a smell itself, but it heats and humidifies the air. The extra humidity aids in the chemicals dissolving in the mucus and the heat makes the chemicals interact with the receptors more vigorously. The result is stronger signals and the ability to smell some things which are normally very difficult to detect.",
"Moisture in the air makes all smells smell more and steam is a lot of moisture so it's probably have to do something with that\n\nNasty fact: that's also the reason why f arting in a shower smells worse than usual."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
8ov0yr | why does fat hold more flavour than muscle? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ov0yr/eli5_why_does_fat_hold_more_flavour_than_muscle/ | {
"a_id": [
"e06cezg"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Fats are the most energy dense of the macronutrients with 9 kcal/g compared to 4 kcal/g for protein and carbohydrates. Given that our distant ancestors evolved through times of scarcity of food, the taste of high calorie, fatty foods is one that our bodies particularly crave. If fats weren't so energy dense or if our bodies couldn't process them, it is unlikely that we would be so drawn to them.\n\nFats also tend to have low melting points, so when cooked, they coat whatever you're cooking with their rich flavors."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3z9wya | how does someone begin budgeting if they've never done so before? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3z9wya/eli5_how_does_someone_begin_budgeting_if_theyve/ | {
"a_id": [
"cykcuxz",
"cykczpt",
"cykczyb",
"cykczyk"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Start with fixing the *no savings* part of the picture. \nEvery time you get a paycheck, put 10% of it into a savings account. \nThis will become your emergency fund. \nNext, for a month or two keep a careful record of every penny you spend. Once you know where your money is going, you will be better equipped to figure out if there are places you could cut back without missing too much. \nIf you are still living with your parents, put a larger amount into savings, so you can build your move-out fund. (Apartments and utilities all require deposits) \nIf you are already on your own, make a list of all your required bills, plus variables that you must have (food, transportation), and whatever is left after those things plus savings is what you are allowed to spend on extras. \nMake it a point to try to save a portion of this extra money; you want your emergency and retirement funds to grow.",
"Budgeting is simply managing your money by setting longer term plans than \"spending when I want, until I run out of money\" which btw is how I do things. For 2016 I have two resolutions: to live according to a budget and to invest in my early retirement plans. If I'm successful I'll be debt free by the end of the year and much better off financially.\n\nFirst, you have no expenses, which is good. It means you have the luxury of being able to save. Savings isn't necessary to budgeting, but once you start budgeting, you can decide to set aside money for savings.\n\nThink of savings as a pot of money for future you. Instead of spending present you's money on whatever goods and services your want, you set aside money for something further ahead. People save for big dollar purchases, retirement, security (just in case something happens that costs more than one paycheck.) Many people recommend saving money, but you need to come up with a reason to save, that is more important to you than spending the money. Otherwise you will spend your money on other things.\n\nWhy do you want to budget? If you shared your goals, we can offer more specific advice",
"This would probably be better posted in the [PersonalFinance](_URL_0_) subreddit as they can probably go through things.\n\nTop level comments are required to be non-anecdotal but for a question like this, I'm not sure how it could be anything else.\n\nI, personally, use a piece of software called YouNeedABudget. It's part method of budgeting and part budget software. If you'd asked 2 days ago, I'd have recommended it in it's previous form. But they've just changed to a subscription model which I don't feel I can support in it's current format.\n\nI'd check out the other subreddit though and hopefully they can help you better.\n\nEdit: changed current to previous",
"Before you take any action or advice on Reddit, your first task is to Google and read up on what budgeting is all about (since you've never done it before).\n\nNext, focus on doing one thing at a time. Practice cutting out things you don't exactly need during a 30 day period. Set aside monies during that period into your bank account (or direct deposit it into another account that you will not use). Practice buying smart and not just the first thing that comes to mind or product that is easiest to find. In the past, people used to think you should always buy name brand, but they failed to realize the only benefit was getting a name, while the product was no different than anything else and also made in China. Many are budgeting by finally starting to buy lower cost items, buying online, avoiding taxes and getting free shipping with it, which adds up to huge annual savings (considering a family budget).\n\nOnce you've practice for a month, start budgeting even more. Make personal adjustments. Everyone is different. Every family is different. Determine what you need and want. Finally, always think ahead of time. You should be budgeting for short-term and long-term goals. Many fail in the budget area because they only look at immediate wants/needs.\n\nHope that helps."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance"
],
[]
]
|
||
2rh9iv | why are we still framing homes with flammable materials like wood when we could use things like i-beams or something else? cost? | The title pretty much explains it. You see on the news everyday stories about homes burning down. Would framing with steel beams or something similar help at all? If so, why is this not standard practice? Thanks. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rh9iv/eli5_why_are_we_still_framing_homes_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnfuucf",
"cnfv1w0",
"cnfv3r8",
"cnfvub6"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yeah, it's almost entirely cost. Wood is amongst the cheapest of all building materials and is more than suitable for most houses. Steel construction is usually reserved for taller buildings as a result of the cost.\n\nConcrete fabrication is overall cheaper than steel [primarily because you still have to clad a steel buildings, while concrete is more or less good to go], but still substantially more expensive than wood frame.",
"Wood is cheap and abundant. Using steel would cost more in raw materials, would require more expensive crews and tools to assemble, more expensive foundations to support heavier frames, more expensive maintenance and repairs, etc\n\nAnd houses would still catch on fire. They are filled with flammable stuff, even if the frame itself is not.",
"A few reasons. It's a cheap, standardized, easy to manage building material (vs stone/steel), the knowledge is readily available and there are advantages to wood framed construction in seismic areas (wood is much more forgiving than concrete and steel). \n\nThere's more, but that's what comes to mind. ",
"It certainly can help if designed properly but making use of steel studs instead of wood can just create other problems. Steel has to be either insulated from the heat of the fire or made of a strong enough gauge such that it will not weaken and collapse in a fire. Initially wood can resist collapse better than steel if the wrong gauge of steel is used in framing. So it is not just the cost of the swap in material it is the cost of making the house fire resistant that can drive up the costs as well. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
txkm6 | the scent of ants | Why do ants omit such a foul smell? And also, why do some people smell them and some cannot? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/txkm6/eli5_the_scent_of_ants/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4qk0a8",
"c4qlwyf"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Ants use smell to communicate between each other. It may smell bad to you but that's because it was never meant for humans, it was meant for other ants.\n\nWhy can't some people smell it? I don't know for certain but it might just be a genetic difference like how some people can't smell the compounds that make your pee smell funny after you eat asparagus.",
"Ants have a smell?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3b1p5l | why aren't porn stars arrested for prostitution? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b1p5l/eli5_why_arent_porn_stars_arrested_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"csi07en",
"csi08me",
"csi1pc2",
"csi88do"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not prostitution if it's for porn. It's protected as a legitimate payment for a service other then just having sex. Porn acting is still considered acting so it's protected.",
"The porn stars are hired by the producer to have sex with each other (or \"themselves\") or do whatever else, and there are laws that govern the circumstances (namely, age of the actors).\n\nAt no time are the actors offering to have paid sex with customers from the general public, which is what a prostitute does.",
"For starters, it isn't completely clear that making pornography is legal in most US jurisdictions. \n\nIn the absence of a law or legal precedence explicitly saying one way or another, it is entirely possible a pornography producer could be convicted under prostitution laws. Most state courts haven't said one way or another.\n\nThat's why most of the pornography production in the US comes form a single state, California. In the 1980's, producer Harold Freeman hired actors for a movie called Caught from Behind: Part II, and those actors explicitly performed all the standard sex acts. As a result, Freeman was charged with pandering, or providing prostitutes to customers.\n\n\nFreeman was convicted and eventually appealed all the way to the California Supreme Court, in the landmark *People v. Freeman* 46 Cal 3d 419 (1988). The court ruled in Freeman's favor, saying prostitution means someone is paid to have sex primarily for the purpose of direct sexual gratification. Being paid to have sex for other purposes is not prostitution, and making a dirty movie is a valid and legal purpose.\n\nThe prosecution chose not to appeal to the federal level, so this ruling only applies to California. However, it has been used as an indirect precedent, as in *New Hampshire v. Theriault*, No. 2007-601 (N.H. Sup. Ct. Dec. 4, 2008).\n\nDoes this mean prostitution is legal so long as you film it? Sorry, no such luck.\n\nJust because you can manufacture some contrived explanation that would make your actions technically legal, a jury still has to buy that is what you were actually doing. If you set out to pay someone to have sex with you because you wanted someone to have sex with you, propping up your cell phone the night stand of a cheap motel isn't going to change that.",
"Remember, if you pay for sex and film it, it's 'art'.\n\nIf you pay for sex with dinner and diamonds, it's 'a date'.\n\nIf you just pay, it's a crime, human trafficking, and exploitive of women."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1mwjf4 | how does spell check determine the closest matching words? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mwjf4/eli5_how_does_spell_check_determine_the_closest/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccdackm"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It depends on which spell-check system you are using.\n\nThe most basic spell-check algorithm will simply identify words in the dictionary that contain a certain minimum percentage of characters found in the user's spelling and have an approximately similar number of characters as the user's spelling.\n\nFor example, if I spell dictionary as dicionary, the spell-check may identify there to be a word 'dictionary' that is of similar length and contains many of the same characters (which are also in the same order) as found in the user's spelling.\n\nMore advanced spell-check algorithms will take into consideration other factors when prioritizing possible word corrections. For example, the algorithm may consider spelling errors caused by typos such as incorrect hand positioning on they keyboard or switched-order typing.\n\nFor example, if you type samlpe, the computer may identify sample as the best correction because it is the same word except for two letters (immediately following each-other) which are switched out-of-order (which may occur when typing quickly).\n\nAs another example, a computer may identify telephone as the correct replacement for telephonw because the letter W is near to the (correct) letter E on the keyboard, so it's likely that the user simply slipped or misjudged their hand position and pressed the nearby key by accident.\n\nOther more advanced spell-check algorithms may also take into consideration phonetic similarities and similar (but slightly different) spellings for word endings.\n\nFor example, if I type the word 'kommentary', the spell-check may identify that the letter 'k' is phonetically similar to the letter 'c' in the word commentary, so it's likely that the user was trying to spell commentary by sounding-out the pronunciation and simply made an error with phonetically similar letters / letter combinations.\n\nAs another example, the the algorithm may be programmed to look for similar word ending variations like 'able' versus 'ible'. So if you type accessable, the spell-check may automatically check if replacing the suffix able with ible is able to correct the misspelling (which it does in this case).\n\nFinally, some spell-checks (namely those built-into search engines) may take into account crowd-sourced information to determine the most likely word spelling correction. For example, if someone searches for grbge and clicks on a 'garbage' link or immediately after searches for garbage, it can indicate that the user was correcting his/her own misspelling. In the future, when other people search for grbge, the search engine may then suggest 'garbage' as a possible spelling correction based on other user's mistakes and corrections.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1qdflk | in terms of society and just in general - how is the united states different from canada? | We already know about universal healthcare and what not so none of the obvious things like that. I want better examples as to how the two are different in terms of society and other things! And please be serious without being cocky about where you're from! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qdflk/eli5_in_terms_of_society_and_just_in_general_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdbp4v7",
"cdbpang",
"cdbpraf",
"cdbrkfu",
"cdbstf0",
"cdbvbqb"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I have to say Canadian and U.S. culture is amongst the most similar of any two countries in the world. Some differences include ideologies, Canadians take pride in their reserve where as Americans take pride in their military strength and Manifest Destiny. I'm from Canada and i think it all stems from how the countries achieved independence. America fought the British in the civil war with the military and achieved success and independence. Whereas Canada fought the British diplomatically. This is why Canadians have parliament similar to that of Great Britain with us paying respect to the Queen and US not having this. ",
"I agree with the earlier comment. The largest difference I've seen is that Americans have this mentality, which is obvious in movies like Independence Day, of this hope where everyone can rally together and overcome thus large obstacle together. While it doesn't seem to play out in real life, there's this hopefulness in the average mindset. Again, I think it's how each country gained its independence. ",
"Well not only was Canada formed with the direct consent of the UK, it was formed with a goal that seperates it from the USA and even our close friend Australia who also took the petitioning the UK route to independence.\n\nWe were formed as a multicultural nation. From day one we've had Quebec in the Canadian federation and to get them to sign up for that we have, since the start, upheld the right for the Quebecois and indeed any Canadian to not fall into the generic UK mold of speaking English and practicing Anglicanism or at least Protestantism.\n\nPerhaps that's why Canada has never had nearly as much religious tension in politics as did and still does the USA. Despite there being a majority government in parliament headed by the evangelical Christian of the furthest right-wing party in Canada (That could get elected, anyway) we aren't hearing nearly so many 'God bless Canada's!' or other obvious religious points. It'd be easy for an atheist to get elected here, people don't really ask our politicians about it much. Even if they did the same city that voted in this right-wing evangelical has an openly Muslim mayor - the first in North America actually.\n\n A bit less important today in terms of culture, but Canada was also formed with the goal of building a railroad that ran all the way to the Pacific in what we now know as the Canadian Pacific Railroad. \n\n",
"Although we are strikingly similar I think 2 things are the root of many of our differences. Not being a Super Power is the 1st. We haven't had to be the heavy and police the planet. We send aid to troubled areas and until recently were at the forefront of many UN peacekeeping missions. We have huge borders with no \"enemies at the gates\" so our reduced military expenditure can fund our social programs and allows us a more relaxed attitude.\nThe 2nd is the almost nonexistence of religion in society and politics. This makes us more tolerant and lets our lawmakers make choices based on reason and logic, (as much as a politician can). We are pro-choice, pot, healthcare, marriage rights because we believe rights come from society, not a bronze-age tribe's view of the world.\nOn a side note, 9 years ago, we voted our foreign-born, socialist, father of universal healthcare as \"The Greatest Canadian\". I imagine a similar American vote would yield a very different result.",
"Bagged. Milk. /thread",
"I lived in a town north of the border. So many times a US citizen would be stopped with a gun in their glove compartment and be shocked when police took it from them. Us Canadians were creeped out that someone would be driving around with a gun in their car. This was a town in an area popular with hunters. It wasn't that people were against firearms, but it was a matter of the right place at the right time. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
b1i7u9 | how different is rain water from the water collected by my dehumidifier? | I’m not sure if this is the right place to ask this. I’ve read that rain water is the best for watering my air plants, as it isn’t loaded with minerals which can build up on the leaves and block the trichomes from doing their thing but with it being winter and having very dry summers sometimes rain water isn’t always an option. I do have a dehumidifier running in my basement most of the time and am able to collect lots of water there. Is rain water different from water collected by my dehumidifier? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b1i7u9/eli5_how_different_is_rain_water_from_the_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"eilucym",
"eilxnqm",
"eimg12k"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's probably not different at all. The water in rain comes from water in the air condensing into clouds. The water in your dehumidifier comes from water in the air condensing into the dehumidifier.",
"It is usually safe for watering plants. That being said, DO NOT DRINK DEHUMIDIFIER WATER. You may get traces of lead or other heavy metals from the dehumidifier components, and dehumidifiers are great breeding grounds for mold and bacteria.",
"Well, those consumer grade room dehumidifiers aren't designed to produce potable water. As someone else pointed out, it collects a lot of nasty crap from inside the machine. You wouldn't want to drink it, and I wouldn't use it to water any plants you plan on eating. For your specific situation, you could store rainwater and snow melt in barrels to use for the dry summer months. Again you wouldn't want to drink it without somehow purifying it (stinks pretty bad on a hot day), but you can safely use it on ornamental and edible plants. \n\nAside from that, both rain and the water in your dehumidifier come from the same source. Humidity in the air condenses either as clouds or on the cooling coils. \n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
lhkoc | why is bacon considered more unhealthy when it is pan-fried and not grilled? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lhkoc/eli5_why_is_bacon_considered_more_unhealthy_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2sqjfy",
"c2srm5b",
"c2sqjfy",
"c2srm5b"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Typically when you grill it, you let the fat drip off.",
"When you grill it, the grease drains. When you fry it, it cooks in it's own fat and the oil in the pan.",
"Typically when you grill it, you let the fat drip off.",
"When you grill it, the grease drains. When you fry it, it cooks in it's own fat and the oil in the pan."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
64fthh | a bank profits from lendning out money at a higher interest rate than it borrows it. where does the money come from that sustains this difference? | Say a bank lends money at 10% and borrows it at 5%. Say they borrow 10M and lend out 9M keeping 1M in cash. The bank gets 900K a year from lending and loses 500K a year from borrowing. That's a 400K difference.
If we don't account for compounding interest, that means each year the bank sucks 400K out of the system. How can this be sustained? Where does the 400K come from? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64fthh/eli5_a_bank_profits_from_lendning_out_money_at_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg1ssim",
"dg1u1o4"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"400k is paid to their employees and investors. \n\nwho in turn spend that money to buy the things produced by the people that borrowed the money to fund their business/life's work.\n\nany money stashed under the proverbial mattress is expected to be inconsequential to the scale of the overall economy.\n\n",
" > If we don't account for compounding interest, that means each year the bank sucks 400K out of the system\n\nThe bank doesn't suck anything out of the system, because the bank is part of the system. It has to pay its tellers, security guards, assistant branch managers, 87 thousand Vice Presidents, the CEO, board members, and maybe even eventually share holders. All of whom are part of \"the system\". And the retained earnings are used to finance yet more loans, which are also part of \"the system\"."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
7sg1hp | are "lost" underground ruins as shown in games like tomb raider or assassins creed possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7sg1hp/eli5are_lost_underground_ruins_as_shown_in_games/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt4fcxq",
"dt4fmw8",
"dt4jjp3"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Probably not worth all of the booby traps, but there are Mayan (and other) ruins in the jungles of Central and South America that haven't been excavated. \n\nSurely there are others around the world that have been forgotten and lost.",
"Agreed with u/jekewa. Archeologists are discovering ruins of lost cities and civilizations on a regular basis. Very possible, but without zombies chasing you or boulders threatening to flatten you :-)",
"It's much more likely that natural caves - reasonably sound when discovered existing and then inhabited or put to use as storage - would remain sound until the present. Then all it takes is having been lost or neglected and rediscovered.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThere are reports I ran across while looking for that link that refer to such caves in the Grand Canyon, but I'm skeptical of their veracity.\n\nYou might also be interested in the Wieliczka Salt Mine. Imagine if THAT was lost, then rediscovered. _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan#Discoveries"
]
]
|
||
34plm3 | vevo | What it exactly is, how does is work and why so many artists use it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34plm3/eli5_vevo/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqx1q1h"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"It's a partnership between google and a bunch of record labels to put music videos on YouTube and split the profits. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2hfyy6 | how does a fountain pen write? | Basically, how does the ink go from the cartage to the tip? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hfyy6/eli5_how_does_a_fountain_pen_write/ | {
"a_id": [
"cksa22d"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The ink flows through thin capillaries. The ink is viscous and adherent to the material of the capillary. This makes it not flow down all the way continuously. When you touch the nib on the paper, the paper absorbs a little bit of the ink from the nib. This causes more ink to take its place. This happens continuously as you write. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1qtu5v | why do apps need access to so much information? | I wanted to install a .gif maker and Google Play popped up saying it wanted to access all sorts including phone numbers and location. Why does it need that info? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qtu5v/elif_why_do_apps_need_access_to_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdgekpc",
"cdgkjzo",
"cdgkv26",
"cdgmnx8"
],
"score": [
17,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are 4 plausible explanations.\n\n1.) It doesn't need it and the developer has been lazy, not specifying exactly what they do need.\n\n2.) It doesn't need it but the developer has plans in the future to maybe add features that do so they just get permission up front.\n\n3.) The app does need it and has features that use that information you aren't aware of. Perhaps you can text your creations to friends. It would need access to their details to do that.\n\n4.) Malicious intent, you think you've got a little useful app but it's actually just a front for some kind of data harvesting operation.",
"Orsenfelt gave a good explanation. I would like to expand upon his third point that the app does need the permissions for non-malicious reasons but you are not aware of why.\n\nThe permissions are very broad in scope. This is necessary so non-technical users can understand what the app they are installing has permission to do. If the scope was fine grained, there would be a lot more for the user to read and it would get more technical thus reducing the chance that the user reads and understands it at all.\n\nAs a result, if a developer wants to add some small feature that requires a permission, he has to require the permissions to do everything that permission allows. For example, in one app I'm developing, I needed to require the permission to allow me to read all of your accounts because I wanted to auto fill the email field for when you sign up so you don't have to manually type it in. This is just a convenience to you and non-malicous. But as a result, the app requires the ability to read all of your account data for all accounts even though I don't use the permission for any other purpose than auto filling the email field.",
"I feel that mentioning the documentary Terms and Conditions May Apply is needed in this thread. \n",
"I get really paranoid when I find a good-looking app but it wants a heap of permissions"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2apjtn | how does https provide you the key do decrypt the encrypted content without being insecure? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2apjtn/eli5_how_does_https_provide_you_the_key_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"cixj53m"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"This [video](_URL_0_) explains it very well with an easy to understand analogy. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3QnD2c4Xovk"
]
]
|
||
3aww49 | why are black people called "black" when their skin is brown? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3aww49/eli5why_are_black_people_called_black_when_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"csgqb5n",
"csgqeg8"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Why are white people called \"white\" when their skin is a pink-tan?\n\nSome white people can be incredibly pale, so their skin is essentially white; similarly some black people can be incredibly dark, so their skin is essentially black.\n\nThere is a whole range of browns between the two extremes, but most people are closer to one end or the other.",
"When they were brought over by slave traders hundreds of years ago their skin was actually much darker. This could be due to birth or the environment. \n\nSlaves were treated poorly. Many didn't take regular baths or showers and were forced to work long hours under the sun. Both tend to make your skin darker for different reasons.\n\nIt could also be due to birth. Many African American families have been in the Americas for hundreds of years. Over that time lots of African Americans and European Americans have made babies together, resulting in 'mulatto' or a lighter brown color commonly seen in America today.\n\nIf you look at photos of Africans today, some have a medium brown skin while others have a very dark brown.\n\n[Imgur](_URL_0_)\n\nThe definitions of colors also changes with time. It could be that what people considered black hundreds of years ago included more shades than black does today."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/SvBNEcI.jpg"
]
]
|
||
247kog | why am i fine to wash my hands under cold water but flinch when trying to submerge any other part of my body in it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/247kog/eli5_why_am_i_fine_to_wash_my_hands_under_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch4k4j3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because we use our hands for literally everything, we are more comfortable with them experiencing a range of different sensations. Our hands often get nicked or cut, fingers pinched in stuff, etc so they are just more resilient."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5maqcd | how does the united states treasury department know how much money to produce, printing notes and stamping coins, each year? | How do they take in account people losing paper notes, accidentally throwing change away, destroying money, storing money for decades, etc. How does the Treasury Department calculate how much money to create every day, month, year? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5maqcd/eli5_how_does_the_united_states_treasury/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc2hc1d"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The Treasury does not know how much cash they need to create. They are told by someone else called the Federal Reserve Bank how much to create.\n\nPeople and businesses don't like to have too much cash laying around because it could be lost or stolen and you have to physically hand it to someone to use it. So they give their cash to a bank to hold for them.\n\nBanks don't like to have a lot more cash than their customers ask for in their vault because they can't do anything useful with it. They send extra cash they don't need to the Federal Reserve Bank. If they're running low, banks ask the Federal Reserve Bank to send them cash. \n\nThe Federal Reserve Bank looks at the cash they are sent and if it is too old or worn they destroy it but remember how much the bank sent them. Banks have to tell the Federal Reserve how much cash they have and how much they think they'll need in the future based off of customer demand.\n\nIf the Federal Reserve Bank has more cash on hand in good condition than they think other banks will ask for in the future they do nothing. If banks are telling the Federal Reserve that they expect their customers to need more cash in the future and the Reserve doesn't have enough cash stored up to meet that demand they ask the Treasury to make more."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
4drw9a | why we only produce computer generated images of black holes using telescopes. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4drw9a/eli5why_we_only_produce_computer_generated_images/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1tqa1a"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Most of what we 'see' when looking at black holes is radiation outside the visible spectrum - radio waves, gamma radiation, cool stuff like that.\n\nSo, almst nothing that shows up is an actual visible picture. (Unless you're a mantis shrimp) and we use computer modelling to approximate those exotic waves as a picture we can see."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4nhv9e | if dna copying errors are random occurences, why do some diseases that are known to be caused by gene mutations can reoccur in their offsprings at a random point in their life? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4nhv9e/eli5if_dna_copying_errors_are_random_occurences/ | {
"a_id": [
"d43zyuk",
"d440s4i",
"d441gll",
"d445l6v",
"d445mfj",
"d449mu8"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3,
3,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"hmm? It's a defect in the genes. The parents have it, they pass it to their kids. \n\nIt might only cause a problem when they're older, like a problem with your heart might lead to a heart attack. \n\nThe fact that the parent (or whatever ancestor) has it might be due to random chance, but it can linger through the generations. ",
"DNA copying errors are not a guaranteed thing. As you said they are errors. The parents DNA could have been copied correctly with their error included.",
"Dna copy errors can happen anywhere. An arm cell can have a copy error that does nothing or that turns it cancerous.\n\nHowever, the mutations that matter evolutionarily are those that happen in the sex cells, egg and sperm. These then get passed to the offsprimg and ends up copied into every one of their cells... including the ones that will eventually split into the egg or sperm. If that error causes a defect, then it will show up gemeration after generation.",
"I recall from school that there are certain patterns more likely to have reading errors. The amino acids are A, C, G, and T. Let's say there is a string of As that are 6 spaces long. Sometimes the DNA molecular machinery will add a 7th A by accident, or truncate it down to 5 As. \nOtherwise the mutation is genetically inherited. Not all diseases may occur if the other allele is normal and can produce a normal phenotypic effect, or if there is incomplete penetrance (the actual expression of the diseased gene is low or nominal).\n\n",
"There are two types of mutations: germline and somatic.\n\n > **Germline:** passed to the offspring at birth.\n\n > **Somatic:** occurs *de novo* in the organism through mutation.\n\nOnly somatic mutations are \"random\". Diseases arising from somatic mutations are almost exclusively cancers. Germline mutations are inherited. The manifestation of heritable disease from germline mutations is called the disease's **penetrance**. Penetrance basically refers to the total fraction of people with the disease relative to the fraction with the mutation.\n\nMany diseases are penetrant at birth (i.e. effects of the mutation are seen at birth). Examples of diseases penetrant at birth include sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, congenital dwarfism, etc. Other diseases' penetrance is **age dependent**. Age-dependent penetrance means effects are only seen at a specific age. The poster child of age-dependent penetrance is Huntington's disease.\n\nSo, to answer in brief, most mutations that cause disease are not copy errors they are inherited. Despite this, just because a known detrimental mutation is present doesn't mean it is phenotypically expressed at birth, it may require a certain age or condition to appear.\n\n",
"Some good answer here but a major factor that has been missed is environmental exposure ill try simplify it as best I can.\n\nLike mentioned you have two types of mutation either germ line or somatic, \n\nGerm line is a mutation passed from your parents and is present in all cells of your body, BUT this does not mean you will contract the associated disease. It just means you have a lot higher chance of developing the disease than someone without the germ line mutation. \n\nSomatic mutation is a random mutation that can occur at any time due to environmental exposure to anything, like sunlight,smoking,drinking,diet,lack of exercise.\n\nSo, basically you can either have mutations randomly occure in life or mutations passed down from your parents, but without the right environmental exposure the disease still may never occur. there is a ton more detail explaining this including alleles and stuff but it wouldn't be explain like im five :D "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
7sbv0y | why when we are horny we are willing to do something we wouldn't normally want to? | I've noticed stories and certain experiences myself where say you'd have a discussion about something sexual and your normal answer would be something along the lines of "no, never". When it comes to the actual moment I've noticed people are more easily convinced to do the same thing they would say no to.
I read a story a while back about a woman who got coerced into anal and she regretted it big time. I've also had experienced myself where I did things I normally didn't really like and also the women I've been with have done stuff they said they didn't like as well.
How does "thinking with your dick" actually happen?
Edit: Never thought I'd get a front page post. Thank you all so much for your answers. Laughed quite a bit at some people lol.
I suppose most people would be interested in this though. Especially you nasty freaks who eat ass. No judging but that's a whole new level of "thinking with your dick".
I came across this post that I think people would be interested in if it doesn't hit top voted. I'll be watching it later :).
There's been plenty of behavior studies on this.
...
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7sbv0y/eli5_why_when_we_are_horny_we_are_willing_to_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt3lz30",
"dt3nn2c",
"dt3o6n2",
"dt41f61",
"dt41z53",
"dt41zpi",
"dt42dsu",
"dt44jdc",
"dt45hye",
"dt4633i",
"dt467vq",
"dt46en6",
"dt46ysf",
"dt4799v",
"dt47bil",
"dt47mwt",
"dt49tgp",
"dt4aigq",
"dt4e0wl",
"dt4hx8j",
"dt4imcl",
"dt4m788",
"dt4nyrr",
"dt4rb4a",
"dt4vv06",
"dt4z42h",
"dt50s4c",
"dt51thk",
"dt52vf4"
],
"score": [
9658,
60,
973,
26,
4,
40,
239,
218,
8815,
7,
28,
5,
4,
3,
2,
4,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
10,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Studies show that sexual arousal reduces feelings of disgust. It works for women and men.\n\nPossible reasons for it could be that it allows people to have sex when they otherwise wouldn't, which is a good trait to have for passing on genes.",
"Since evolution wants us to reproduce as much as possible (though with caveats), when we feel the urge to do so it makes sense that the excitation and all the hormones associated with it would tend to dull our inhibitions and hesitations that might prevent us from doing it. \n\nAnd if parts of your frontal lobe are being inhibited, you're more likely to do other things you wouldn't normally..",
"If you want the chemical reasoning, it's complicated, but a lot of things get secreted in your brain and...elsewhere, when you are aroused. These chemicals tend to inhibit normal judgement. That's the simplest way to put it, honestly, though the effects of being \"horny\" are a bit more complex than that in practice.\n\nI would also argue that a lot of things that people say they would \"normally never do\" are simply things that people won't \"admit\" to ever wanting to do. It depends on the individual, but sexual urges for a lot of people tend to be...well, perverse. Telling yourself that you \"would never\" do something is a self-defense mechanism for many, as is the guilt or regret you may feel after doing the act. It's easier for many to simply distance themselves from how they behave under \"any\" influence, sexual or otherwise.\n\nThis can become a problem sometimes. It is a problem when people have sex that was entirely consensual, for example, which they later regret. In the worst cases, this might lead to false accusations of sexual assault, which does an enormous disservice to real victims. It is a problem when it leads people to publicly denounce certain sexual acts or practices as \"disgusting\" despite them being between consensual adults, simply to justify their own moral or personal integrity to others.\n\nThough coercion is certainly a real thing, and when talking about sex, there's a very vague boundary between coercion and consent much of the time. If you agreed to something while you were \"horny,\" something that might affect your decision-making just as much as drinking alcohol (for example), then can you really be said to have \"consented\" to anything properly in the first place? That's the nature of our biology.",
"\nsee also research by behavioral economist Dan Ariely \n\nDan Ariely and George Lowenstein, “The Heat of the Moment: The Effect of Sexual Arousal on Sexual Decision Making,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making19 (2006)\n\nDan discussing the research (probably NSFW) _URL_0_ ",
"Same reason people you didn't find attractive with suddenly turn you on more when you're horny. Your buddy goes from you to \"I need to pass on my genes\" you. It's a basic instinct to get breeding going on.",
"It's your biological imparitive to survive and reproduce. Everything you do is a result of evolution telling you that you need to do propagate your DNA. Any genes that ran counter to that died out long ago. \n\n\nNow outside of sex, 'survive' is running the show, and manifests as all the things you do to make life better and easier. Going to school, getting a job, staying warm, getting food, etc..\n\n\nBut when sex is involved, 'reproduce' takes the wheel, and anything short of eminent death is set on a lower priority. Dignity? Don't need it right now. Money? Can get more later. Mild injury? Acceptable, you'll live. You must continue your genes, which means anything that won't kill you before the genes are passed on is fine with your brain chemistry. ",
"Well, during sexual arousal your brain floods your body with adrenaline, which helps to remove possible fears and concerns around the outcome of your actions. Combine this with the fact that sex is very different to the *thought of* sex, and it's quite easy to convince yourself that your making a good decision.\n\nThere are also a bunch of social elements involved. If you are asked to do something you normally wouldn't do, but you are already involved in a sexual act, you may feel a need to reciprocate and attend to the person you are having sex with. This is quite a natural thing to do.",
"ABA: If people have not had sex recently, they can be very motivated by it (Deprivation from Unconditioned motivating operation). When something or someone lets them know they might be able to have it (Discriminative stimulus), that can make them more likely to do things that have ended up with having sex in the past (evokes momentary frequency). They may have a learning history in which complying with requests gets them what they want (generalized response class for mand piance). If their behavior is followed by an something that makes them likely to egage in the behavior again (stimulus of positive reinforcement), like an orgasm, they might do that type of stuff again. ",
"You know how in Inside Out there was an emotion called Disgust? Well when you hit puberty you get a new emotion called Arousal. Arousal likes to encourage you to do things that Disgust doesn't like, so whenever Arousal wakes up she ties Disgust up and puts her in a closet. Whenever Arousal goes back to sleep Disgust wakes up, looks over your memories, and gives you her opinions on them... vocally.",
"BioPsychology Student here:\n\nI won't go into details because things get complicated with brain regions. But like some redditors have already pointed out, some studies have shown sexual arousal to have affects on areas of the brain involved with decision making and impulse control.\n\nThis pubMed abstract goes a little into it\n_URL_1_\n\nHere's another article discussing fmri data on the brain\n_URL_0_\n\nI would also give this question a shot in a psychology subreddit. I'm sure you would get some responses",
"Comparing lust to hunger isn’t a perfect analogy - but in this case, I think that appetite angle works well.\n\nWhen you’re hungry, you get more and more fixated on food, the details get less and less important. Consider the phenomenon of going grocery shopping when you’re hungry - or “everything tastes better camping,” or discovering that you actually *do* like a certain food, and you only tried it because of how hungry you were.\n\nWhen your horny, you get more and more fixated on sex, the details get less important. Consider the phenomenon of trying to go on the internet when you’re horny - or “doesn’t matter, still had sex,” or being sure you were a bottom the whole time until a hookup insists that you top for them.\n\nThat shift in priorities as an appetite grows is pretty standard ‘squeaky wheel gets the grease’ stuff, I think.",
"Really strong, OVERWHELMING, cognitive dissonance resolution. Usually when you have an internal conflict, you resolve it rationally. With Sex on the brain, your Limbic system (part of brain) is looking for resolution FAST and EASY, it does what it wants with no basis on how you would usually reason through something\n",
"Evolution makes you want to have sex and much like bring drunk it lowers your inhibitions to go so. You have to remember the only thing our body wants is to reproduce. We make up reasons to live but naturally our only purpose is to reproduce, and sometimes that means having sex or doing sexual things that you normally wouldn’t do.",
"when you’re on the brink of death from starvation, the type of food you’re eating along with your etiquette are probably the last things on your mind. \n\nThat probably applies to other biological needs like thirst, sex, survival, etc. Not sure about the neuroscience behind it, but I’m guessing your higher cognitive functions shut off when experiencing these needs. Higher cognitive functions like reason, logic, etc, give way to a more instinctive, visceral, and emotionally driven response.",
"A simple but less scientific explanation is that your standards change when your desires for anything are high. A severely dehydrated person will be more willing to drink dirty water when normally they would only drink heavily filtered water. A starving person will eat anything resembling food to satisfy their hunger. An angry enough person will destroy their own property to satisfy their rage. Etc.\n\nPeople take actions against their \"normal\" or preferred behavior all the time when the need for satisfaction is strong enough. Sex is no different",
"In psychology, studies have found there is a big difference between self-reporting (what people say they will and won't do) and how they actually behave. Not just for sex but also in alot of other aspects of human behavior. One example that comes to mind is the by-stander effect. Almost everyone who is polled says that they will help someone in need. But we see the by-stander effect crop up time and time again",
"I think the best way to think about it is by comparing it to your other natural drives like the drives to eat and drink. You probably wouldn't just go in your back yard and murder a squirrel and eat it on a regular basis, but after some kind of nuclear apocalypse when you haven't eaten for a while you'd be salivating at the mere sight of the squirrel. I personally think some people are capable of controlling their drives more than others, not everyone would resort to cannibalism in a survival situation, and not everybody turns into a rapist when sexually deprived. Those drives are what's left of our animal instincts in my eyes. Beyond those things we are born with virtually no instincts beyond wanting to suckle on anything nipple shaped and grab anything grabbable as far as I can think of off the top of my head. Comparatively simple animals like Chinchillas (who roll in dust to clean themselves) for instance are born aware of complex behaviours they engage in without any socialisation with their own species. It's hard to understand how these behaviours are passed down, but the simple way to look at it is to imagine it as a literal memory passed down through genes.",
"Our behaviour is normally dictated by trying to meet our needs in [Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs](_URL_0_). The bottom needs to be fulfilled first. We are hardwired to want to reproduce, even if in modern society getting laid doesn't necessarily lead to reproduction. ",
"The structures in your brain governing the urge to reproduce are older and more forceful than the structures that later developed that allowed for higher thought. It's really no different than eating when you're starving; the urge to eat overwhelms any notion of disgust or moral belief. This is why it's so damaging to attach any sort of moral judgment to sexuality; humans just can't help it.",
"We dont. We have some instincts, like if we are hungry, we are likely to eat not only top tier shrimps, but also not so premium food. Same for sex - it doesnt mean that we will do it. Of course, weak minded people cant control themselves, so any instinct that will hit them will wipe away the last bit of humanity in them.",
"Its all about risk and procreation. You won't procreate if you are not willing to take risks. The angry husband can kill you, you can get an STD, even getting pregnant (and fathering a child) is risky. Arousal makes you think \"OH YES\" and ignore all the red flags because IT WORKS. It focuses you on the one important thing and then you become a parent.",
"_URL_0_ is a good video that answers this. Both women and men have parts of their brain that are triggered when aroused. These parts of the brain carry quick satisfaction, gratification and the parts of our brain that have long term consequences mind essentially shut off. That was a rough explanation at best. The video summarizes better, though.",
"The short version is that when we are “horny” our brains direct the release of “happy chemicals” and “closeness chemicals” that basically encourage us to touch ourselves and others. They lower inhibitions at the same time. It’s like being drunk while being capable of operating heavy machinery without a hangover...though regret is possible once the brain returns to its regularly scheduled programming.",
"Okay, some of these answers are getting weird. And no not even talking about the Pixar movie comments.\n\nWhat were talking about in reality is activation of different centers within the brain. Your prefrontal cortex is generally accepted to be the area right behind your forehead, that is responsible for rational, reasoned thinking. MRI Studies have actually shown that when people become angry, areas in your brain a little further back light up like a Christmas tree while your prefrontal cortex switch is off like a front porch light at 10 o'clock on Halloween night.\n\nArousal would work pretty much in the same way. Your prefrontal cortex is there to help you plan for rationing food throughout the winter and what crops to plant for next Season's Harvest. It's not really involved when a bear tries to kill you, or you have a potential of furthering the species. Other sections of the brain, and the endocrine system, are involved with those activities.\n\nSo, if you're looking at some kind of activity but in a calm reason state you would call stupid, insane, or disgusting. That's your prefrontal cortex jumping in and heavily Weighing on your decision making process. When your angry or sad or sexually aroused, those are completely different areas of your brain that aren't really too terribly concerned with logic or revilement. They're more interested in asserting yourself, protecting yourself, or populating the Earth.\n\nLater, after the fact, your rational brain kicks back in and besides that that thing you just did, or person, is really not up to the standards of your calm rational self. And that's when the regret and guilt start.\n\nEdit: I'm on my phone using text-to-speech. I realize some of my contractions are translating into the incorrect contraction and I'm having some issues with random capitalization. I'm not so invested as to go back and fix it.",
"Biological imperative.\n\nNothing else matters, no matter what studies you read. The drive to mate is stronger than the drive to eat, when the need arises. The drive to mate, on the ID side, is the primary force for the entirety of the human race...or all races.\n\nIt can be stupid shit, dangerous shit, or flat out barking up the wrong tree. Your brain gets a whiff or a notion, starts those blockers, dumps that testosterone and you go into overdrive.\n\nLiquor does the same thing :)",
"On top of the hormones, you also have the “foot in the door” principle. If you’re asked to do a big task outright, you’re more likely to say no than if you’re asked to do increasingly difficult tasks leading to that big one.\n\nIn the case of people doing things during sex that they’d normally never agree to, the fact that they’re already having sex makes it easier for them to say yes.\n\nOn state hypnosis works the same way too. Nobody on stage is going to walk up there and just cluck like a chicken, they’re asked to do increasingly silly things l, until they get there.",
"The dopamine pathway . Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that is plays a role in pleasure and motivation. It what fuels the entire universe to keep mating.",
"Your amigdala (the *primal* you) is aroused during the \"four F's\": fear, fight, flight and *sex*.\n\nNormally, you can override the impulses it sends you by using your more rational, more evolved frontal cortex (the *thinking* you) but if the stimulus to the amigdala are strong enough it can actually beat your frontal cortex making you act in ways you may regret later on. \n\nCase in point, if you are a tad horney, you may resist temptation but if you are horney enough, you will surely call that terrible ex and tell him/her you love him/her and that leaving the relationship was the worst you could possibly have done... Your amigdala will be pleased and asleep by the time your frontal cortex needs to mop up the mess \n\nEdit: fighting autocorrect ",
"So I did a bit of a lit review in undergrad as an independent study on basically this exact topic. I'm not an expert and its been years since I went over this material but I'll give you my best run down. For science's sake. The answer exists in two parts of the brain. The nucleus accumbens (NAc) and the frontal lobe. The nucleus accumbens is responsible for reward. So when you ace a math test or use drugs the NAc goes into action supplying a variety of neurotransmitters to the brain. Most importantly in this case, dopamine. The feel good chemical. The same goes for sex. When you're turned on, a neurohormone called oxytocin interacts with the NAc and tells it to release more dopamine. Hence why people will also do just about anything for a bag of heroin if they're already down that dark path. The stronger the drug, the more dopamine. Likewise, the better you feel during sex, the more dopamine is released. Now here's where the real fun comes in. When you're turned on or on that hunt for drugs, your frontal lobes show a marked decrease in activity. The frontal lobe is responsible for \"higher order thought\" such as planning ahead, weighing consequences, and making decisions. With less activity occurring here we would expect that you are experiencing some sort of disruption in your ability to make good decisions. Through this extremely effective cocktail of neurotransmitters you become more likely to do things that you otherwise never would even consider when \"sober\". I eventually came to think of it as a Darwinian process. Because of this neurochemical cocktail we are more likely to have sex with people outside of our usual realm of people we relate to. Because of this, the gene pool becomes diversefied by the mixing of so many uncommon or less likely partners. Through diversification, new phenotypes and adaptations emerge. Some of these adaptations turn out to be beneficial to the species and thus the genes are carried on. And thus the species evolves. \n\nI apologize now for any spelling or formatting errors as I am on mobile at work and can't access a pc right now. \n\nIf anyone would like insight into these topics the two primary books I got this information from are listed below.\n\n\"The splendors and miseries of the brain\" by Semir Zeki\n\n\"Predictably irrational\" by Dan Ariely\n\nIn fact there's a study in the Ariely text that specifically tests OP'S question. It involves college students, a laptop, and saran wrap..... :)\n"
]
} | []
| [
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7sbv0y/eli5_why_when_we_are_horny_we_are_willing_to_do/dt42byj?utm_source=reddit-android"
]
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuTP1XJWKmA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/125/5/1014/328126",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26310879/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg/2000px-Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs.svg.png"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/5ioQ8a7o3Mo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
32bwbz | how do american football players get head injuries when they wear protective helmets? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32bwbz/eli5_how_do_american_football_players_get_head/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq9r3pw",
"cq9r5pq",
"cq9r8nk",
"cq9rej5",
"cq9syax",
"cq9w4ma",
"cqa2jed"
],
"score": [
11,
5,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The helmet protects the skull from getting smashed and bruised. Inside your brain is connected to tissue in almost a free floating state. Imagine spider webs holding the brain in place.....when you get hit, the sudden movement causes your brain to smash into the front and rear of your skull. So it's actually your brain getting beaten to shit, tearing vessels and tissues along the way. ",
"No matter how much cushion you have, your brain is going to smack into your skull if you get hit hard enough. Those are the concussions. Your brain sloshes around in fluid. ",
"So basically, your brain is surrounded by fluid. It has some room to move around. When you have a heavy collision with something at high speed that stops your body like hitting some one in football, your brain is still in the forward motion, causing it to knock around in your head a bit. No matter what the protective equipment you have can do to minimize it, your brain is still going to hit your skull from it. This causes mild to severe brain trauma depending on the intensity, frequency and longevity of doing this. It causes bruising on the brain and can have long term effects. \n\nTLDR: your brain is floating in fluid so it bounces off your skull when you hit/get hit causing bruising on your brain. ",
"People here haven't mentioned how these athletes actually play, which is important. \n\nWhen you put a helmet on it makes you feel safe. You then use your whole body, including your head, to stop a 350lb by running right into him. Constantly doing that is like slamming your head on a brick wall, over and over again. ",
"Helmets are designed to reduce the likelihood of skull fractures and frankly can't do much more than that. As far as I can tell, there are very few skull fractures in the NFL today.",
"It's the act of your physical brain bouncing off the inner walls of the skull with some force that could cause some temporary or even permanent damage. ",
"A helmet is a good way to stop something from penetrating or smashing the skull. It doesn't protect against impact, no matter what technology is in the helmet that is still your head slamming into something, concussions will still happen."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
48aocz | what was so different about pre-9/11 america? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48aocz/eli5_what_was_so_different_about_pre911_america/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0i3lhz",
"d0i3rn8",
"d0i3v2x",
"d0i4767",
"d0i4lgd",
"d0i4n17",
"d0i5dse",
"d0i5g0f",
"d0i6dh3",
"d0i6jsu",
"d0i6klt",
"d0i6kxb",
"d0i6r4e",
"d0i6spi",
"d0i6t3z",
"d0i6y6z",
"d0i738o",
"d0i777h",
"d0i7f1r",
"d0i7her",
"d0i7o4z",
"d0i7wbi",
"d0i87pf",
"d0i87yg",
"d0i88zd",
"d0i8a90",
"d0i8axp",
"d0i8c3c",
"d0i9ipc",
"d0i9xr1",
"d0ia1vb",
"d0ia3ul",
"d0ia4mi",
"d0ial8z",
"d0iavpq",
"d0ibhuh"
],
"score": [
164,
4,
4,
18,
17,
53,
6,
7,
12,
2,
47,
92,
4,
10,
8,
8,
2,
2,
4,
10,
3,
10,
4,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The United States felt largely untouchable. It existed in its own safe bubble from any conflicts the US was involved in. There really had been no major threat to the mainland. Things like security at airports was laughable compared to after. But largely it's an attitude change, people were no longer as trusting or fearless to some extent. ",
"Internationally it also brought the threat closer to home, there had been localised attacks throughout areas of Europe and I'm sure America as well. The scale of 9/11 was so much different to anything else that had happened, it was the sort of thing that people wouldn't have even thought was possibly, hi-jacking two/three planes, destroying an international symbol and destroying two such big buildings too. It changed the game for the world community, the fight was no longer small scale plots by isolated people but big plot could be enacted successfully.",
"First let me tell you that you're lucky you have no memory of it, I was in Jr. High when it happened and I still remember where I was and what class I was in.\n\nBut Basically security got vamped up, use to be you could say stuff like \"That's the bomb!\" If you say it now you'll likely get arrested for issuing a bomb threat, also I once accidentally brought a pocket knife to school before 9/11 it was just taken from me, now if you do this you're arrested.",
"From an outside perspective, as someone who was growing up in a Canadian border city at the time. Canadians used to be able to get into the US very easily (at least by land, air restrictions happened a bit earlier, but I think still after 9/11), when I was a child you pretty much just needed some identification showing you are a Canadian citizen, for most people a driver's license or a birth certificate (though, I believe a birth certificate was only valid for minors).\n\nCanadians cannot enter the US now without a passport, or more recently something called an \"enhanced driver's license\" which has more information on it, such as citizenship (since you can get a license without being a citizen).\n\nOtherwise, entering the US by land hasn't changed too much, except that it tends to be a slower process (I also have the advantage of being a white male; I suspect that racist incidences at the border have increased, but that's really just a \"gut feeling\"). I believe there are stricter restrictions on Americans returning to the US as well. I've never gone through the border with an American, but as I understand it you need more identification as an American to return to the US than you do to enter Canada.\n\nInterestingly though, even with all the new security measures, security always happens *after* you cross the bridge. When you go into the US, you meet with US customs on US land, when you come back you deal with Canadian customs on Canadian land, so whatever security is in place actually happens after the border crossing\\*. This isn't really a big deal, but it seems a little odd to me with all the increases in security. On the other hand, the solution would either require a checkpoint on both sides, or to place American customs on Canadian land and vice versa, I have heard some talk of the latter, but I think it's just speculation at this point.\n\n\\* This is significant for a few reasons, mainly because at this point if you are not allowed to enter the US, you can be arrested for illegal entry. If stopped on the other side, they should stop you before you illegally enter the country. Normally, I believe the response is to just send you back (if there's no other charges), but customs officers don't have a lot of oversight so the whole thing is a bit scary (but generally, you *should* make sure you're legally allowed to enter a country before you leave another one).\n\ne; Thinking back now, for a few years after 9/11 there was a *lot* of added security at the border crossing, I seem to remember the crossing being backed up about 20km for most of the day up till around 2005 or so. It was a few years later when I became aware of this though, so it may not have happened right after 9/11, or may have been in response to something other than those events.\n\nAlso, the border crossing in question is between Windsor and Detroit.\n\ne; I would also like to mention that I'm only about four years older than you. I was kind of aware of what was happening, but still too young to really understand the impact it would have.",
"America felt like it was an unstoppable teenager that would live forever and could do anything. The rest of the world may have problems but that didn't matter to us because we were the best and we knew it. Like most teenagers transitioning into adulthood we got a rude awakening once 9/11 happened. I'm glad I grew up well before 9/11 but I do feel that kids today have a way better grasp on the way the world works than I did as a kid. It was a hell of a price to pay for that knowledge though.",
"Security. \n\nBefore 9/11 going to airport was much easier. You still had to walk through a metal detector and carry on luggage was x-rayed, but the rules were different. Liquids were no problem. Pocket knives were no problem. They were almost exclusively concerned about guns, and not much else. Obviously a large hunting knife would probably need to go into checked luggage, not carry. I remember when my Dad gave me a rifle in the late 80's, I simply checked it in at the airport. It was just luggage.\n\nHomeland security did not exist. Pat downs were almost non-existent.",
"One of the biggest differences from pre to post 9/11 United States is the change in the New York skyline. \n\nAnother difference is the large rise of music about freedom, 9/11, and soldiers. These songs are largely found within country and western music, but examples can be found in many genres. A partial list can be found [here.](_URL_0_) ",
"When I met someone at the airport, I used to go right to the gate to meet them. I had to go through the metal detector, but that was no big deal.\n\nPeople in the military were just regular people. No one stopped them on the street and thanked them for their service.\n\nWhen I was in high school, I always carried a pocket knife, and I was not unusual.\n\nWhen I was in 5th grade, our teacher took the class out to a gun range and showed us his gun collection, firing a few rounds from each gun.\n\nEveryone knew if you were on an airplane that got hijacked, the proper thing to do was to just sit quietly and be passive. Hardly anyone died in most hijackings. After 9/11, I think it pretty much became impossible to hijack an airplane because the passengers aren't going to sit and be docile.",
"These are all good answers... But the first thing that came to my mind is \"Holy cow, he is 18 and doesn't remember 9/11\" \n\nI just forget how old I am! I remember it like it was last week... \nBecause of the lasting impact it made on the people who remember it we now view the world a little differently... A bit more un-trusting and cautiously. ",
"Here's an example: before 9/11, the main news story one night was, 'are subway commuters talking too loudly on their cell phones?' Now it's terrorism everywhere. ",
"The biggest difference? No one really cared if you were Muslim.",
"The Patriot Act.\n\nI was born in the early 70's. There was a lot of worry when I was a child about WWIII, nuclear attacks, Communism, etc... Cold war things. After the Berlin Wall fell things settled for a bit, but not long.\n\nI was 27 when the towers fell. Before the towers fell and the introduction of the Patriot Act we led more normal lives. The Patriot Act which is an extraordinary reach of powers changed our lives in so many ways it's almost incomprehensible. From increased police powers, surveillance, credit reporting (yeah thanks bin laden), banking, and on and on.\n\nThe actual socio-economic impact of the Patriot Act has yet to be fully realized. ",
"I turned 18 about six months before 9/11. I had just started a relationship with a girl who was moving out of state for school. I was able to have one of those \"running through the terminal at the last minute to say 'I love you'\" tearful goodbyes only seen in the movies. I went back to the same airport later that year to fly out and see her only to wait in security lines for three hours and miss my flight. There's obviously more that has changed, but that is one of my most vivid memories of that time.",
"I don't actually remember hearing about \"terrorists\" or \"terrorism\" before 9/11. If I had, it was only in the context of things that happen in the Middle East, but back then I think they were \"extremists\"?\n\nBasically after 9/11 fear immediately permeated everyone and everything, and it hasn't ever really gone away. People are so afraid of terrorists, it colors political campaigns and what rights people value. As others mentioned- in the US we always felt safe, so we could worry about petty things like freedom and convenience. Now we don't feel safe, so security trumps all other concerns, even if we're still very secure....",
"Naivete. The United States had enjoyed almost 200 years of peace on its Northern border, 150 years of relative peace on its Southern border, and a degree of invulnerability due to simple geography for the vast majority of its history. The last time American soil was successfully attacked in a particularly violent fashion was arguably the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor at the start of America's entry into World War Two, and Hawaii wasn't even a state yet.\n\nThe September 11th Attacks showed us that it was possible for very bad things to be done to us by outsiders on our soil. This was further compounded by discovery that our investigative services dropped the ball, allowing our own flight schools to train the very terrorists that attacked us, and that when our investigators identified the dangers they were ignored. (see the Phoenix Memo)\n\nAfter the attacks, a lot of things that were permitted or tolerated were either made illegal or were no longer tolerated, and law enforcement was given a lot of authority that it did not necessarily have before. This has been looked on as having chilling effects, similarly to how the FBI used to investigate civil rights activists during the Red Scare of the 1950s. People have not felt that they are free to engage in activities or advocacy without coming under investigation from the authorities.",
"Wow... We have to start explaining it to people now. It's going to be textbook history not too long from now(not like they'll talk about pre 9/11 freedoms). This is incredible to me.",
"Flying was much less stressful. Some people actually enjoyed it. International flights were more lax, pilots would invite children into the cockpit, people would bring actual bottles of real water into the plane without repercussion. It was truly a lawless time. ",
"I live in Russia. When 9/11 happened I was 14 and it was the first time in my life when I heard about Muslims. And the first thing I learned about them is that they commit suicide attacks and bomb innocent people. \nI'm 29 now and still struggle to accept Islam as another religion like Buddhism and Christianism. To it's like destructive ideology like fascism. ",
"They were looking for drugs. Whether in the airport, crossing a border, or traffic stop. Looking like the stereotypical pot smoker, I never made it through airport security without being pulled aside and searched (at least over twenty instances) After 9/11........ never searched again. The whole focus of security had suffered a paradigm shift. Now the dude with hair down to his ass is not the face of the enemy. It is now brown people from Asia and the Middle East. It was weird to go from -every cop in the airport sizing you up- to, -being practically invisible- ",
"Much less fetishizing of American flags and patriotism. Those things were around but not in your face all the time.\n\nCNN had higher ratings than Fox News. Also, the news scroll at the bottom of the feed was born on 9/11.\n\nA sense of national optimism was replaced by anger and fear, that's how I felt anyway.",
"Optimism about the future. \n\nAmerica in the 90's had just gotten out of the Cold War, and for the first time in anyone's memory we weren't involved in some active battle over the fate of the Globe. There were no credible enemies, the threat of nuclear annihilation had ended, and it legitimately felt like we were \"Winning\" History. We believed that we were in the process of solving all the problems of the past, such as Racism, Sexism, Poverty, Pollution and the like. All the \"Bad guys\" were weak and on the run, and we just had to mop up. The \"We\" being the united states, obviously, and it's important to note the \"Process\" part. We didn't think the problems were solved already, we knew we had work to do, but we thought the end result was no longer in question. A Utopian future was within reach, and all we had to do was coast towards it. We all also thought that everyone shared a mostly compatible vision for what the good future was, and any differences would be figured out. After all, all the bad guys were gone now, and everyone else meant well, even if they were a little misguided. ",
"Any one else notice a shift in the thematic elements of pop culture after 9/11? Take movies for instance:\n\nIn the years up to 9/11 (1998-2001,) Anti-establishment movies like the Matrix, Donnie Darko, American Psycho, Mulholland Drive, Fight Club, Office Space, American Beauty, Momento, Eyes Wide Shut, Fear and Loathing, Big Lebowski, Vanilla Sky, Truman Show, American History X and others weren't just made, they were insanely popular and mainstream.\n\nAlso, most of the biggest franchises started in 1999-early 2001, (lots that would become 'franchise zombies after 9/11) like Xmen, Fast and Furious, LotR, MiB, American Pie, Rush Hour, Shrek, Harry Potter.\n\n\nAfter 9/11, it seems like Movies tastes and productions became more 'safe' and 'normal' and overall more escapist and shallow. The anti-establishment or anarchist overtones were gone. The top movies were now generally fantasy, period pieces, generic action movies. We saw the rise of the comic book franchise making buku bucks. We saw the torture porn like Saw, Final Destination and Hostel start new a trend in horror that we still deal with. The rise of the status-quo lovin' Judd Apatow comedy being the standard. Military propaganda began a new chapter in December of 2001 with Black Hawk down. \n\nThere was even a noticeable difference in style and \"point\" of tarantino movies between his hiatus of Jackie Brown (1994) and Kill Bill (2004.) \n\nIt's been awhile since i saw a good, popular movie that made me question authority. I remember getting so pumped for radical change after seeing the Matrix the first time, man. Music is another. RatM wasn't only just 'fuck the establishment' it was crazy popular too. Remember when \"selling out to the man\" was a mark of blemish, instead of a necessary course of events for a work/artist to be noticed?\n\n\nThis could be all confirmation bias and rose tints on my part tho. There are exceptions like Minority Report and V for Vendetta. But overall it seems that people sensibilities in regards to authority and existence were changed (for the worse) after 9/11. Now 'deep' movies are either just personal drama tales, or heavy handed like Christopher Nolan's stuff.\n",
"The fear. \n\nPeople weren't afraid of everything. The idea of a large scale terrorist attack on US soil was almost laughable. You couldn't imagine living in a nation where the government was allowed to collect your phone records, or put you on a no-fly list, or disregard your Constitutional rights. You didn't fear that the police would shoot you because you had a phone in your hand, or that making an off-color joke online would get you jailed for making \"terroristic threats\".\n\nThe saddest thing of all, looking back in what we've become - the terrorists won. Their goal wasn't to destroy America, it was to scare us enough that we'd let fear destroy what we stood for. For all the laws, the posturing and the lives we've lost to fight terror, I'm more scared and less safe than I was 20 years ago. The worst part of all is that I'm less afraid of terrorists than I am of my own countrymen.",
"I grew up just down the street from Columbine High School and I was real young when 9/11 happened.\n\nWe as a community got a head start on the whole \"the enemy could be anywhere, the whole world is a war zone.\" attitude. I can't speak much for America before, but I remember that decade of 2000-2010 being defined by an overwhelming anxiety that nobody is safe anywhere. ",
"well, for one thing, you could use an airport without being treated like you are are a new arrival at Dachau.\n\nalso, the idea that the government reads your emails would have been completely unacceptable. But one by one, Americans have just handed over their civil liberties, in favor of perceived safety.\n\noh and one more thing, before 911 it was okay to not be in agreement with US foreign occupation. say anything out loud now and you 'hate freedom'.\n\njust my 2 cents",
"I'm 30, and was 15 on 9/11. America went from issuing warnings about the evils of communism and spying to doing exactly those things; and the overall feeling has changed completely. Before 9/11, there was far more trust in other citizens and other people in general (including foreign folks), whereas now, there is just way less trust everything, in and outside of the country.\n\nAmerica stopped being optimistic, and just became so much more fearful - and people are still afraid of these nebulous threats. Many people became, and still are, fearful of anyone from the Middle East, or who just might sort of look that way. When I was in college just a couple years later, I had a few Middle Eastern friends who would just say they were from India or similar to lessen the racism thrown at them (I had one acquaintance who would only use an old name for his country which had changed many years previously). If you would have described to a person from the 1990s, the laws passed and actions taken by the government in the name of fighting terrorism, they would have guessed you were talking about a communist, totalitarian country rather than the US.\n\nI consider myself lucky that I was able to grow up when America was still America, instead of the wannabe totalitarian republic it is turning into.\n\nI think the change in airport security is linked to 9/11 for people because it changed so quickly, whereas it took time for laws to be passed - the USA PATRIOT ACT did take like a full month and a half to pass. As to airports, when I was like 10, I accidentally brought a pocketknife with me when going on a plane flight; the security screener basically was like \"really? next time, put this in your checked bag\", then *gave it back to me to take on the plane*. I imagine that if that happened now, 10 year old me would have a record.",
"You could travel everywhere without showing ID. If you wanted INTO many foreign countries, you'd need a passport, of course. But if you wanted to fly from one coast to another, you could just hop on a plane.\n\nWe used to make fun of Russia (\"Papers, please.\") for being so restrictive on their citizens. It was downright unAmerican to imagine not being able to travel without showing ID.",
"Innocence was lost for so many that day. Pre 9/11 we really felt like a protected place. It was base, who would have the audacity to harm United States soil?? And then it happened, just like that. Gone were the day trips to Canada just to drive though the beautiful scenery because you were close to the border and could; gone were the last minute hugs as you boarded you flight, and one more last glance and a wave as your plane taxied out. It was unthinkable that it happened here. Catastrophic terrorist events were something we were detached from, something we watched on the news, something that our collective ego never let us believe would affect us so personally. ",
"9/11 was and is called a tranformational moment in the way pearl harbor was. In reality though I don't think it was. There were incremental changes to US domestic security, domestic law enforcement, and US foreign policy but really nothing major. The US launched two small wars as a result (small in the sense that it lost fewer soldiers than were killed in a typical single day of WW1).\n\nReally though nothing significant changed. Right now I kind of expect 9/11 to be something of a historic foot note.",
"For myself personally it's been watching our citizens take that wad of grey matter between their ears and toss it to the bin in fear of the boogie man that is terrorism.\r\rWhen a country lives in fear of some threat from within they willingly give up civil liberties to feel safe, that the threat is being rooted out.\r\rThis isn't a unique thing, we massively violated the rights of Japanese Americans during WW2 and back pedaled a lot in the cold war's red scare.\r\rThe thing is after each occurrence while we corrected some of our worst violations, some of the liberties surrendered were never reclaimed.\r\r9/11 just sets us back as a free people that much further. The patriot act among the worst violations. Our right to privacy is reeling, toss in the word terrorist or enemy combatant and you can forget getting a fair trial.\r\rI would say 9/11 is a tipping point. Where it's not unique on how it impacted our society into fear mongering and giving up freedoms, it was close enough to home to give up so much that we're riding the fence of becoming a police state. There is no such thing as a \"free police state\" not long term.\r\rAs such we as a society seem to be splintering into two camps. The first camp is ready to give everything over little by little in fear of the bad guys. The other camp sees our government little by little becoming the bad guys.\r\rBoth sides are acting in what they think is best, some to extremes. Extremes which encourage more fear mongering. A self feeding beast.",
"You know the NSA spying thing? High level officials would have resigned or been criminally charged prior to 9/11 for that kind of thing...",
"I remember as a young kid I could ride my bike down to the Nuclear Power plant and gain access to inside of the facility's fences. There was no gate or employee to check in with, you just welcomed yourself like you were going to Wal-Mart; state parks had a tighter clearance for entry at the time. I would walk up up to the last fence which separated the grass and big cooling stack and just look up to the top for a while (they really are impressive.) Then, I would wander for 15 minutes or so, find shade under a tree and then ride my bike out to go back home. So every few days for 30 to 45 minutes there was just a kid wandering a nuclear power facility and no one approached me to ask why or tell me to stop.\n\nAfter 9/11 I couldn't even ride my bike down adjacent roadways to the plant without a military vehicle (I believe it was National Guard) stopping and instructing me to turn the other way. They patrolled 24/7 for what I estimate was a year after 9/11, if you made the mistake of approaching the power plant and you weren't an employee of the plant, you were sometimes detained and they were apparently not pleasant about it. That post lasted a few years after the patrols ended. I haven't been to the plant since, probably won't be able to experience being at the base of those stacks again, either; which is a shame because now that I have kids I think it would have been cool to share some of the same experiences I had growing up.\n\nAnyway, there were some rumors that a guy sold some of his nearby property (or that it was taken by Uncle Sam) and it's been used for housing weapons systems for the plant's defense. I tend to believe that.",
"People largely knew the bullshit false dichotomy of security vs liberty was just that, bullshit.\n\n\nIt would be thought to never have been possible the American populace would welcome fascism in daily aspects of life.\n\n\nRacism, dying on its own, was suddenly revived. Some on part of people hating Muslims because of the attackers, but most in part of media, political, and academic sensationalism which feeds on pushing the racism crap in every portion of life.\n\n\nGovernment was not considered the end all be all of everything. Presidents weren't heralded as kings that somehow \"ran\" the country, and government was not considered to be the answer to all (that sentiment had been growing before 9/11 but it was catapulted to new heights after 9/11).",
"Class of 01 checking in. First of all, an abandoned bookbag on the side of the road didn't end with a call to the bomb squad.\n\nI'm going to echo a lot of other folks in that, yes, optimism was more pervasive. There was a feeling that the Internet was a thing that would intellectually liberate us, rather than Big Brother spying on our every move. That's as much a statement against Steve Jobs as it is the Federal Government though. But, that said, if the Snowden revelations had happened in 1996 liberals and conservatives alike would have *lost their fucking minds*. Partially because we both agreed that the government couldn't be trusted, the main disagreement was over which ways the government couldn't be trusted. As it stands most people outside of reddit think Snowden and Wikileaks is the same thing and that all any of them did was give away troop positions or something. People are willfully ignorant on matters of national security and they think it's a one way proposition. It's as much about being safe from the government as anything else. That was so much of the point behind the way The Constitution was written, and I don't know about now but we were damn sure taught that in school.\n\nAlso we were only in 1 or 2 wars at a time and they were all fairly manageable. I can't even keep track of which countries we have 'peace keeping forces' deployed in anymore, let alone how many. And don't even get me started on the idea that we could hold \"detainees\" indefinitely before 9/11.",
"One day me and a troublemaking friend if mine got pulled over by a cop because we were suspected if stealing from a store.. We had receipt for everything so it was ok.. Then the cop opened my binder and found a printed out version of the anarchist cookbook and then the cop saw materials to make small explosives.. \n\nSo what does the cop do? \n\nHe laughs and calls a another cop in the area to meet us at our field that we were going to try to blow up a old TV with draino bombs. \n\nToday I probably would be labeled a terrorist for even having the anarchist cookbook and arrested on the spot for materials that could make a bomb. ",
"You know, the auto mod on this thread can go fuck itself. Removed my post because \"no science\". Well go fuck yourself, robot, becauae there is no science behind \"feelings\" and that is A LOT of what is different since 9/11.\n\nDid I say go fuck yourself? Fucking bots"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_about_the_September_11_attacks"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
784bkl | ninth amendment | Canadian here. What is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, and what are examples of laws that would violate the Ninth Amendment. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/784bkl/eli5_ninth_amendment/ | {
"a_id": [
"doqze51",
"doqzedi",
"doqzp5k",
"dor0fct",
"dor8wit"
],
"score": [
26,
14,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It basically allows for the possibility that the founding fathers didn't account for 100% of the rights a person has and will always have and allows for \"common sense\" interpretations of those rights so that they don't need to be explicitly stated in the bill of rights for them to exist and be real.\n\nIt's basically meant to ensure the government doesn't try to restrict peoples rights to the limit of a literal interpretation of the bill of rights. So even if a law was crafted that was meant to restrict all free speech except what is explicitly stated in the first amendment, the law would fail because the 9th amendment says there may be more rights that are covered but not writen in the bill of rights.\n\nThis helps keep the door open for future amendments that are meant to specify rights that weren't writen down previously. ",
"It has one main purpose. To protect rights not listed.\n\nIt says that just because something isn't listed in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right. An example of this is the right to privacy. The idea is that without it, it could be argued that only those listed are rights people have.\n\n",
"The drafting and ratification of the US Constitution was a hotly controversial subject resulting in lots of compromise. For fear of the US (or any government, really) devolving into Tyranny, certain representatives wanted assurances, explicit limitations on government power. Many people proposed many such limitations, which James Madison patiently codified into 12 amendments, 10 of which were accepted with the Constitution and became what was known as the Bill of Rights.\n\nThis was not without debate either. Critics of the Bill of Rights argued that it wasn't necessary to explicitly limit the government because the government could only do the things it was explicitly permitted to do in the main body of the Constitution. That is, if the main body of the Constitution doesn't say the government can establish a religion, then we don't need an amendment saying it *can't* establish a religion.\n\nFurthermore, if you jot down explicit things the government can't do, people might infer that, if it wasn't included as a limitation, then the Government is allowed to do it. That is, by including these limitations you might have the opposite affect and empower the government to do things it was never intended to do!\n\nIn comes the 9th Amendment. It is a bulwark against that implication. Basically it is a reiteration of the basic principle of the Constitution: the government is only allowed to do the things the Constitution says it can. And that just because *some* limitations are noted here, and some *rights* are offered protection doesn't mean other rights not mentioned aren't also protected.\n\nThere really isn't any specific law that would violate it. Instead, it prevents the government from restricting rights not enumerated merely because they weren't mentioned as being protected.",
"That amendment is the most broad. \n\nBasically the founders recognized that even though they specifically mention some rights in the constitution that they probably couldn’t mention every right, and couldn’t predict every right that people have an should exercise. \n\nAs a result, the 9th amendment specifically states that anything not mentioned in the constitution is still a right reserved by the people and the states. In other words “if we forgot to mention something, it’s still your right”. \n\n\nThis is a really good discussion of the situation that led to the 9A:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAn example of a law that *might* violate the ninth amendment could be one that prevents people from from getting abortions, for example. (Although recent litigation doesn’t generally use 9A claims) Abortions are not specifically mentioned, but one could suggest that a right to control ones body exists naturally as part of being human, and would thus be protected by the 9A. \n\n",
"It basically means your rights \"include, **but are not limited to**\" those in the Constitution, to borrow language you may be familiar with from everyday contracts. \n \nThe Supreme Court will often form arguments by expanding upon the rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, beyond their original meaning. The Ninth Amendment gives them license to do so. They try to imagine the intent of the Constitution and apply it to new situations. They may also devise entirely new rights based on common sense if the Constitution is silent on a particular issue, but someone else would have to comment on whether that has been done before.\n \nAn example would be taking the First Amendment Freedom of Speech and expanding that to imply freedom to remain silent or freedom from being compelled to speak, such as a compulsory pledge of allegiance."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/9th-amendment.html"
],
[]
]
|
|
1tegow | does it snow and hail in the middle of the ocean? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tegow/eli5_does_it_snow_and_hail_in_the_middle_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce75c2g"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Yes. \n\nSource: I have experienced it, I am a sailor."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
78g1vi | since light can move from one location to another, does that mean it's movement carries a force from the momentum? | ELI5: since Light can move from one location to another, does that mean it's movement carries a Force from the momentum?
I was looking into Solar Sails, and how they use light to push off the sail, but if light carries a Force from momentum, shouldn't a flashlight be able to propel itself without any solar Sails? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/78g1vi/eli5_since_light_can_move_from_one_location_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"doths73",
"dotjsis",
"dotk0jm",
"dotkwfb",
"dotmn09",
"dou17sg",
"dou20kd",
"dou35vm",
"dou40c2",
"dou4g1r",
"dou5d88",
"dou5tve"
],
"score": [
1757,
949,
44,
8,
6,
8,
4,
3,
6,
6,
4,
184
],
"text": [
"Light has momentum.\n\nHowever, the momentum of the light is very small in comparison to the mass of the flashlight. Sure, a flashlight would propel itself across outer space, it's just a lot slower than other things of that mass.\n\nSolar Sails have to be very, very large and very, very light. Such things can be built in space. Then you can make them go with a massive laser on the ground, or a star. Both of those power sources are much too massive to take with you.",
"Light (more specifically photons) has momentum it's just tiny, like really really tiny. \nIn order to effectively harness that momentum the object needs to be extremely light-weight and the stream of light propelling it needs to be extremely strong. (think megawatt lasers or light from a star) \nA good historical example of radiation pressure (the formal name what you're proposing with a flashlight) is the [Pioneer anomaly](_URL_0_) where the spacecraft was slowly pushed off course due to uneven radiation of heat.",
"Yes. Photons have energy, or are energy depending on how you think of light. They have momentum, and that is transferred to objects like solar sails. A quick search for \"radiation pressure\" can give more details on the topic.\n\nA flashlight would have some force in space and would accelerate due to the beam. The force of the flashlight from emitting the beam would be small, but it is greater than zero. ",
"Yes, but the momentum is so small that for light to move an object with serious mass even in space, solar sails are needed. ",
"The flashlight can't accelerate to a measurable speed from its own light because its batteries won't last that long.\n",
"Everybody at some point has heard the term energy E = mc^2. If you use this formula for the massless photon you get E = 0 which is not true. That formula is actually the Energy mass relationship. As in mass is energy and vice versa. \n\nThere is however a second relationship, energy and momentum where E = (PC)^2 + (mc^2 )^2 explaining anything further is out of scope for this forum but it's the relativistic equation relating restmass, and momentum. The term p is momentum. \n\nFor the special case of massless particles E = pc. Everyone also knows that for force F = ma (a is acceleration). F can also be written as F = dp/dt (a small change in momentum over time). Wait but this means that if a photon has momentum then it can apply a force?\n\nYes a great toy to show this is Crookes radiometer.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAlso this means the idea of a solar flare is 100% possible but it's impractical. It would be good though for deep space exploration over thousands of years.\n\nI can explain photon pressure like you're 10 if anyone wants.",
"Photons are the carrier particle for electromagnetism. Not only do they have force, in a sense they ARE force.",
"Yes. But i'm afraid you vastly overestimate the momentum of a single photon. I've done a quick calculation, the \"recoil\" force of a flashlight with an output light power of 5W is about 1.66*10^-8 Newton. If this flashlight had a mass of 1 Kg and was floating in space, it would take almost two years to accelerate to a velocity of 1 meter per second. \n \nEdit: Mixed up angular frequency with ordinary frequency and was a factor of 2 Pi of. Fixed.",
"To the best of my knowledge, photons do not have mass. There are some specific situations in which they may have mass, but we will ignore those here, focusing on how they behave most of the time.\n\nThe reason they don't have mass (as touched on by another poster) is that the concept of mass is really the interaction between sub-atomic particles. The Higgs-Boson particle is our current hypothesis for the source of mass.\n\nAs an analogy, think about how different molecules are made because or the interaction of different atoms. Carbon dioxide is very different from carbon monoxide because of the number of oxygen atoms each has, and how they interact with each other.\n\nNow we can think about extending this example to look at hydroxide (one hydrogen, one oxygen) and carbon monoxide (one carbon, one oxygen). In both cases, the oxygen is identical, it's just the atom it's paired with that changes. Therefore, we can conclude that the changes we see in how these pairs behave is due to the components that make up the pairs!\n\nIn the same way, the Higgs-Boson (I'm gonna call it the \"mass particle\" from here on out) interacts differently with things like photons and protons. For some reason (we're not quite sure yet, there's lots of theories) the mass particle interacts with protons in a way that makes them \"heavy\" and they resist moving. That's the basic effect of mass: massive stuff doesn't like to move. The mass particle interacts either not at all, or very lightly with photons, so they don't usually have a mass we can measure.\n\nNow, this doesn't mean that photons shoot around the universe and never hit anything: they'd be useless and we wouldn't see them! Instead, photons interact with the electromagnetic fields around them, instead of the gravitational fields. So, when you move a mass particle (like a proton) it creates a change in the gravitational field nearby. When you move a photon, it creates a change in the electromagnetic field.\n\nNow, this is why electrons and protons are really cool: they affect BOTH the gravitational field AND the electromagnetic field (and are affected by it as well, Newton pointed out that all forces in the universe are equal and opposite).\n\nWith things like solar sails, the energy of a photon (massless) is absorbed; energy is just the basic raw building block of the universe. This gets into the limits of my knowledge, but there's an incredible book that covers the topic I'm reading, \"the incredible lightness of being\" that delves into the theory of quantum chromodynamics. They theorize that there's particles called \"color gluons\" that bridge this divide between massful particles and massless particles, and allow them to interact over distance. It's pretty fascinating :)\n\nIf you have any follow-up questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them, or at least point to a resource on the topic! And I'm certain the comments will point out where I've gone off the rails ^_^",
"Other people have some good explanations of your main question.\n\nI'd like to just make a little note about the wording of your question.\n\nForces exist only as the interaction between two objects. An object cannot therefore \"have\" or \"carry\" force. Inertia and momentum are things we can consider an object to \"have\" that are sometimes meant when people say \"the force of\" an object. \n\nI like to keep this straight by always referring to a force as \"The force object A exerts on Object B\", so it's really clear which two objects I am saying are pushing or pulling on one another. For example, my weight is a result of the force Earth exerts on my body. A car skidding to a stop is a result of the force the road exerts on the car's tires.\n\nThinking of it this way can help us not get tricked into thinking a force exists when it does not or confuse force for another thing that might be involved.",
"p = m*v is an approximation of momentum that is true for macroscopic objects (like baseballs, planets, etc.).\n\n & nbsp;\n\nThe more general way to find the momentum of something is to take the planck constant, 6.626 * 10^-34 J*s, and divide it by the objects wavelength (macroscopic objects also have wavelengths, it's called particle wave duality).\n\n & nbsp;\n\nSo a photon with a wavelength of 1 picometer (10^-12 of a meter, smaller than the diameter of an atom), which is a very short wavelength for light, would still only have a momentum of 6.626 * 10^-22 kg*m/s. If you were an average size person walking at an average speed you'd have about 100 Septillion times (10^23 ) more momentum than that photon. ",
"This is basically like asking, \"If ships can sail from the force of wind, shouldn't I be able to propel myself from the force of my farts?\"\n\nYour mass is far too high for the proportionally tiny force of your farts. Probably. I don't really know you.\n\nThe light coming from a flashlight is far too small (orders of magnitude too small) to propel a flashlight forward."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.space.com/16648-pioneer-anomaly-spacecraft-mystery-solved.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/APUDHFUKYrA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
u9l3j | - the second amendment | So yeah, it's written in the American constitution that anybody can own a gun.
Why is it necessary? Is it necessary at all?
(I'm not American, so assume I know nothing of how US laws work) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u9l3j/eli5_the_second_amendment/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4tgr2l",
"c4tgw87",
"c4thx06"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The idea behind this amendment was that the people would be able to keep sufficient firepower to use to ensure that the federal government would not be able to oppress them. This was a major worry of the founding fathers and a safeguard against their new system of government (America), turning out as a tyranny, as England was seen as at the time.\n\nNot everybody can own a gun, and the amendment has also been interpreted to just mean that the States can have militias/National Guards (only the Federal government can have an army).",
"Concise explanation from an American firearms owner:\n\nThe Second Amendment lends itself to the Founding Fathers ideals of life, liberty, and property (as asserted by the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Bill of Rights) by ensuring that the population at large would always have the right to be well-armed should the time come when an oppressive government body asserts totalitarian dominance over the United States and makes the Constitution about as useful as tissue paper.\n\nSeveral of our Founding Fathers believed that the United States, being the first Post-Enlightenment country in history, would begin as an idealistic nation governed by the rule of law, and while they hoped it would remain as such they also feared it might tend towards imperialism as time went on. The Second Amendment asserts that well-trained and regulated militias shall remain legal in order to ensure that the power remains in the hands of the public.\n\nIn order to prevent this thread from going totally off the rails, I'm leaving my own personal political views out of this and just giving you the facts. Hope they help!",
"Was it necessary? Maybe. Is it a useful thing anymore? I doubt it. I seriously doubt that any local militia or group of armed citizens could take on the armed forces of the US while in the US. Assuming the government has truly turned corrupt and tyrannical, I doubt the weapons that US citizens are allowed to have would stop the government from rolling a tank through your house or dropping a missile on you as you walk home from the grocery store."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1jps9m | why i don't want bpa in my water bottle? what has bpa been scientifically-proven to do exactly? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jps9m/eli5_why_i_dont_want_bpa_in_my_water_bottle_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbh2w7j",
"cbh3aa2"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Heard it was a photo-estrogenic substance increasing estrogen beyond normal limits can facilitate cancer. Also heard it was endocrine disruptor. ",
"High doses of BPA can act on the body like hormones. This can affect a child's development, possibly cause cancer, and other health effects. However, the amount of BPA one would encounter in a cup or water bottle is tiny. Relevant paragraph from Wikipedia:\n\n > BPA exhibits hormone-like properties at high dosage levels that raise concern about its suitability in consumer products and food containers where exposure is orders of magnitude lower. Since 2008, several governments have investigated its safety, which prompted some retailers to withdraw polycarbonate products. A 2010 report from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) identified possible hazards to fetuses, infants, and young children. Since that time numerous studies performed at the National Center for Toxicological Research have been performed that addressed many of those issues.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
54akyv | each time i eat sushi, i feel the urge to go to toilet after approx. 15 minutes. why is that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54akyv/eli5_each_time_i_eat_sushi_i_feel_the_urge_to_go/ | {
"a_id": [
"d807ttc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Do you have your gallbladder? I had my mine removed and now certain foods trigger something, like a get the hell out of my way something. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2y65od | it's now common to depict a lot of dinosaurs as feathered, and it's pretty cool. but how do we know of these feathers? what didn't we know before? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y65od/eli5_its_now_common_to_depict_a_lot_of_dinosaurs/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp6lawp"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"We've actually found [fossil evidence](_URL_0_) of non-bird dinosaurs with feathers now. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur"
]
]
|
||
9pp1n8 | why the law assumes that every individual knows about every law and why it is necessary to have lawyers if the courts already assume that the person should have known about the law? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9pp1n8/eli5_why_the_law_assumes_that_every_individual/ | {
"a_id": [
"e83bp54"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > What it means is that ignorance of law is no excuse and courts usually use that if a person tries to claim that he could not have possibly known of such a law existing.\n\nThe idea here is that the state is going to create and enforce laws expecting people to obey, educating themselves in order to comply. Ignorance is no excuse because otherwise people would deliberately avoid learning of the law in order to allow themselves to break them at their leisure. It would also place undue burden on the prosecution to be able to prove that someone knew what the law was prior to breaking it; isn't it sufficient to prove someone committed a murder without proving they knew it wasn't allowed?\n\n > Plus its not a fair law considering how a particular country has countless legislations and then courts make their laws too.\n\nCourts do not make laws (at least not in the US). They simply interpret laws on the books already."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
9ybkcv | what's happening with the alcohol in this video | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ybkcv/eli5_whats_happening_with_the_alcohol_in_this/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea07gv2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If it's not faked (I strongly suspect it's faked), the idea is that by rapidly changing the pressure, he's creating an *alcohol mist that he then inhales.*\n\nYou can smoke pot (lungs) or make edibles (stomach).\n\nApparently you can drink alcohol (stomach) or inhale it (lungs)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
55nhfy | why do we need to turn over so many times over the course of the night? why can't we just be comfortable in one position all the way through? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55nhfy/eli5_why_do_we_need_to_turn_over_so_many_times/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8c1o4q",
"d8c2nwt"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It has to do with circulation of blood. If you were a medical professional and you let a paralyzed patient lay in the same spot forever, they would get bed sores. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThese are also known as 'pressure sores' due to prolonged pressure in one area. \n\nVenturing into the region of my opinion, I would imagine that your brain would receive responses from nerves in certain follicles that receiving a lot of pressure. As a result of it over a long enough period, you're body will say, \n\n\"Okay, that's too long, I'm not comfy, BRAAAAAAIN!!! Move meeee please\" \n\nLike an exchange of info between parts of the body. But not exactly in this way. ",
"I have a lot of sleep issues, to include requiring a CPAP device, so it became a priority to find a way to stop tossing around at night because it would wake me up when I knock the mask off my face and other such things.\n\nSo we researched high-end mattresses, pillows, and sheets. Then I spent a lot of cash on the results. Now I wake up in the exact same position as I started and mornings are awesome. Along with things like toilet paper and lawyers, we've added the bedroom to things where it's worth it not to save money."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bedsores/basics/definition/con-20030848"
],
[]
]
|
||
4qxgxa | why does yellow tint make everything seem like high definition? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4qxgxa/eli5_why_does_yellow_tint_make_everything_seem/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4wm9s0",
"d4wttbm"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The yellow tint reduces color detection at certain wavelengths, so it increases the ability of your eyes to see the contrasts (hence, an illusion of higher definition). It can also increase perceived brightness. ([Non-ELI5 study for futher reading](_URL_0_))",
"Different colours of light focus at a different distances from each other. Blue light has the most noticeable effect on reducing contrast because of this. By filtering out blue light (yellow tinted filter) the contrast is improved."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10701805"
],
[]
]
|
||
23nt19 | if people don't see the same red that i see. how is that color known as red? | I was told everyones color spectrum differs. What i wondering is how do we generalize colors as red or blue or green, if no one see that exact same green you see? How do we know coke cans are red, the sky is blue, or if grass is green? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23nt19/eli5if_people_dont_see_the_same_red_that_i_see/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgytqlp",
"cgytrpg",
"cgyuf0q",
"cgyut7y"
],
"score": [
4,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It isn't a fact in any sense that everybody has a different idea of what red is. It's a philosophical idea. How can we know for sure that what I think of as red is the same thing you think of as red? The only way to describe a colour is by the wavelength or an object that has that colour. If the way that you see red wavelengths of light is the same way that I see blue wavelengths, we will never know. I can say, \n\"this is red\" and they will think that it's red too. It's just a taught experiment about the subjective nature of our experience of reality.",
"Because even if your green is different from my green, we both see what we know as green when we look at the grass. \"Green\" is just a word that we learned to associate with the color of grass.",
"Because society in general has deemed it that color. If you were taught from elementary school that the color we know as blue was really called red, then you'd think the sky was red, associating the color blue, with the word red, until a million billion people repeatedly say that it is not red, and then you'll learn it that way.",
"If we both look at a tree and agree that the bark is brown and the leaves are green, it doesn't matter if the brown and green I see actually look like my red and my purple to you. We agree that the colors are called what they are and individual perception of them doesn't really matter. The actual words used for the colors don't really factor into it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1l39em | how is it that mucus can build up in your lungs and not cause you to drown? | It's probably a question for one of the many medical subs but I'm no doctor, and need "laymen accessible" responses.
Edit: I have a second question, (I'll make a new post if I have to.) Why does it seem like excessive or violent coughing damages your throat?
Edit 2: Thanks for all the help everyone! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l39em/eli5_how_is_it_that_mucus_can_build_up_in_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbvc9b2",
"cbvdyh9",
"cbvf2oo",
"cbvfwoq",
"cbvhsz3",
"cbvi9e9"
],
"score": [
73,
2,
4,
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually you can. Pneumonia is the build up of fluid that can cause death and it would be technically drowning. Humans are tougher than we think though, we can survive on only part of our lungs and it might just be enough to survive until we can get healthy again.",
"You can drown. It's called death from pneumonia ",
"Our lungs are full of many different forms of tissue, from the bronchial tubes down to the alveoli. Most of the tissues between these two stages have mucus membranes and follicles which push materials back up the lungs. There are several conditions which can result in the damage to the mucus membranes and follicles in the bronchial tubes which result in high risk of pneumonia.\n\nPrimarily its this \"keep moist and push up\" action provided by the cilia hairs.\n\nFor me this adds further complication to my asthma condition in that the primary treatment method is an inhaled dust - when I'm sick with a chest cold my lungs empty faster and I have to take the dose more often than the 12 hour cycle.\n\nAnother thing that can keep us alive is the fact that we have TWO lungs. You can drain one then the other by laying on opposite sides, this is what you are doing when you turn a person who is or has drowned on their side and clear their airway. The lungs bifurcate from the center out and down.",
"A lot of people are just saying you can. for a more technical explanation its because your body is very good at homeostasis - its normal state pf running i.e blood ph around 7.4, 98 degrees Fahrenheit body temp, etc.\n\nIn your alveoli, the part of the lungs where you exchange gas, your body careful maintains the proper mucus level and viscosity with Ion channels - in particular Calcium, sodium, potassium, and chloride to ensure you breathe correctly. \nAlthough others pointed out pneumonia as an example, c ystic fibrosis is also an excellent example of this kind of scenario. Cystic fibrosis patients have a defect in their channels' operating abilities leading to lifelong complications.",
"I watched my great uncle drown in phlegm. Officially he died of COPD, but this is how it occurred.\n\nIt was horrifying. No right-thinking human being can smoke after watching that go down.",
"As someone who was hospitalized with double pneumonia and a collapsed lung, it can. It just usually doesn't. You mostly cough it out."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1pt1p8 | why do peoples iris' turn white/colourless when they receive an injury (like being slashed by a knife)? | Is it just the iris colour 'leaking out', or is it actually something sciencey? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pt1p8/eli5_why_do_peoples_iris_turn_whitecolourless/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd5td8q"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The color comes from pigment in the iris (for brown eyes) and from something called Raleigh scattering (for green and blue eyes). If you have a rough cut in the sclera (the rough outer layer of the eye), the milky scar tissue will obscure the iris. \n\nIf you make precise cuts (with a laser, as used in LASIK surgery), scar tissue is minimal and the eye will heal properly."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
35ijw7 | is the f-35 really as bad as everyone claims it is? if so, why? | I play flight sims a lot, so I always hear the opinion of the F-35 from many in the flight sim community. The general consensus seems to be that everyone absolutely hates the F-35, and says it will be a terribly performing jet.
Why does everyone seem to hate this jet? Is it really that bad, and if so, what happened to the program to lead it to go this bad? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35ijw7/eli5_is_the_f35_really_as_bad_as_everyone_claims/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr4qbei",
"cr4rrny"
],
"score": [
13,
47
],
"text": [
"This is a very difficult subject. I'm not sure if I can explain the issue succinctly but I'll try.\n\nThe F-35 Lightning was designed with the goal of it being a do everything aircraft to be used by all flying services. Originally the idea was that by using a single primary design that they would only have to pay the development costs for the single airframe and by producing so many of them we would would achieve economies of scale both during production and for parts for the planes while in service. Think of this in automotive terms a car that was produced is very large numbers cost much less to bring to a mechanic than a car that was built in very small numbers. So the idea is to use the F-35 to replace all the fighters currently in service. We also signed up many of major allies for the plan as well so that we could build even more of them.\n\nSo what happened? This is where it gets complicated. So I'll break it down into sections.\n\nDevelopment. AKA how to build a plane or not. The F-35 has 3 models one of the Air force, one for the Navy, and one for the Marines yet they ALL have the same airframe (wings, the frame that holds the wings, engine, cockpit etc). Now each of these services wanted a plane to do slightly different things, the Air Force version is the vanilla version, the navy version can get launched and land on carriers which is much rougher on the plane, this meant that the plane needed to stronger and since everything is shared all versions needed to stronger, this added weight. The biggest problem though is the Marine's version. So the Marines wanted a plane that could take off and land vertically like a harrier which the marines currently fly from the flattop transport ships. To do this they needed a big freaking fan mounted right smack in the middle of the plane. Now the other versions didn't need this fan but since everything is share the frame of the plane still had to built to fit the fan on ALL models. The fan is big and to fit it the middle of the plane had to be bigger than it otherwise would be this means that the plane now weighs even more and also that its less aerodynamic. So because it is a common platform the the plane is now less capable than it would have been if they had been all been built as separate platforms. To add to the problems the marine version keeps costing more and more and more and because it does it cost more for all the other planes to.",
"Updated version:\n\nLong story short:\n\nThe F-35 is given a lot of crap, but mainly because we now have the internet and these kinds of stories are accessible for everyone. When previous fighters like the F-16 came about, they were heavily criticised as well; in the F-16's case, it was known as the Lawn Dart, because it had software, engine and mechanical flaws that caused nearly [50 crashes in the time that the F-35 has been so far flying.](_URL_7_) The F/A-18 also had crashes, as well as fuel cell leaks, roll-rate performance issues, software delays and cracked bulkheads (sound familiar?), but you have to dig up [old government reports from the early 80's](_URL_8_) or quiz 60 / 70 year olds involved in the project at the time to see the stuff.\n\n---\n\nIn terms of delays, it's been a long time coming, but it's not a record breaker; a few examples of other projects:\n\n - F-35: JSF competition started in 1996, tech demos flew in 2000, the F-35 flew in 2006. The F-35B intends to enter service this year, 15 years after its X-jet flew and 19 years after the program began.\n\n - F-22: ATF competition started in 1981, the YF-22 prototype flew in 1990, the first F-22 flew in 1997 and the jet entered service in 2005, 15 years after the prototype flew and 24 years after the program began.\n\n - Eurofighter Typhoon: FEFA program started in 1983, the first prototype flew in 1994 and the jet entered service in 2003, 9 years after the prototype flew and 20 years after the program began.\n\n - Dassault Rafale: ACX program began in 1982, had the first flight of a tech demo in 1985, then flew the first fighter prototype in 1986, before having the jet enter service in 2001, 15 years after the prototype flew and 19 years after the program began.\n\nAnd although isn't a fighter...\n\n - V-22 Osprey: JVX program started in 1981, Bell / Boeing wins the contract in 1983. The V-22 has its first flight in 1989, before entering service in 2007; 18 years after the prototype flew and 26 years after the program began.\n\n---\n\nAs far as cost is concerned; it's not as cheap as an original F-16 or A-10 was, but it's pretty good for what capability it provides.\n\nSome comparisons that go against the typical grain:\n\nAustralia's recently bought F/A-18F Super Hornets and F-35As.\n\nThe Super Hornet deal was [$6 billion USD for 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets](_URL_4_) ($250 million each) and support.\n\nThe F-35A deal was [$11.5 billion USD for 58 F-35As](_URL_1_) ($198.3 million each) and support.\n\nLong term cost compared to that of the legacy fleet in the US:\n\n > [In fact, if the same assumptions used to project F-35 support costs are applied to legacy aircraft, it would cost four times as much — $4 trillion — in “then-year” dollars to maintain the current fleet rather than transitioning to F-35.](_URL_3_) \n\nAs of last year, the cost of an F-35A, with engine, in Low Rate Initial Production 8 (aka the 8th batch of initial aircraft being built) is approximately [$108 million](_URL_5_). The cost during LRIP has been decreasing by about 3.5% each time and when they begin Full Rate Production in 2018, the cost of an F-35A is on track to cost between $80 and $85 million in 2019 (including inflation and with an engine). While I'm doubtful, Lockheed even believes it can get it even lower than $80 million by 2019, which would be impressive.\n\nIn comparison, the Eurofighter Typhoon is in the ballpark of $120 million, the Dassault Rafale is roughly $100 million and even a new Block 60 F-16 like those sold to Saudi Arabia in recent years is believed to cost in excess of $70 million.\n\n---\n\nFighting capability is a lengthy and complex subject, so I won't get too far into it unless someone asks questions:\n\nFighters require many things to be good at dominating the sky. They need good kinematics, good situational awareness, and good armament.\n\nIt's no secret that the F-35 isn't pushing the limits with kinematics - it's top speed is rated at Mach 1.6, which is slower than many fighters and it doesn't have thrust vectoring or particularly large wings.\n\nHowever, there's a few misconceptions that go with those:\n\n - Most fighters can't go their top speed while armed with weapons; only the F-22 and F-35 can because they can carry them internally. Also, most fighters fly subsonic for non-time critical missions or when striking a target at significant range. This is because it burns fuel 2x or 3x as fast and really limits how long you can stay in the sky. Only a small handful of aircraft will cruise at supersonic speeds.\n\n - The F-35 isn't as agile as a Su-35 or an F-22, it is however roughly on par with an F-16, with the F-35 being more agile at subsonic speeds, which is where dogfights happen and having a far greater ability to point it's nose around (it can even pull 110 degrees angle of attack). Nonetheless, dogfights are a thing of the past. In terms of generating lift, the F-35 has a smaller wingspan than most, but makes up for it with a lifting body design and various little devices, such as the chines around the nose which generate extra lift at high angles of attack all the way up to the tip of the radar. This is partly why the F-35 has a flight ceiling higher than most fighters (60kft vs 50kft).\n\nSo overall, the F-35 is pretty average on kinematics. [However, that's because kinematics are no longer the be-all, end-all [video].](_URL_0_)\n\nSituational awareness is today something far more important. As the link explains; getting into a dogfight is typically a death sentence for both combatants. Combined with the fact that threats today are longer-ranged, faster, stealthier and can come from anywhere, being aware of your surroundings and situation is important. The F-35 has the advantage over every other fighter by having [EO-DAS](_URL_2_), which lets the pilot see in every direction and which provides automatic target detection / locking. It also has an extremely advanced radar / passive antenna system which lets it use its radar in a way that's very hard for enemy radar's to locate as well as detect and target enemy radars without emitting anything, from very long ranges.\n\nIn terms of armament, by being the primary fighter for the coalition, it makes it easier for defence contractors to sell their weapons by only having to design it for one aircraft. That means that already there are things like CUDA missiles which are half the size of an AMRAAM but are similar in capability, 1/3-AMRAAM-sized KICM missiles designed to intercept enemy missiles and aircraft at short range, stealthy DIRCM turrets for blinding enemy heatseekers, NGJ systems for taking down enemy SAM networks, etc being developed for the F-35. If you (for example) were another nation that bought a Dassault Rafale, you'd have to buy whatever weapons France develops for its fighters, or you'd have to pay for companies to come up with solutions to fit their missiles to your aircraft.\n\nFor payload, the F-35 has a very large one at 18,000lb officially and 22300lb theoretically (when you actually add up the individual official loads for each hardpoint). To put that number in perspective though, the empty weight of an F-16C is 18,900lb and the empty weight of an AV-8B Harrier jump jet is just under 14,000lb.\n\n[For the record, this is a copy-paste with minor edits of a response I made to [this thread](_URL_6_)]."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFbW5U10w0w",
"http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140423/DEFREG03/304230023/Australia-Purchases-58-More-F-35s",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY",
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/27/massive-cost-estimate-for-fighter-program-is-misleading/",
"http://www.theage.com.au/national/australias-new-super-hornet-warplane-unveiled-20090709-ddmi.html",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/2n1dgu/news_f35_lrip_8_deal_finalised/cm9g8rt",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/2l64jz/f35_is_it_really_a_not_that_great_plane_or_were/",
"http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/",
"http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf"
]
]
|
|
7tl8kc | what is visual snow, why does it exist & does every human have it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7tl8kc/eli5_what_is_visual_snow_why_does_it_exist_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtdb2o1"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It’s considered as a disease, or at least as a symptom of a disease (Lyme disease, for example), so no, everyone does not have it. It happens when a part of you cerebral cortex goes into overdrive, causing your ocular nerves to misinterpret information.\nAs for what it is, you can picture it as the visual noise on a broken TV."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
34wdlm | is there an underlying evolutionary explanation for attraction to physical beauty? | I know colour patterning is important for many species in attracting a mate, but in relation to humans, is there an innate reason for being physically attracted to ones exterior beauty? Are there any species, other than humans, in which we can observe selection of mates based on physical attractiveness? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34wdlm/eli5_is_there_an_underlying_evolutionary/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqypsls"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yeah, in pretty much most species of animals that you see on documentaries. For example, large plumes of feathers are physically attractive to female peacocks. Animals objectify each other as much as people do as far as we know.\n\nThere's a lot you can tell from the outside. If a woman has large breasts, that means she's better able to breastfeed, wider hips makes easier childbirth. Long legs are good for survival, more feminine characteristics usually indicate a high level of oestrogen which brings out many other qualities such as maternal care etc...\nYounger women are more attractive because they are more fertile and more likely to produce healthy off springs. \n\nMuscular healthy men will make stronger children and is able to protect and provide for the family better. Other features like a strong jaw line and broad shoulders are indicative of high levels of testosterone. Also apparently according to today's reddit, stronger jawline may also mean they take punches better. \n\nSymmetry in the face is also a sign of health and freedom from disease. There's a very big list of things that are attractive because they either indicate to the other sex that their offspring would have desirable traits or they will be good parents. \n\n\"exterior beauty\" may also be a broader category than you think. For example, people will find persons of the opposite gender's smell attractive if their immune systems are different from theirs. The reasons goes that mating with someone with a different immune system will produce an offspring with the best of both immune systems.\n\nThere are, of course, cultural inputs from these things."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2fm5m6 | why do teens who take nudes get charged with manufacture of child porn yet famous people like mckayla maroney have no legal trouble towards them? | I'm not saying I want her arrested but why do guys and girls who take them, not necessarily send them get busted and have to register as sex offenders for the rest of there lives for manufacturing child porn yet since McKayla is famous I doubt anything would happen with her legally. Sport wise the olympic committee may have something to say about that since she was underage, look at mike phelps with smoking pot.
What are your thoughts? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fm5m6/eli5why_do_teens_who_take_nudes_get_charged_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckaklpo"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Depending on what her pictures actually show, they might not actually qualify as pornography, even child pornography. Usually there has to be an emphasis on sex and an emphasis on genitalia for it to be considered child pornography. Thora Birch was underage in American Beauty, but her topless scene did not qualify as child pornography. \n\nEdit 1: fixed a typo"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7lnxdz | why does human and livestock feces contaminate/pollute rivers when fish and native species also poop near or into the water? | I was watching a documentary about India's rivers and they mentioned how livestock and human waste (along with lots of other shit) was being dumped into the water and this was making it dirty and unsafe to drink. I've been confused by this before because I always assumed that fish and other animals just shit into or near the water.
So my question is, why does human and livestock poop make the water unsafe when fish and other animals have been pooping into the water and they've been drinking that with no problem for thousands of years? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7lnxdz/eli5_why_does_human_and_livestock_feces/ | {
"a_id": [
"drnosrg",
"drny21i",
"dro2qpl"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
8
],
"text": [
"There are two basic answers here. The first is that water really ISN'T all that safe to drink. It's full of bacteria and parasites if not treated in some form or fashion. Hence when you need to boil, filter, use iodine tablets, etc. if you're drinking from most natural water sources - at least if your body doesn't have some resistance to the local bacteria and parasites. For many thousands of years, actually, people didn't primarily drink water. Instead, they drank weak wine and beer, because the fermentation process killed off most of the harmful things in the water.\n\nThe second answer is a question of volume. You could probably drink from a river that had some fish feces in it without getting particularly sick, because the amount of feces relative to the amount of water is very small. When you start pumping in millions of gallons of human waste, livestock waste, industrial waste, etc. into that river though, the proportion of harmful things in the water goes WAY up. This is especially true in less developed countries, where there are some truly massive populations with relatively low-tech sewage treatment facilities, and where lots of people / animals use the water straight from the source.",
" > fish and other animals have been pooping into the water and they've been drinking that with no problem for thousands of years\n\nAnimals in the wild are generally less healthy than humans in cities. If you lived with the same level of sanitation, your life expectancy would drop significantly. It's like how an indoor cat is likely to live three times as long as a feral one, though that's due to a host of issues instead of just sanitation.",
"Ecosystems are about balance. A river is going to have a certain capacity to break down wastes, fish or human, and once you exceed it, it will because unbalanced and most of its creatures will die off.\n\nFor centuries, there was balance. Humans could only produce so much food, and populations were more stable. From 1500 to 1700, India's population was around 100 million, and grew slowly, so the rivers were, for the most part, able to keep up. With advances in agriculture, medicine, and ironically, sanitation, India's population has increased by 13x in only 300 years. That's 13x as much waste, completely overloading the ecosystem's capacity to break it down."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
45bwnr | why do bathrooms in restaurants, gas stations, hotels, etc., have the music on a higher volume than on the main room? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45bwnr/eli5_why_do_bathrooms_in_restaurants_gas_stations/ | {
"a_id": [
"czwom04"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"The bathroom may be at the same volume as the rest of the place. It may be that less of the sound is absorbed by carpet and people and chairs and things. Bathrooms are generally smaller/have less volume as well, so a single speaker set to the same volume will seem louder in the smaller space.\n\nBut really, it's probably to block out all the shitting noises."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
7d8ev0 | sometimes our brain can't recall the memory of doing certain actions (especially things that we do on auto-pilot more or less) what goes through our mind when this happens? | I have been thinking about this a lot lately. There are certain actions the I do on a daily basis like locking my apartment door when leaving or picking up my wallet/phone before going out. Although I already did these certain things my brain cannot actually recall the memory of doing it.
It very rare but it happens. Technically our brain must have recorded this certain action because it sent the signal through our body to carry out the said task, but sometimes there is a lapse.
Edit: Spelling | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7d8ev0/eli5_sometimes_our_brain_cant_recall_the_memory/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpvw9y0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Procedural memories (our knowledge of how to do things like locking the door) are stored in a different part of the brain than other memories. They are organized in terms of stimulus-response pairings, not in networks of ideas like other memories.\n\n So when you are presented with the stimulus (door and key) that automatically triggers the behavior of putting the key in the lock. It doesn't require much effort or attention, so you may not have encoded it well, which could lead to it not being stored in long-term memory.\n\nAlso when you do the same thing over and over it's hard to store specific memories of each individual time you do it, because you mix up the events with each other."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6joszt | why can people walk many miles without discomfort, but when they stand for more than 15 minutes or so, they get uncomfortable? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6joszt/eli5_why_can_people_walk_many_miles_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"djfv3k5",
"djfxrvd",
"djfxz92",
"djfy02n",
"djfy2fp",
"djfy44i",
"djfycve",
"djfyjvo",
"djfyxhv",
"djfyyi2",
"djfyyy5",
"djfz3gp",
"djg046s",
"djg095k",
"djg0exz",
"djg0s6b",
"djg17ep",
"djg1vjr",
"djg23i9",
"djg2r7p",
"djg2wek",
"djg33z0",
"djg4ccg",
"djg4fu5",
"djg4lrz",
"djg4rqw",
"djg4vx1",
"djg523x",
"djg52h0",
"djg5pg4",
"djg6kn0",
"djg6lso",
"djg8cyk",
"djg9as2",
"djg9erb",
"djg9u57",
"djg9yyq",
"djgbvmz",
"djgep8u",
"djgglfx",
"djgkh66",
"djgoh9c",
"djhe8dm"
],
"score": [
3770,
214,
21,
142,
1027,
6,
7,
23,
20,
4,
5,
3,
2,
2,
13,
20,
2429,
27949,
11,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
5,
86,
385,
5,
2,
5,
4,
40,
3,
2,
3,
3,
3,
9,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When you stand, the same muscles in your feet fire repeatedly as the pressure on them remains constant. However, when you walk about, the pressure shifts to and from different areas of your foot as the same muscles aren’t working all the time. If you have a sore area on your foot, walking will be less painful than standing as the pressure is on the area for less time",
"Also your mind is more active as you walk so it's focused less on discomfort. Different hormones are released too and this also affects the way your brain is working in response to discomfort. So me boxers continue fighting with a broken hand. Some runners with sprains and maybe fractures. Sometimes people who just work hard forget to eat. ",
"[Circulation.](_URL_0_) When you walk the flexing of your calf muscles help push the blood up your legs back to your heart. A failure of these valves can cause varicose veins.",
"Blood in your body is pumped by the heart. This moves it out, away from your heart. The blood vessels that lead away from your heart have valves that keep the blood from flowing backwards. As blood reaches the farthest part of your body it is separated into many tiny tubes that supply all the parts of your body. This causes the blood to slow down A LOT. \n\nWhen blood goes to return to the heart there are valves in the in those blood vessels which help to prevent blood from flowing backwards. Also, because it has now slowed down it does not move back to the heart very easily, the forward pressure is much lower than in your arteries. This allows gravity to overcome them and allow blood to flow backwards (this is less common in a healthy person). The tubes in your legs that send blood back to the heart are surrounded by your leg muscles. When you walk they are squeezed and this pushes the blood back to your heart. Without the extra pressure from your leg muscles pumping it can be difficult to overcome the force of gravity pulling downwards on the blood. \n\nWhen you stand those muscles aren't pushing the blood so it becomes harder to move it. This means that the old, used up blood, is stuck in the lowest point of your body. This is your feet. Because the blood is used up it has no oxygen to keep the muscles in your feet healthy. \n\nWhen your body senses there is not enough oxygen it sends signals to your brain that trick it into thinking there is pain. This causes you to try and move the part of the body that is in pain which ideally allows fresh blood to flow in with new oxygen. This is also why it feels like your chest burns when you hold your breath. ",
"Walking increases blood flow. Standing causes it to pool in your legs. More blood flow means more oxygen to the muscles and more efficient removal of edit: lactic acid buildup. Standing also means keeping your muscles rigid, which is much more stressful on them than simply moving, where periods of contraction and release have points where less energy is being used. If you want an example, try doing slow curls vs fast curls. Your muscles will fatigue faster from slow tension than quick tension.\n\nedit: This really applies to any muscle groups used in moving around.",
"The human species is the most adept at walking long distances of nearly every species on the planet. Forest Gump was no joke.",
"One interesting fact many people are missing is that excercise releases endorphins.\n\nEndorphins actually stand for endogenous morphine and are your brains built in opioids.\n\nThese painkillers can alleviate quite a bit of pain and discomfort while excercisingb. Standing still won't release these endorphins.",
"I think it has something to do with your body being built to be in motion. Osteokinematically you are good at walking and running for hunting. We are built for the \"hunt\" but we aren't made very well for just having a lot of loading in a stationary position. \n\nSo imagine our skeleton is a bunch of levers and our muscles are just the ropes making it move. It is easy for your body to keep that up as it isn't too strenuous with the loading and unloading of joints. However standing in one position you have all your weight on those same joints in your pelvis and spine. This constant compression is uncomfortable and isn't what your body is optimised for. ",
"Just an aside: this * \\* points to the rest of the thread\\* * is why, in any civilized jurisdiction, workplace-safety regulations consider standing in a single place for long periods to be a hazardous condition, and require it to be mitigated by things like fatigue mats and regular breaks.",
"Because they don't know how to stand.\n\n=)\n\n(Seriously!)\n\nEarly in my martial arts training I had to learn how to more efficiently allow the body to stand and not hold improper tension. The average inexperienced person is going to have all kinds of aches and pains that are alleviated with changes to position of the body throughout the day. \n\nOnce a person has stopped changing position all the tensions that they carry get heightened and pain ensues. It takes a lot of practice (and I found, instruction,) to identify, adjust, and relax those tensions while still remaining upright/standing.",
"You probably feel uncomfortable standing still for 15 minutes because of all the people that are looking at you just standing there ",
"In the wild, for nearly any mammal, motionlessness is unusual and only used in emergencies, or when asleep and not sitting upright. Movement is the natural mode of a mammal that is awake. Wild animals are usually either resting (off their feet or in a \"sitting\" sort of position), or doing something. Keep in mind for some animals--like cattle--\"staying still\" is really standing there and digesting their food, which is a long process. Even then it's still more like a very slow mosey around, not just standing still.\n\nPeople are no different. Bodies are meant to move or rest, not stand motionless. Also, for developed countries, a lifetime of sitting (we start making kids sit most their waking day by the time they go to school) affects our musculature. People who live more primitively and hunt/gather have different spine curvature from a lifetime of standing and moving... to be blunt: \"native\" people have great butts. For a sitting modern person, if you purposefully walk around with your glutes clenched (squeeze yer butt cheeks together as you walk), that's what \"walking\" people do automatically.",
"Because you're not used to it. There's many profesions in which people stand pretty much still all day.\n\nI find myself nowadays sometimes even rather standing than sitting.",
"So then does anyone have any suggestions on what shoe soles r best?",
"Follow-up question here. When I feel physical fatigue from standing it's in my lower back. However from walking it's likely in my legs.\n\nIs this because of my stance/posture or more related to the fact that one is dynamic and the other is not? I'm seeing a lot of unsourced suggestions in this topic (even though it is ELI5) and I'm doubting the accuracy.",
"For me, personally, I have an arch in my spine (I assume most people do, but mine seems to be more pronounced than usual), so when I stand for 10-15 minutes, the arch basically compresses my spine and causes discomfort. I've found that sucking my stomach in and squeezing my butt alleviates some of the discomfort, but not all. Whereas when I'm walking, I'm constantly changing position, so my spine gets a break.\n\nNow, if I'm doing a standing/walking combo like at the mall or at a museum... that is *brutal*.",
"Your leg veins have [one way valves](_URL_1_) in them. They work when the [skeletal muscles around them contract and release.](_URL_0_)\n\nWhen you are walking around, the flexion/relaxation of the walking muscles are literally pumping the blood back to your torso. When you are standing still, you aren't getting that pumping action naturally. You *could* flex/release your legs intentionally, while standing, but it's not nearly as effective as walking is.\n\nHope that makes sense!",
"I work at a vein surgeon's office. I actually asked him this.\n\nBasically, when you are standing, blood flow slows and \"pools\" in your legs due to gravity. But when you walk, your muscles contract and push the blood in your veins and vessels back up into your upper body. \n\nOn the side note, seasoned military personnels are able to stand at ease for long periods of time because they are actually swaying back and forth very slowly in micro-movements to contract their muscles and relieve the tingling and numb sensation you get when you keep standing for long periods of time. \n\nEdit: As others have suggested, not locking your knees is also key\n\nEdit 2: As others have mentioned, micro movements could be flexing your calves, distributing weight back and forth between your heels and toes, wiggling your toes, etc. \n\nEdit 3: If you have persistent leg problems even without prolonged standing and even after conservative measures (compression stockings, exercise, etc.), I would recommend getting a referral to a vein specialist from your PCP (in the US) to get it properly treated. You may just have bad veins. \n\nWhoa! My very first gold. Thank you stranger 😝",
"Related question: why am i more tired walking through a museum than a rigorous hike of the same distance traveled? Same answer or does the mental processing of art viewing affect me?",
"Follow up ELI5: How are we able to sit for such long periods of time if the blood is pooling in our legs?",
"Im a cook for a living. And my legs are so stiff, when I'm able to like walk off the line and sit down, my legs are just so stiff and it take at least ten minutes of stretching before I feel normal again. I think its its a slight muscle attrophy, but then again thats 11 to 12hours at a time. After fifteen minutes I'd tell you to see a doctor",
"This doesn't necessarily answer the question but perhaps still relatable. One thing I noticed while I'm jogging is when I start to get tired I'm left with two decisions, slow down and nearly stop or speed up. It appears to me increasing my acceleration always allows me the opportunity to last longer where as if I slow down, I can feel the strenuous motions in my body catching up to me and I get tired quicker.",
"Additional question: Why do people (I) feel discomfort in their shoulders while standing but not walking?\n",
"It's edema. The fluid in your veins pools in your legs and leaks out of your vessels due to increased pressure, causing your muscle capsules to stretch. This is a painful experience.\n\nWalking causes your muscles to pump the venous blood back to your heart, preventing the fluid from building up.\n\nTo prevent leg pain when standing still for long periods of time, use compression socks.",
"So where do standing desks play into this? ",
"Wow ive been wondering why everytime i go to the mall and do nothing my back hurts. I am a landscaper and im constantly moving around and lifting things yet my back never goes out/hurts i always thought maybe it was the stress knowing i have to spend money at some point lol",
"Surgeon here. It all has to do with physiologic load. We are not anatomically designed to accommodate static (standing in one position) loads for an extended period of time. None of our load-bearing tissues (primarily bone) have rigid viscoelastic properties sufficient to withstand static stress (bone is actually a relatively soft material compared to metal etc). Walking,or even shifting weight while standing, will redistribute our body's load on the weight bearing tissues in our legs and allows those tissues to 'recover' during the phase when the body position changes.",
"A lot of the answers on here are focused on blood flow which is great but it misses a big part of it. Your joints are lubricated by their joint fluid (synovial fluid). The way the get new fluid and nutrients is through movement. When you stand still the fluid is not refreshed and it tends to dry out in a sense. This makes joints painful and causes that stiff feeling when you try to start moving again. Shortly after moving the fluid and nutrients are replenished and things move again.\n\nCirculation is a big part but joint movement is what provides the fluid flow. If you kept your joints still and contracted the muscles to get blood flowing you would still feel the majority of stiffness and aches.",
"When you stand the blood slows down and stays in your legs. When you move your legs your blood flows more easily. Your blood always needs to flow and moving your legs helps the blood move along so standing still will make you restless or even fall asleep!",
"Oh my god. I just got back from a music festival where I was standing with a walking stick no bobbing my head n dancing but other times locking my legs n standing. My middle toe on my right foot kinda has felt numb for a day or two now any correlation. \n\nTldr: dancing at long festivals may be better for you than standing.;)",
"When you stand in one place for a long time, you get uncomfortable? Whoa. Walkers are wild.\n\nNote: i use a wheelchair to get around. I've never experienced this.",
"Physical Therapist here. Surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but there are 2 types of muscle fibers out there. Type 1 and Type 2. \n\nType 1 muscle fibers are slow twitch fibers and are meant to maintain posture and low energy activities such as standing. Our calf muscles are primarily slow twitch muscles. Standing up in one position is an isometric activity where we are basically just standing still and not necessarily moving. Type 1 is primarily an anaerobic activity where there is almost a time-limit on how long one can sustain this position (think from the movie Drumline and they were holding only their drumsticks in the air and fatigued rapidly)\n\nType 2 muscle fibers are for quicker actions, muscles that constantly moving and contracting. Walking quickly or on uneven terrain activates these type 2 muscle fibers and this is an aerobic activity which means that oxygen is constantly replenishing these muscles so they don't fatigue.",
"As someone with POTS I know the reason for this on a very personal level. I've failed two tilt table tests because walls of my arteries don't produce enough force to keep an adequate amount of blood pumping up to my brain resulting in dizziness and blurred vision upon standing upright. When I get up I immediately have to start walking so my calf muscles push on the arteries in my legs to produce the force needed. Sometimes I have to flex my calf muscles before standing up to prevent my blood from pooling in my legs. I also wear compression socks to prevent venous pooling. I cannot work jobs that require me to be on my feet in a stationary spot because I get insane amounts of fatigue and lightheadedness. I also have to use a shower chair to wash myself. I have to sit in a chair to cook. Standing is so unbearable that I dread getting up out of bed every morning. I have to get up in increments so my body can adjust to the change in posture. ",
"In addition to blood pooling as several people have described there is also biomechanical reason. Our bodies are not designed to engage in static activities (holding a position without moving) very efficiently. On the contrary, walking is a dynamic activity (anything with joint motion) which our bodies are designed to do efficiently. \n\nFurthermore, most people have really bad standing posture and pretty weak lower posterior kinetic chain muscles (hammies, glutes, low back muscles). Poor posture usually places extra stress on the low back, which once it begins to get tired you can then pick up the slack with other muscle groups like your traps. ",
"If you're not moving, synovial fluid is gradually pushed out of the joint. When you move the joint is re-lubricated.",
"Our calves serve as \"auxiliary hearts\", pumping blood back up the veins, against all that mighty gravity: this is why those veins have valves, to prevent backward flow of stale blood (and when they don't function properly, you get varicose veins, which I also suffer from). But, calf muscles are purely voluntary, and therefore if you aren't using them, you're slowly depriving your leg muscles of fresh oxygen. That causes anaerobic respiration (aerobic = using oxygen), which is not only ineffective and inefficient, it produces a lot of toxic waste, including lactic acid. This is what causes one's legs to feel heavy/tired, and why stretching and compressing relieves such aches.",
"My old choir teacher would say it probably has to do with you locking your legs, -that's why Jimmy passed out during the *Hallelujah Chorus*-! ",
"The cartilages in your knees work best if they are squeezed and released alternatively. Tho allows the lubricant liquid to get distributed evenly in the joints to allow less friction when walking. Standing would just press on the cartilages once and the fluid would move away from the pressure points after some time. So yeah we are designed better for walking rather than standing for long periods of time. \n\nEdit: it has to do also with squeeze-film lubrification, that happens in the knee when walking \n\nSource: am a bioengineer",
"Nerves in the soles of your feet that are stimulated by pressure when you stand up send signals \"upstream\". These signals cause the activation of a number of muscles throughout your body, not just in your legs, to help maintain your posture. \n\nNerves can emit a limit amount of neurotransmitter to broadcast their signal before they need to \"reload.\" If you activate these nerves too long - for example by standing still for a few minutes without varying the pressure on your soles - you'll deplete the neurotransmitter, the signals to your posture muscles will start to fail, and you'll feel fatigued and start to wobble.\n\nSource: I did research at NASA in the 90s about this. We were trying to help figure out how to minimize atrophy on astronauts on long trips in microgravity. One discovery is that all of their posture muscles atrophied, but applying constant pressure to their soles (e.g., wrapping their feet tightly) wasn't an effective solution.\n\nFor more reading, check the variable foot pressure research done by Prof. Chuck Layne at the University of Houston.",
"But what about back pain? I can hike for an entire day with a backpack and no problems. I spent two hours at an exhibition in a gallery and I wanted to lie on the floor. It's not enough to stop me from moving normally but it's agony for the rest of the day. I've no idea why!",
"Looks like you've received many great answers already! I just wanted to add that I'm (nearly) an Occupational Therapist (still working on my master's...one year to go!) and we get tons of requests to recommend a standing desk for clients at work (so insurance will cover it). I probably only recommend a standing desk one time out of ten because people usually try it out, realize that standing is uncomfortable, then never use the standing option again. And these desks cost about $2000 where I live. A MUCH better option is to keep your existing desk, get a proper ergonomic assessment, and set a timer to stand up and walk about once every 45-60 minutes. By changing position and moving around once an hour you get the blood flowing, joints moving, and muscles stretched out. It's the change of position and movement that's helpful, less so the standing! Plus by leaving your desk for a couple of minutes (instead of simply raising your desk to standing-position) your eyes get a break and hopefully your brain too! :) ",
"Taking out all the technical terms, it is basically your body being at rest more often when walking as compared to standing. \n\nThe weight is distributed around the entire time while walking, hence allowing one to use more strength and different muscle groups. \n\nWhere as in standing still, the weight is constant, hence no rest. ",
"It's not just about veins. The force applied to legs and spine is greater when you stand still, because vector of force is going just down. When you walk, the force vector is shared between two vectors - one going down, and one going in the direction you are walking. Since the force amount is the same (caused by your body weight), the force applied to legs (down vector) is now smaller. Also, the force is distributed over greater variety of muscles when you walk, and thus it is much less uncomfortable. Fast walking (not running, and not slow walking!) is recommended excercise to persons with back pain (discus hernia) because it relieves the pressure on the spine, and makes muscles stronger so they better support the spine.\n\nImagine the plane landing with some horizontal speed, and plane falling straight down. The first one lands safely, the second one is crashing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.jobst.com/mainnavigation/leg-health/veins-valves.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theveincenterar.com/images/Picture4.jpg",
"http://www.merckmanuals.com/~/media/manual/home/images/cvs_one_way_valves_veins.gif?la=en&thn=0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2say4y | why can't we prove climate change? | In other words, what's so difficult that we can't present extremely obvious facts of information that people should not doubt? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2say4y/eli5_why_cant_we_prove_climate_change/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnnrj4a",
"cnnrjdj",
"cnnrppf",
"cnnrw4d",
"cnnt107",
"cnnt5r6",
"cnnu2cx",
"cnnv0br",
"cnnv9aa",
"cnnvt7q",
"cnnx1sb",
"cnnyr1u",
"cno3tzi"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
12,
24,
2,
10,
2,
3,
2,
4,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"it's kind of like disproving religion...they will believe what they want",
"Mostly because all our facts are based on such a small period of time. We can prove that humans affect the environment what we can't prove is exactly how much we effect the environment. We can prove that carbon dioxide is causing climate change but we can't exactly prove that it's actually having a dramatic effect on the climate. We just don't have enough research or history to look at. \n\nFor one, climate change is also natural. What we need to look at is how we change the natural course of the climate and unfortunately we don't have nearly enough research to do that. ",
"Think of the world as one giant mathematical equation. It is really difficult given the limited data we have to see how changing one variable affects the equation. \n\nWe currently have hypothesis that strongly indicate climate change. But actual proof is more difficult. However, I for one don't want to take a chance on it. And it's pretty obvious that polluting the environment in which you live is not the way to go.\n\nIt's also advanced science, and to explain everything so nobody can doubt it is just not doable. ",
"Essentially, it has already been proven.\n\nyou have a bunch of people with the fingers in their ears going \n\n\"nahnahnahnah ain't so!\"",
"No one actually thinks climate change is fake, at least, not many rational people. A lot of the big whigs deny the effects of climate change and the madness around it. During the 90s scientists were claiming that the world would just end by the early 2000s. Then it got pushed into the 2010s, then the 2020s, and now we're looking at a world set to end from climate change in like.... 100 more years.\n\nThe fact that scientists with so much data were able to make such poor predictions didn't sit well with people and the consequences of it just don't seem as bad as extremists make it out to be. According to the movie 2012, the whole world floods by 3 years ago. According to the Day After Tomorrow the whole northern hemisphere (the industrialized one) will turn into a giant chunk of ice.\n\nIf any of these predictions are accurate in 100 years, the country that will be best prepared is the one that is best off. It takes a couple of months for America to clean up the effects of a natural disaster. It takes the third world a decade to recover from one.",
"You don't really 'prove' theories in science. You merely fail to disprove them.\n\nIn terms of climate science, there are two major stumbling blocks: testability and reproducibility. Unless you can figure out how to build Earth-size planets and control the inputs to their climate, you can't demonstrate the validity of climatological theories in the way that you can validate physical laws.\n\nUltimately, some systems are so complex that all you can do is model them - and a model can be written to claim a complex data set means whatever you want it to say. In this sense, climatology is more like predicting the stock market than putting a man on the moon.",
"Because the only way to actually prove anything in science is to have two things are are 100% identical in all ways except one and see what the differences are. Since we don't have a second Earth to test this on, we can't prove it. In fact, there's very little that we can actually *prove*. We can just do studies to examine change and be really really confident that the changes we observe correspond to the changes in this other variable. Which we are.",
"Because we are talking about global trends over hundreds of years. It's very difficult to predict the trend at any given point, and even harder to prove why we are trending that way. The data isn't as clear as people profess. The global temperature has remained essentially flat for almost twenty years. When you go back 100 years, the temperature has only increased around 1.5°F (~0.83°C). If you go back 5000 years to the Holocene maximum, the temperature has dropped around 2°F (~1.1°C).\n\nWhen you are talking about climate and not just temperatures the data is even harder to decipher. How do you put a number on the climate? Doing a quick search I found several graphs of hurricane records that supported both sides of the argument.\n\nNote: I am not trying to argue for or against global climate change, nor am I arguing the cause. I am simply stating why the debate has not settled.",
"When it comes to science, it isn't as much about \"proving\" something as much as it is about accepting or rejecting a hypothesis.\n\nIn general, when you attempt to solve a problem scientifically, you generally have a \"null hypothesis\" and an \"alternative hypothesis.\" The **alternative** hypothesis (noted as \"**HA**\") attempts to capture a result within a detectable area, while the **null** hypothesis (noted as \"**H0**\") simply means there is no relationship between what you are observing and what you are claiming is somehow related.\n\nSo let's say you have a favorite toy ball. Unless the ball is right in front of me, I, personally, do not have the ball -- but I want to make a claim as to where it is located. Based on my knowledge (data) that it is your favorite toy ball, I submit a hypothesis that the ball is located inside of your home. Thus, the **null** hypothesis is that the ball is not in your home.\n\nSo what's being tested? Here, my belief that the toy being your favorite acts as evidence for me to draw a hypothesis from, and my claim is that there is a relation between the toy being your favorite and the likelihood that it will be located inside of your home. But that's a pretty broad claim. There are many other reasons that may result in the toy being in your home, so if it so-happens that we do a test and the toy is found to be inside your home, we don't accept my alternative hypothesis... instead, we **reject the null** hypothesis. \n\nIn other words, what we have learned is not that the toy is inside your home because it is your favorite, rather we learn that the hypothesis of \"the ball is not inside the house\" is **false**. This is important, as it is the driving force behind further refinement of an understanding or a claim.\n\nHere, we are trying to figure out where that toy is based on evidence gathered. I had enough to know that it was likely in your house vs. not in your house... but a house is a big thing. I want to know **more precisely** where in the home the toy is. I gather more research, perform more tests, and make more observations, and I believe there is a significant relationship between the toy bin in the family den to where the toy may be located. It isn't to say that, at times, there are circumstances where the toy is **always** in the toy bin (after all, you're a kid -- it'll undoubtedly find its way under your bed from time to time). Instead, the claim is merely that I can say with a specific level of confidence that there is a **likely** probability of the toy being in the toy bin.\n\nSo how do we test it? My alternative is that the toy is in the toy bin, which makes my null hypothesis \"The toy is not in the toy bin.\" \n\nSo while we know that the toy is in the house, we are going to attempt to narrow our precision to a small box in the den of the home. We perform our tests and confirm that the toy is, almost always, inside of the box in the den. So we have learned that \"the toy is not in the box in the den\" is false and we reject it and move on again to try to further refine our understanding of where the toy is located.\n\nI've taken quite a few liberties to simplify it as best I can, but the point of all of the above is you should appreciate just how methodical the scientific method is and how its goal is to constantly chase a carrot of curiosity and refinement rather than settle on absolutes.\n\nSo when it comes to climate change -- the topic itself is incredibly complicated. The issue isn't as much proving that the climate is changing, but, rather, what is changing it. That's a big difference. For example, the null hypothesis would simply be \"The climate is not changing,\" which can effectively be rejected by data that shows the climate is, indeed, changing. \n\nSome believe that the climate is changing due to human behavior, which means our null hypothesis is that human behavior is not changing the climate. For a while, we have **accepted** this null hypothesis because there wasn't enough data to justify rejecting it in favor of an alternative. However, traction has gained behind more refined evidences which appear to justify rejecting the null hypothesis. Each of these pieces of evidence are, themselves, the product of hypothesis testing... and it reaches into many types of science and fields. All of this makes the topic even more complicated.\n\nOverall, the real issue comes down to how lay people understand science. What a scientists would consider \"proving\" something comes down to acknowledging the probability of circumstances leading to an expected result. It is rarely 100% and, where it is, science calls them \"laws\" and holds them as constants (like the speed of light in a vacuum).\n\nLay people, on the other hand, often consider \"proving\" something to be 100%. So even if lay people could understand the complexity of the science going on under the hood of a topic as large as climate change... they still have a tendency to expect an unreachable level of certainty. In other words, \"99.9% certainty\" isn't good enough for many who can't check the work themselves and are unwilling to overlook the .1% chance that the scientists are wrong. \n\n**tl;dr:** The issue isn't proving it as much as it is communicating the likely probability that it is true to an uneducated public.\n\n\n\n",
"Because the a lot of money can stir up the appearance of a small amount of doubt. And there is an ENORMOUS amount of money being thrown at generating doubt about climate science.\n\n",
"We can and we have. Next to no climate scientist will say that climate change is not taking place. \n\nIt is almost exclusively in the US where people try to make sound as if climate change is a hoax. ",
"There is a simple answer:\n\nA scientific theory *is never fully proven* by definition. People have a misconception that scientific theory = common term theory.\n\nWhen I say \"I have a theory\" i mean in scientific terms \"I have a hypothesis\".\n\nA scientific fact or evidence is not interesting. It is like \"A 50lb ball dropped 10 feet in 0.3 seconds when in an atmosphere composing of primarily jelaton made up out of ...\". A fact is just information. Nothing in a fact explains anything.\n\nA scientific law is a mathematical formula explaining a phenomena. There is a limit to what can become laws, because laws are not necessarily based on facts, they are pure math.\n\nA scientific theory is an unified explanation that is peer-reviewed (criticized) of dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions of facts. A theory is the explanation of why these facts happen, and how to predict future facts without having to actually do the experiment.\n\nA theory is later \"proven\" by using its predictive capabilities to predict future outcomes of experiments. When it is proven it *remains a theory*. We run with this theory until parts of it are disproven, at which point we refine or create a new one.\n\n\nSo to answer your question... we *can* prove climate change in the same way as we can prove gravity or evolution. There is no belief. And so far we are arguing the finer details of climate change, there is no doubt of its existence. However climate change will remain a theory (actually it is not just 1 theory, but many theories playing in tandem).",
"Climate change is proven, and climate change has always been and always will be happening because nothing ever stops changing ever, as change is the only constant. It's the 'cause' and the 'pace' of climate change that people are arguing over."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
55jd35 | why do we have mini heart attacks when almost dropping something? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55jd35/eli5why_do_we_have_mini_heart_attacks_when_almost/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8b2rzu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"An immediate and unthinking, \"ohmygodholycrap!\" response to sudden, unexpected events is what kept your early ancestors alive and safe from danger.\n\nYou've inherited that response from them."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5643mh | how do manufacturers make pure white paint? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5643mh/eli5_how_do_manufacturers_make_pure_white_paint/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8g5jzc",
"d8g5u7j",
"d8ge9op"
],
"score": [
11,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"White paint is generally made with a chemical called Titanium Dioxide. Its used because it is [very white](_URL_0_) and cheap.",
"Although ice is clear, snow is white. When you powder a clear material, it tends to reflect light in all directions regardless of color, which is what we see as white. As /u/life_b4_death mentioned, many of them use titanium dioxide, a material with a very high index of refraction. This makes it a good material for white pigment, since it refracts light very well.",
"By using titanium or zirconium oxide powder suspended in a liquid medium you can get very white paint. This is because these materials are strong insulators, so when visible light hits them they don't absorb anything."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_dioxide#/media/File:Titanium\\(IV\\)_oxide.jpg"
],
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.