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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1mune0 | why do a majority of white people not like being pale? | As a person of color, this always confused me. I love all skin tones so it baffles me that majority (not all, obviously) of white people are so unhappy/self-depracating about pale skin.
I feel like many black and latin cultures teach you to love your skin tone and embrace it, but so many of my white friends go tanning, make fun of OTHER white people for being un-tan, and even when they don't dislike their pale skin, they tend to point out their pale skin a lot for humour or just because
Maybe it could be America exclusive? I honestly have no idea what the deal is. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mune0/eli5_why_do_a_majority_of_white_people_not_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cccr8y3",
"cccrdxb",
"cccrgbh",
"cccrq8q",
"cccrsd6",
"cccrtvo",
"cccsiaa",
"ccctvnz"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
5,
2,
4,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It's definitely regional. Probably just a lot of 'grass is greener...' given that there are places where white is the desired standard.\n\nHere in Toronto we're about half immigrants or children of immigrants so skin colour is all over the map, and most people don't make a big deal about it in any direction.",
"It's about class. In old times, people who were poor or had to work for a living largely did work outdoors, like farming, or did work that wasn't very good for our skin, like in a factory. Those who were rich could afford to spend more time indoors, and so didn't tan. So back then, pale skin was considered desirable, as it suggested that one had money.\n\nNow though, most working people's jobs have moved indoors, in front of computer screens and inside stores. People with money, now, have the time to spend tanning. So now tanned skins is associate with having the time (and therefore money) to tan, and pale skin now means someone who has to work inside all day to pay their bills.",
"In the US, it's a social/economic thing. Being seen having a tan says to others that you have a lot of free time to spend outside, or you have a job that keeps you outside in the sun (and that means it's a \"fun\" job, or at least different enough from office work to be interesting). When most people work/stay indoors, having a tan becomes attractive.\n\nThere is a flip side. Being pale used to be attractive because it meant you were wealthy enough not to have to have a job working on a farm or outdoors. Now, (sometimes) having a tan means that you can afford the time to just lay around in the sun or pay to go to a tanning salon or a spray tan place.\n\nTL;DR: It's a cultural/economic thing that changes over time as tastes change. ",
"This habit has some historical roots. I am sure you know about the former european class of nobility, for whom it was absolutely no question, to be as pale as possible (they even used powder, think of Mozart or Cassanova). Being tanned meant, you were of lower class and had to work outside in the sun.\n\nNow, think of the social-economic perception today. A pale office worker is a person who cannot afford a glorious holiday on some carribean island. A tanned office worker is someone who can. This goes for everyone, except the people really working outside throuout the year (or the summer at least). \n\nIf you are tanned, you either can afford enough free time to spend in the sun, or you cheat with the the help of a tanning studio. Either way, it is about displaying wealth and health. Don´t forget, that paleness is also associated with sickness to a certain degree. So if you are tanned, you have \"color\", i e. you are looking healthy.",
"I'm so white, I glow in the daylight. I don't give a damn. It's my skin. It's there to keep inside stuff from falling out and outside stuff from getting in. I wish everybody felt that way. Oh, I know - what a communist I am, trying to destroy the beauty industry that way! Jeez, I don't even want companies trying to make money off of people by making them feel bad about their epidermis, for capitalist sakes!\n\nThere was an answer to your question in there, you just have to wade around in the sarcasm and silliness to find it. ",
"Because us white folks are like chameleons that can't control when our colors change. We turn blue when we're cold, red when hot, green when sick, etc. Being tan reduces those other colors.",
"A lot of women (and probably men) feel that tans make them appear thinner. Tans are also thought to make your muscles look more pronounced. If you look at body builders and the like, they often tan/oil before shows/photo shoots/etc.",
"I know that for me if I don't have a little sun my husband says I start looking really sick. I can get pretty pale if I'm not outside much and get color really fast. I don't intentional tan but will make an effort be be outside more often if I start getting sickly pale. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1ton93 | why water goes down so smoothly when you chug it and alcohol does not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ton93/eli5_why_water_goes_down_so_smoothly_when_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"cea0gfp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Alcohol excites [the squamous cells lining the esophagus](_URL_1_). It is actually a poison for cells. From here on I speculate: Possibly nerves report to the brain and that just won't give you an easy time swallowing poison...\n\nAs an aside, alcohol consumption (in large quantities) is a European thing. [Look at the world map of alcohol consumption](_URL_3_). You may say \"but lots of other places drink the same\" - but think about it, all those other places are full of Europeans, decedents of the conquerors. Except for China I admit, but I'd say that this is recent and that in the past they drank less (not sure though).\n\nAfter seeing that I decided to drink less (wasn't a heavy drinker to begin with), at least in such heavy concentrations and quantities it does not seem to be a universal human habit!\n\n\nEDIT: [Was right about China](_URL_2_). They have a long history - of careful social drinking in moderation. Only during the last decades did the consumption increase a lot.\n\nEDIT^2: [Alcohol is toxic: *\"Alcoholic beverages also cause inflammation of the stomach lining, and they irritate the entire digestive and waste elimination tract as well.\"*](_URL_4_)\n\nAlso [see here, *\"A Toxic Substance---Alcohol\"*](_URL_0_)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/Cell_Biology/module_2/hazards.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squamous_epithelial_cell",
"http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/6/537.full",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Alcohol_consumption_per_capita_world_map.PNG",
"http://www.naturalnews.com/031412_alcohol_toxicity.html"
]
]
|
||
2yizpc | cabin pressure in commercial airplanes. | If you buy a bag of chips at the airport and take it on the plane with you, the bag will expand to the point of almost popping as you climb to 35,000 feet.
I always thought that airplane cabins were "pressurized" such that if you open the door to the outside world while cruising the cabin would lose pressure and it would be difficult for passengers to breathe. However, clearly the altitude of the airplane has an effect on pressure as evidenced by annoying increase in pressure in your middle ear (solved by swallowing and chewing gum) and my example with the bag of chips.
So whats going on here? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yizpc/eli5_cabin_pressure_in_commercial_airplanes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp9z2co"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Airplane cabins are pressurized, just not to a full atmosphere of pressure. Most high-altitude planes cabins are pressurized to the equivalent of 7000-8000 foot altitudes."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
28nfxt | why are newer starwars considered so bad compared to the originals? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28nfxt/eli5_why_are_newer_starwars_considered_so_bad/ | {
"a_id": [
"cickjoc",
"cicks8o",
"cickze7",
"cicl1zr",
"cicl4mt",
"cicl7kh",
"ciclafg",
"ciclgyz",
"ciclulo",
"ciclvwr",
"cicmaeo"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
4,
2,
13,
8,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For the answer, look at the ratio of story/dialogue to fight scenes/graphics. \n\nThe older ones focused on story and character. There were fight scenes, sure, but those fight scenes were shorter and less impressive. The new ones focus on pretty lights and colors, the fight scenes are all back flips and fast clashing lightsabers. \n\nThe older ones are better because they put some real effort into substance rather than dumping a ton of money into making it look pretty. ",
"George no longer had the same writers who did the witty dialog, for example, between Han and Leia, which was compared to \"Bogey\" and Bacall. \n\nI think they were the same folks who worked on his film, American Graffiti.\n\nThe old ones were more \"fun\" although I was never a huge fan, despite being the right age. (I was about 13 or 14 when the first one came-out)",
"[DEEP BREATH] Aside from the terrible acting, the unrealistic character development, the terrible fart-joke of a character that was Jar-Jar, the stupid plot lines, the hackneyed, cliche dialoge, Anakin's rapid aging, the explanation that the Force sensitivity could be determined with some kind of blood test which would be COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN by, literally, everyone in the Galaxy after the end of this part of the franchise, the quick kill off of Darth Maul (arguably one of the very best things in these movie), the stupid inclusion of R2D2 and C3P0, the unreasonable leap Anakin makes from \"Having a few doubts\" right into \"child murder\"...and mostly everything about the movies...I liked the light saber effects. \n\nOOO colors. ",
"Hayden Christensen is/was a terrible actor in these movies. Half of his lines are so bad, that it takes me out of the story...and fantasy / sci-fi movies are all about keeping the audience 'in' the story. ",
"Jar-Jar. Slapstick comedy and pandering to those under 8 years old turns off longtime fans who are now in their 30s.\n\nThe cool characters aren't cool yet. Anakin starts out as a snot-nosed brat and then a whiny teen; the audience liked him as an imposing, inexorable evil. Obi-Wan is a foolish idealist when he was cool as a wizened, experienced mentor. Boba Fett was cool as a professional, dangerous bounty hunter with a reputation as the best in the galaxy. Being turned into hundreds of thousands of clones dilutes his character's uniqueness, and makes him rub shoulders with cannon fodder. Jabba the Hutt is a goofy muppet rather than a repulsive paragon of greed.\n\nThe mystique of the Force is destroyed. Rather than a mysterious force the bounds of which are a mystery, where the small like Yoda can be immensely powerful, it is turned into a number from a blood test. Originally a plucky farm boy could aspire to a greatness that nobody could have guessed, but in the new movies someone could prick your finger and tell you in a minute that you had no potential. It also takes the valor out of the Jedi's powers; Yoda's lifting of the X-Wing wasn't due to some strength of character, but because his blood was full of microorganisms. Filter them out through dialysis and he would just be a lumpy green alien.",
"I'll leave this here. _URL_0_",
"Also, George Lucas can write a decent story, but he usually needs a great director to change things (like Irwin Kirschner in Empire Strikes Back, or Steven Spielberg for Indiana Jones).\n\nOne of the main criticisms about the prequels was that GL had become so big and so controlling, no one was there to tell him \"no\" like they were in ep's 4,5,6.",
"_URL_0_\n\nThis series of reviews breaks down everything that is wrong with the prequels in excruciating detail (it actually takes longer to watch the reviews than to watch the movies). The reviews are quite good, as long as you can get past the reviewer's persona an extremely creepy old man.\n\nThe TLDR of the videos are (with spoilers):\n\n* None of the characters are memorable. Try and say something about most of the character's other than their occupation.\n\n* The movies fail at showing character development. We never really see Anakin and Obi-wan share adventures together. They keep mentioning \"the good times\" and are told that they happened, but we never see them.\n\n* Anakin succumbing to the dark side was really poorly handled. Anakin never had a good reason to turn. I can't explain it very well without writing an essay, but some crazy leaps in logic are required to justify the change.\n\nBasically, the new movies are super flashy and have no substance.\n\nIf anyone chooses to watch all of the reviews, keep in mind, they get *really* nitpick-ey and the reviewer's persona can be... unsettling at times.",
"The actual why has been covered, but for comparison:\n[What if Episode I was good?](_URL_0_)\n[What if Episode II was good?](_URL_1_)",
"[Watch the Red Letter Media Review.](_URL_0_)",
"Here's my long-winded response:\n\n100% green screen. If you see any behind the scenes videos about the making of these movies, you'll see George Lucas sitting on his fat ass in a completely green room where all the actors are forced to make something from nothing. Practical effects must have banged George's wife in the twenty years between movies.\n\nLack of interesting characters. None of the characters had heart like in the old movies. You cared about Luke, Han and Leia because they seemed like real people. The actors in the prequels were like set pieces with dialogue. Ewan McGregor did the best with what he was given though; still like him.\n\nGross fan-service. George shoved old, beloved characters in our faces to try to please the audience without having a reason for them to be there. Why was R2D2 there? Why was C3PO there? Why was Boba Fett there? Why was Yoda fighting? It made the prequels more of an homage to the first three movies than actual stand-alone movies.\n\nMidichlorians completely took the mysterious, spiritual nature of the force away.\n\nStormtroopers aren't exactly the most competent enemies, but droids are fucking pathetic. What's the point of having 10 minute action scenes with droids when you know that the jedi are going to cut through them butter without any risk of a character dying or so much as stubbing their toe. It's boring as shit.\n\nSpeaking of boring, the \"political dialogue\" that infected half of every prequel was not something I remember in the originals.\n\nJar Jar (i.e. George Lucas isn't funny)\n\nHere's my other response: _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/"
],
[],
[
"http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgICnbC2-_Y&feature=youtu.be&src_vid=JAbug3AhYmw&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_3408058443",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbug3AhYmw"
],
[
"http://youtu.be/FxKtZmQgxrI"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI"
]
]
|
||
6ujfmv | how does unsupervised machine learning work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ujfmv/eli5_how_does_unsupervised_machine_learning_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlt4ovb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[This video explains it well](_URL_0_)\n\nThe approach isn't far from brute forcing the pin for the parental lock your TV. Given a desired goal, you start mashing controls until you get what you want. First you try 1111, then 1112, etc until it unlocks. \n\nGive the machine the ability to measure partial success, and it will favor attempts that get it the farthest fastest. \n\nIn the Mario example, it basically mashes \"Right\" until failure, which happens at the first Goomba. Then it mashes \"Right\" and mixes in some \"Up\" until it gets past that first Goomba, and records the timing. Then it will time out at the the pipe, and start the \"up\" iterations again starting after the Goomba. \n\nThe more logic you can build in, the faster the machine can learn. The more specific you build your \"win conditions\" the more powerful the learning is. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44"
]
]
|
||
3b6kcm | how can older movies be presented on the blu-ray format without downgrading the quality of the film? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b6kcm/eli5_how_can_older_movies_be_presented_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"csjag3y",
"csjalpk",
"csjbjre"
],
"score": [
19,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Movies shot on film still have a higher resolution than we can match with digital. A new high definition transfer of an older film-based movie can easily be as high resolution as Blu-Ray can handle.",
"Most older movies on film were shot on 35mm. It's hard to get an exact equivalent, but it's said to be digital equivalent around 4K. If you didn't know, most movies today aren't even 4K, not even blockbusters like both Avengers or Avatar. \n \nFor Blu-ray, the usually scan it at 4K and then down-sample that to 1080p. Some teamsters are done at 8K, this is usually done with 70mm or 70mm IMAX movies. Interstellar was on 70mm IMAX and that format is said to be equivalent to ~14K (at a 1.44:1 aspect ratio), to put that in perspective, that's over 135 megapixels.",
"A piece of film is coated in chemicals which react to light, these chemicals could be thought of as pixels and because they are tiny little chemicals the piece of film has a very high resolution compared to a digital camera. \n\nThat said... There are other issues involved here. The optics of the camera used to capture the image, the quality of the film, how well it has stood up over time in storage, the quality of the optical equipment to play it back, the screen it is being played on, etc..\n\nIf you have seen old movies played on film projectors, and watched your 4k tv you might notice that the 4k tv looks sharper with more detail than the movie at the theater. \n\nBeyond that when they started using high definition captures for movies (even 1080p) they found that normal hollywood makeup didn't look right at high definition. I heard, but haven't seen it myself, that there is a high definition starwars release where you can see strings for wire work and such. To me this degrades the experience as you are watching something in a way it wasn't meant to be watched because we have this new technology people are obsessed about."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
9e3w6o | why does our brain enjoy solving puzzles? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9e3w6o/eli5_why_does_our_brain_enjoy_solving_puzzles/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5lwlxa",
"e5lxbio",
"e5m04qx"
],
"score": [
14,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"Your brain is just like your muscles. You feel stronger when you lift weights, and solving puzzles are like lifting weights for your brain, and your brain likes that",
"Humans, like most animals, are inherently curious and enjoy finding solutions to problems. When presented with any type of situation that requires a solution our mind entertains myriad thoughts of any different number of solutions. Through the process of deduction the mind then filters through these to find the best possible one.",
"The intent is to provide a sense of pride and accomplishment. \n\n\nBut seriously, you feel proud solving puzzles "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5cmjx2 | why do so many people seem to fall for scam artists? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5cmjx2/eli5_why_do_so_many_people_seem_to_fall_for_scam/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9xo2lx",
"d9xtdod",
"d9xu67z",
"d9xxz1z",
"d9xza81"
],
"score": [
19,
5,
19,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of scams prey on ignorance and familiarity \n\nThink about the typical \"You've won x amount of money\" emails, you may not fall for them because you know that you've not entered the Spanish Lottery or used a casino site before, but someone who often does that sort of thing or has no knowledge of how scams work may not know that those emails aren't legitimate since they see real ones often. \n\nAnother common one is to pretend to be a large company e.g Microsoft offering tech-support, Walmart offering coupons, Delta offering free flights. Since a person is familiar with these companies it wouldn't be too hard to imagine such an offer being legitimate therefore they are happy to pass their details on. This is helped by the fact that almost everyone likes free things. ",
"A friend asked this same question recently, specifically with respect to the '419' scams from Nigeria, so named because Section 419 of the Nigerian Criminal Code covers fraud of this nature.\n\nThese scams have been going on for a long time, but every year in the news we see that someone else fell for them despite huge warning signs and a treasure trove of excellent information on how to not get scammed that is just a google search away.\n\nOne important feature of such confidence scams is that they make the person being scammed feel like they are helping someone else out, which makes it easier for them to fool themselves into believing that the supposed potential benefits for themselves aren't a motivating factor. The scammer makes the victim feel good about helping someone else out, and promises to make them feel good when they receive their chunk of the cash. Either of those motivations might not be enough on their own, but together they reinforce each other in such a way that the victim always feels good about what they are doing, right up until it all comes crashing down.\n\nApproach someone with an offer like \"help me rob this old couple and we will split the profits\", and they will usually be offended and walk away without participating in the scam. But appeal to their better nature - focus on the idea that they are helping someone who is in need - and some sort of selective awareness kicks in, where the good they are doing for others is thought of as the primary reason for their involvement, with the potential gain for themselves a mere side-effect, hardly worth mentioning, unless to acknowledge that it is a reward for their selfless act of kindness.\n\nEvery time I see someone get scammed on the news, they say the same thing: \"I just wanted to help, I didn't even think about the reward, I was just doing my duty as a [insert philosophy/religion/genus/species here]. Now my entire retirement account is gone.\" I don't think these people are particularly dumb - it *does* feel good to help others - but they generally don't seem to be very honest with themselves about their motivations. (I've never heard one say \"I turned down the reward, asking only that the money I put up be reimbursed.\" They never admit that the reward was a motivator, but they never turn it down, either.)",
"True story...\n\nA few months back I get a Facebook message from my old manager at Best Buy (Haven't worked in the store for almost10 years). He says it's an emergency to call him, wtf is he drunk? Turns out my 90yr old grandma is in the store trying to buy $2500 in ITunes gift cards.... WHAT. THE. \n\nLong story as short as I can make it - My \"cousin\" had called, he was in jail, got in a fight. Turns out he is an alcoholic and needs to be bailed out of jail. He doesn't want family to know. So he calls my dear ol Grandma to go get the iTunes cards from somewhere like Target or Best Buy. She heads to Best Buy, asks at customer service where the iTunes cards are, and then asks how to buy $2500 worth. Luckily the store employee got the manager, and somehow through this determined it was my grandma and gave me the call. \n\nOf course it wasn't my cousin, it was a random dude with broken English we determined after he called back later to get he codes. Thanks to e great employees though, they stopped it from happening. My grandma being 90, her hearing is shot and honestly shouldn't be driving. None the less, random call stating \"It's me, you know who this is right\" was all it took for my grandma to ask if it's my cousin, and she ran with it and assumed it was. She had no idea. She was in tears when I had to talk to her on the phone 8 hours away, begging me to not tell anyone that he needed to be bailed out. She just wanted to protect my cousin since he asked so nicely to keep it a secret. \n\nThis is when I realized how truly easy it is to scam someone, especially the elderly. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nThe book \"Think Like a Freak\" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dunner touches on this topic in one of their chapters. \n\nAs I understand, it boils down to the fact that anyone who responds to a scam email is clearly ignorant of these types of scams and hence it requires relatively little work on the scammers behalf to prize money from them. \n\nI highly recommend reading the book as the authors explain it in a far more eloquent manner.\n",
"Anyone can be tricked, no one is smart enough to see through every scam. \n\nJames Randi once taught some simple sleight of hand to two teenage boys and they convinced a dozen Stanford researchers they had psychic powers!\n\nAnyone can be tricked. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-nigerian-scam-emails-are-obvious-2014-5?r=US&IR=T"
],
[]
]
|
||
5p1f6g | how does a restaurant with a large menu have the right food for a night of service when they don't know what people will order? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5p1f6g/eli5_how_does_a_restaurant_with_a_large_menu_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcnnybw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They keep stocks slightly higher than the standard amount sold of an item on a given night. If they run out they tell the customer that something is out of stock and no longer available. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
29zfku | how wireless technology was first discovered | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29zfku/eli5how_wireless_technology_was_first_discovered/ | {
"a_id": [
"cipzvt5",
"ciq0hm5"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Well, it's not like one day someone discovered a bluetooth headset or anything. It's just been a long process, step-by-step, understanding how electromagnetic radiation works, how we can control it, and what sorts of uses it has. Once we figured out how to transmit and receive electromagnetic radiation, it's just a matter of time before people being to think of novel uses for it, all the way up to radio/television/wi-fi/etc...",
"This dates back to the 19th century with people such as Faraday, Henry, Ampere, and a few others discovering the link between electricity, magnetism, and the electric and magnetic fields. They discovered things like how two wires with current can push on each other, that a magnet can induce electricity in a coil of wire, and that a coil near another coil with current in it will have its own current (known today as a transformer). It was soon after summed up by Maxwell who wrote 4 famous equation known as Maxwell's equations that sum up the entirety of (classical) electromagnetism, and showed that waves could exist in these fields and propagate at the speed of light, these making these waves light itself, though not necessarily light out eyes can see. From here it was just a matter of work of thousands of people to figure out how to use this knowledge to transmit meaningful information over these electromagnetic waves rather than just power to get to the wireless communication we have today. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2nud7i | why is the us more friendlier with the saudis over the russians? (well until crimea anyways... both are major oil producers but the russians are closer in culture and heritage) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nud7i/eli5why_is_the_us_more_friendlier_with_the_saudis/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmgy0xq",
"cmgye88",
"cmgzhnm"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"First, alliances are not about culture and heritage, but about interests. After all, North and South Korea had *identical* culture and heritage, but were—and, of course, still are—run by people with very different interests.\n\nAnd second, in what sense are the Saudis' culture and heritage particularly close to the Russians'?\n",
"The U.S. was engaged in a 40+ year struggle for domination against the USSR. The Russian Federation largely inherited and continued to maintain this distrust of the West after the collapse of the USSR. \n\nThe Saudi's have an agreement that as long as they keep the oil flowing freely they will be placed under American protection and have access to Western military technology.",
"At the start, the U.S. and Saudi relationship was purely about oil. It began during WWII, when FDR needed more oil for the war effort. After WWII, came the Cold War. The conservative Saudi monarchy was very against communism, which gave the U.S. and Saudi Arabia a common interest in fighting Soviet influence in the Middle East.\n\nIn 1979, the Iranian Revolution brought an anti-Western, anti-U.S. government to power in Iran. The U.S. obviously hated this new government in Iran, but so did Saudi Arabia. After all, the powers that be in Saudi Arabia didn't want their king to go the same way as the Shah of Iran. This gave the U.S. and Saudi Arabia another common interest that carried on after the end of the Cold War, i.e. opposing Iran and opposing revolutionary Islamism."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
afokms | why can you only use emergency exits during an emergency? | This seems like a waste of a perfectly usable door. I understand that they trigger an alarm to indicate that there is a need to evacuate an area, but couldn't they just have a button next to the door to sound an alarm? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/afokms/eli5_why_can_you_only_use_emergency_exits_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"ee0a5eh",
"ee0rjy9",
"ee13efp",
"ee2aqrp"
],
"score": [
16,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Such doors are usually located in areas with poor security. Businesses don't want them used for shoplifting. Theaters don't want them used for sneaking in.",
"The alarms are not to signal an emergency, they are to alert security that someone is using a restricted door. This is mostly to prevent people from lettings others into an otherwise secure area. ",
"For security reasons they want people using monitored doors. They are required per NFPA 101 Life Safety Code and local municipal fire codes to provide the extra exits for life safety, so to do so and still maintain the level of security they want, they put the alarms on them. The alarms are not meant to indicate there is an emergency (the fire alarm is a separate system) they are to notify management/security that someone opened the door (and therefore may be trying to steal something or sneak someone in/out).",
"Usually it's to keep people from sneaking out of stores to steal stuff or into doors to sneak into theaters and clubs without paying. Or to keep workers from sneaking breaks in their workplace. \n\nIn places that don't have those security concerns, doors are often not emergency exit *only*. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
u76hn | austrian school and the austrian business cycle theory | I am subscribed to the /r/economics subreddit and they always talk about the Austrian School so a wiki read didn't reveal anything about the core concept of the Austrian and why it is criticized by US economists. So can you explain it like I am five? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u76hn/eli5_austrian_school_and_the_austrian_business/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4sy6kt",
"c4sylf0",
"c4sz1nl",
"c4t0fos",
"c4t6beq",
"c4t6ga8"
],
"score": [
27,
6,
13,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It is rather hard to explain an entire school of economics at a 5 year-old level, especially without writing a short book, but I'll try.\n\nBasically, the Austrian school is based on individual action as much as possible, in contrast to economists in the mainstream, both in the US and elsewhere, who tend to aggregate (lump things together) to an extent that makes the models almost meaningless (for example: Aggregate demand, i.e. all the demand, by everyone, for everything in the entire economy). In addition, as has already been said, the Austrian school does more logical derivation, whereas mainstream economics tends toward building a model (based on the over-aggregation mentioned earlier), then goes hunting for data that fits the model\n\nExplaining the business cycle theory is somewhat more simple.\n\nFirst, we need to understand what interest rates represent in a free market (please note that what we have isn't). Banks want to loan out as much money as they can in order to maximize profits. Holding other things equal, if the banks have more money to loan out, they will have to lower interest rates to attract enough borrowers. Thus, in a free market, a lower interest rate means people are spending less and saving more. This is an indication to businesses that consumers want to consume less than they could now in order to increase consumption later. From this the astute businessman will conclude that he should increase his productive capacity (or, in the case of highly durable goods, say, houses, increase production directly) to meet the expected demand later. Even the not-so-astute businessman will probably do the same, too, because, well, cheap loans.\n\nNow that we know what an interest rate should indicate, lets get on to the theory.\n\nThe interest rate is artificially lowered. In the modern world, this is usually done by a central bank, though before the advent of central banking, there were still privileged banks that could do many of the same things. Entrepreneurs and businessmen see this and take out loans to build new plants, housing developments, etc. (loans are taken out for short-term projects as well, of course, but that isn't important here). All this new investment creates an economic boom, or bubble, as they are sometimes referred to after they pop and the general public realizes it was a bubble. The new investment is usually concentrated in one area, either because it's emerging and naturally would attract a lot of interest, or because the government and central bank exert pressure that pushes it into one area (such as in the late housing bubble). Eventually the natural interest rate exerts itself, or the central bank raises interest rates for fear of too much inflation, and many of the investments are no longer viable because of the increased financing cost. This causes the whole thing to come crashing down (the loans go unpaid, the jobs created in the boom go away, etc.). \n\nAfter the bubble pops, the central bank usually tries to \"fix\" the economy by lowering interest rates, starting the cycle over again.\n\n**TL;DR**\nAustrians focus on individual action and logical derivation. Mainstream economics aggregate (in the Austrian's view) way too much, create models based on that aggregation, then hunt for data to fit the model.\n\nThe business cycle is caused by the artificial lowering of interest rates causing a boom. When the natural rate of interest re-asserts itself, the whole thing goes down in flames.\n\n",
"Austrian's believe chemistry is science: a testable hypothesis with repeatable result. Economics is philosophy.",
"Prepared to get schooled in [my Austrian perspective](_URL_0_).",
"Pretend that you fish for a living and you need two fish every day to survive. When you catch three fish you sell the third and keep the money that you earned. You then use this money to buy better fishing equipment that will help you catch more fish, or you save it for a rainy day. By buying better equipment you can catch more fish and accumulate more money and buy more equipment. Eventually you become so profitable that you can hire other people to help you. You have now made the economy stronger by hiring more people with the wealth that you accumulated. Leftist economic thought says that you should give that third fish to someone that did not work as hard as you did. You still keep your two fish to live on but it is now far harder for you to accumulate capital. When you cannot accumulate your wealth you will say \"screw it\" and stop fishing after you catch your two fish, or you have to work even harder to catch four fish so that you can still accumulate wealth. Both result in a poorer less efficient economy.",
"smoothlikejello gave a pretty decent explanation of the major theory behind it. If you have questions on details of that, I recommend you follow that thread.\n\nHowever, to answer the \"why it is criticized\" part, there are a few main reasons:\n\n1. Austrians believe that economics is a social science, not a hard science. Whereas many economists believe that mathematical models can be used to reflect how the economy - or at least a portion of it - functions, Austrians believe that mathematical models require too many assumptions and do not reflect the individual preferences of people. This rejection of most mathematical models earns criticism from many mainstream economists.\n\n1. Austrians believe that economics is best understood through deductive, not inductive logic. This, again, runs counter to many hard sciences and thus many reject it.\n\n1. Austrians believe that empirical data cannot be relied upon to make policy decisions. They believe that in addition to the fact that data can be selectively sampled or statistically manipulated to reach a desired conclusion, there are simply too many variables that differentiate different situations, times or places and thus make comparisons difficult. High/low taxes at one time in one city may not have the same impact at a different time in a different city.\n\n1. Austrians favor a hard currency - one backed by a tangible commodity like gold/silver/etc. This view is considered not only antiquated and old fashioned, but impossible by many and thus relegates the school itself to be unrealistic and dismissed.",
"You are asking two questions here:\n\n1. What is the core concept of the Austrian School of Economics?\n\n2. Why is the Austrian School of Economics criticized by US economists?\n\nThe second questions contains two assumptions:\n\n1. \"US Economists\" are a bloc of people with largely similar opinions (at least with regard to Austrian Economics).\n\n2. This bloc is \"critical\" of the Austrian School of Economics.\n\nTherefore, we would need to define more specifically what is meant by \"critical\" and whether or not this large bloc of economists really exists.\n\nIn reality, of course, economists in the US differ greatly in their views on Austrian economics. But assuming for the sake of this argument, that you mean to say that the \"mainstream\" or \"majority\" of economists in the U.S. disagree with most, all, or the core concepts of Austrian Economics, we are left with this question:\n\n2. Why does the mainstream of economic thought in the United States hold a view that differs from the core concepts of Austrian Economics?\n\nSo, as smoothlikejello said, we are left with two questions that are somewhat difficult to explain to a five-year old, as they require a great deal of background knowlege. Nevertheless, I will attempt to answer each one in turn:\n\n1. The key concepts underlying the Austrian School are:\n\n* People do things on purpose, according to their own beliefs. People's actions are not predictable, because everyone has his own set of beliefs and will respond differently to different circumstances. Mathematical studies of economics are therefore largely useless, and economic decisions should be made using logical reasoning and deduction, rather than statistical analysis and induction.\n\n* What something is worth has nothing to do with what that thing is, but only with how people value that thing. A glass of water might not be worth much to you right now, but that same glass of water is worth a lot to someone dying in the desert. The amount of work that went into getting the water into the glass, or the rarity of water in general have no bearing on its value in the real world.\n\n* In general, most goods and services are finite in number and the same goods and services can be used for a variety of things. Therefore, the proper allocation of these goods and services is critical for economic efficiency.\n\n* The only way to properly allocate goods and services is through a price system, which gives buyers and sellers information about exactly how valuable a certain good or service is to a certain person or in a certain area. For example, water from a river has many uses. People can drink it, shower with it, water their lawns, make water balloons, etc. If there is a drought in a certain area, farmers in that area need water more than they used to, and so will be willing to pay more for it. Demand will rise in that area, and therefore water will command a higher price. The price of water will go up, and fewer people will be willing to pay the higher price to use it for water balloons, freeing up more water for farmers and directing it to where it is needed most. Without a price system, no one will have any idea where all the many, many, many goods and services should be best allocated and moved.\n\n* While it is not strictly an economic policy, most Austrian thought is based on the idea that it is not only inefficient and ineffective, but also morally wrong, to force people to do things against their will, even if those things are \"good\" for them.\n\n2) There are many reasons why so-called \"mainstream\" economists in the US disagree with all or some of Austrian thought. Some reasons are personal: Paul Krugman, for example, disagrees with it because it brings him profit and fame to do so, and because all of his profit and fame are based on Austrian economics being wrong, so for him to change his views would be career suicide. Others do it from principle, because they believe in statistical models or because they have an overriding \"feeling\" that Austrian economics is bad for \"poor people\" and helps \"rich people;\" that is: they feel it is unegalitarian. Still others are critical of it precisely because it is not the mainstream view, and anything on the outside of the mainstream is not to be trusted. And finally, some others simple believe strongly that other systems of economics are verifiably, empirically better. It is difficult to say why so many economists criticize the Austrian school, but suffice it to say that they all have their own reasons, and these reasons are individual to each of them: they all act purposefully and according to their own beliefs."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
83d5o9 | why do non-rechargable/single use batteries last longer than rechargable ones? | I recently bought a pack of rechargable AA batteries and promptly returned them when I read they had to be replaced and recharged every couple of hours in like a TV remote. Why do non-rechargable batteries last for months? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83d5o9/eli5_why_do_nonrechargablesingle_use_batteries/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvh2b0d",
"dvh6znu",
"dvhf19l"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't need to be recharged every couple of hours. They need to be recharged after a couple of hours of **use**. \n\nIn this instance, that would mean pushing a button on your TV remote and holding it down for a couple of hours straight, but you don't do that. You push a button for a small fraction of a second each time you use it. That kind of use translates in to months of life regardless of what type of battery you're using. \n\nRechargeable batteries don't last as long as standard ones, but the difference is not that dramatic, especially in a low-draw application like a TV remote. ",
"You had something not quite right. Yes rechargable batteries don't have the same energy density as alkaline batteries, but the should last many months, and alkaline should last years. \n\nThe chemistries are vastly different, the designs are different. It's a side effect of designing the battery so that you can put electrons back in (and many times at that). They also self discharge more than alkaline. You can leave an alkaline cell on a shelf for 5 years with no use and expect it to work. If you put a charged ni-mh on a shelf for 5 years, it'll not only be dead, you might not even be able to charge it without special conditioning.\n\n",
"Rechargeables are a bad fit for a TV remote. Most rechargeable batteries self-discharge in a few months. TV remotes are made in such a way that they use zero power unless a button is pressed, so a non-rechargeable battery can easily last years in them.\n\nThere are low self-discharge NiMH batteries, but IMO they're a bit of a waste for a TV remote. You'll throw the remote out before they pay off for that use.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6b3kxz | when looking at used car ads, i see many claims of "highway miles." is prolonged use at high rpms better for the car than short stop-and-go use? why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6b3kxz/eli5_when_looking_at_used_car_ads_i_see_many/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhjhaic"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Engines are designed to work optimally at running temperature and a certain RPM. If you run it on lower speed and lower temperatures it will not get efficient combustion and start making sot and tar instead of clean exhaust products. You might notice the exhaust getting black if the car have just started or have been idling for a long time. The sot and tar will build up inside the engine as well and can damage it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
dfewvw | why does solid food taste good when you're chewing it, but is disgusting when you blend it into a smoothie? | Say you're eating a hamburger, it tastes good. Now blend in into a smoothie, and it's disgusting! Why? It's still the same ingredients. Does texture affect the way we taste? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dfewvw/eli5_why_does_solid_food_taste_good_when_youre/ | {
"a_id": [
"f32lstn",
"f32rbpb",
"f33fwdw",
"f33vywv"
],
"score": [
17,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There's whole field of science dedicated to this.\nThe simple answer is, yes, texture does affect taste.",
"As someone who worked in a nursing facility kitchen and had to blend a lot of food for people who were on puree diets, it could also be partially due to the liquid you have to add to get it to blend. A burger is to dry to blend on it's own, so you'd have to add broth or milk. That can drastically change the flavor.",
"1) by blending food you also modify it’s taste because when you do you break down it’s cells and what’s in them (eg, when you eat mint and you blend it becomes bitter, whereare if you don’t it keeps it’s freshness and is nowhere near bitter).\n2) you don’t perceive the taste only through your mouth, the nose plays an important role and the eye does too.\n\nSo when you blend food you’re not only changing the food’s flavor but you’re also changing your own perception of it...",
"In addition to the tastes on your tongue and detected by your nose, your perception of food also changes with other sensations. One of them is called *mouthfeel*, which is more or less the texture of it and how it behaves in your mouth. A crunchy raw apple has a different mouthfeel than the soft, almost jelly mouthfeel of cooked apples. \n\nAlso important to taste is our expectations. So, you may like beer, and you may like soda, but pick up a glass and chug without looking and the soda will taste sickly sweet if you're expecting beer, and the beer will taste horribly bitter if you're expecting soda. This can include even what the food looks like. For example, that's why meatless burger patties include protien juice to make it have that meaty \"bleeding\" that you expect from real meat.\n\nSo when you take, say, a burger and blend it you're 1) changing the mouthfeel, which will alter your perception of it and 2) radically altering the food away from what the expected mouthfeel *should be*."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1we9c0 | why is it is it easier to be nice to strangers and acquaintances than to people we actually care about? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1we9c0/eli5_why_is_it_is_it_easier_to_be_nice_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf16pm1",
"cf17dii",
"cf1831u",
"cf194ld",
"cf1dugi"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
5,
14,
2
],
"text": [
"You take the close people for granted. ",
"You'd have to define what you mean by being nice and what you mean by people we care about.\n\n\nChances are people you care about are people that you have spent some time with. Thus, you may have seen this person doing something immoral, you may have had some arguments with them and other incidents that taint your view of said person.\n\nOn the other hand, when you see a strange lady struggling to carry her grocery bag and her baby all you see is \"human in distress\", not \"she's a bitch to her husband and physically abuses her other kid\".",
"Because you're not around them all the time and therefore they don't have the time to get on your nerves. ",
"Because with the people we know,\n\nThere's no need to put on a show,\n\nBut when with a stranger,\n\nWe mustn't endanger,\n\nThe niceties we're taught to follow.",
"Good fucking question."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
svmrk | why congress can get away with repackaging unpopular bills (sopa - > cispa, etc.) over and over until they finally get passed? | Didn't we already make it clear that this is a Bad Thing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/svmrk/eli5_why_congress_can_get_away_with_repackaging/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4hcpbz",
"c4hcrj9",
"c4hcs03",
"c4hcy6w",
"c4hcyyb",
"c4hd0hu",
"c4hd0kd",
"c4hd5nm",
"c4hdbrv",
"c4hdet2",
"c4he9m6",
"c4heafd",
"c4hgviy",
"c4hgzfz",
"c4hhg4p",
"c4hinm2",
"c4hise0",
"c4hl0v1"
],
"score": [
17,
29,
12,
21,
380,
281,
6,
7,
5,
3,
19,
2,
4,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Politics is more like a war than a battle. ",
"They know that we'll eventually get distracted and allow it to happen, and then not punish anyone with voting them out. ELI5 answer is : We're stupid and lazy as a group, and they know it and take advantage of it. They're not in office for us, they're in office first for themselves, seconds for their donators, and the public really doesn't factor in. All they have to do is keep us from rioting or voting them out, while maximizing their personal benefit.",
" > Didn't we already make it clear that this is a Bad Thing?\n\nWhich representatives were recalled or voted out of office as a result?\n\nIf that didn't happen (yet), then nothing was made clear. ",
"CISPA is completely different from SOPA.",
"CISPA is nothing like SOPA, aside from its connection to the internet. SOPA provided for the shutdown of individual websites (essentially), while CISPA allows for, in the most general sense, internet wiretapping sans warrant.\n\nIt's a lot more complicated than that, but I felt the need to correct your underlying assumption.",
"This is not an appropriate post for ELI5. You are not asking for an explanation for a complex subject. You are not asking how the US political system works. You are complaining about a political injustice. There is a great subreddit for this purpose called [r/politics](_URL_0_).\n\nedit:couldn't figure out relative links, so I just did a full one",
"Congress is made up of people. Congress is almost solely responsible for law making. Thus, the people that make up Congress are the lawmakers. Companies with a lot of money want to have certain laws certain ways. They want these lawmakers to vote on and introduce bills that will help their company do more and make more. This is called lobbying, and they essentially buy the lawmakers. The Supreme Court has decided that money is considered a form of speech and its use here is protected under the first amendment. These companies are putting an apple on the teacher's desk, and instead of outright saying, \"GIVE ME A GOOD GRADE NOW,\" just giving a wink and a nod. \n\nAt least this is how I understand it. ",
"CISPA and SOPA aren't at all similar.",
"\"When are people going to learn? Democracy doesn't work.\" -- Homer Simpson",
"Because they are no laws in place to stop them.",
"You would be upset with this philosophy when it means that things like civil rights only get one try. The Civil Rights that passed in the 60s was not the first one to be looked at.",
"Congress has bigger guns than you, so they can do what they want.\n\n/explained like you're 5.",
"The answer to the implicit question \"Why are they trying again?\" is \"They have the resources to keep trying and trying and trying far beyond our resources to protest and oppose\". It's *literally* their day job to put this shit forward. It's *literally* not our day job to oppose it.\n\nYes, I do mean *literally*. ",
"Because American democracy ≠ actual democracy",
"havent you learned anything from James Bond? Because 100 no's and a yes is still a yes. (say it in a sean connery voice for best effect)",
"Because people have a 5 minute attention spaSQUIRREL! ...... Sorry, what was I saying?",
"In America, we rely on the fact that congressmen have a temporary term, then must be reelected. However, what happens is even though people are upset with 'congress', their congressman is ok. Even though he voted for all the shit you hated, he's a good guy. So you vote for him again.\n\nSo everyone likes their guy, they keep getting reelected, and the rest of congress can go fuck themselves cause your guy is fine. Even though all together they form a mass of retards.",
"Lets say you want a cookie from the cookie jar. You go up to the jar and try to take a cookie. Your mom and brother see you and stop you. Still wanting a cookie, you try again, but this time you try to make it less obvious what your true intentions are. No go, your mom is watching you like a hawk now, but your brothers seems like he is more flexible. This time you get your brother in on it, so he benefits, so he will distract mom while you steal the cookies!\n\nYou = government\n\nMom = internet people\n\nbrother = social networking cites\n\nSOPA =/= CISPA but this is the best way to describe what is happening to a five year old."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://reddit.com/r/politics"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
346gbg | how do electrical systems on a jet operate? | Is it like a car, where an alternator charges the battery using engine power or is there some other way a jet harnesses electricity? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/346gbg/eli5_how_do_electrical_systems_on_a_jet_operate/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqronr9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are alternators in each engine casing. They provide electricity to the main batteries and the auxiliary systems batteries that power the on-board electrical systems."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
10an2t | music equalizers. | How do they effect the music? What do they change? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10an2t/eli5_music_equalizers/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6bta7e"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"An EQ or equalizer shapes the tone of the sound: the low end/frequencies, the mid frequencies, and the high end frequencies.\n\nSimple EQ's have a predetermined \"crossover\" that separates the lows, mids and highs. The lows will usually range from 20hz-300hz, the highs from 7khz-20khz, and the mids in between. \n\nAn EQ can raise or lower those groups of frequencies. A parametric equalizer can isolate single frequencies or smaller clusters, allowing one to shape the sound in more detail.\n\nInstead of just adding more \"pop\" to a vocal track, we can find the frequency of a certain note and really make it sing by manipulating it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
181or5 | game theory in sociology/psychology | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/181or5/eli5_game_theory_in_sociologypsychology/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8awj6a"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I agree with daafuzz\n\n\nI will add that these game\nTheory tests works well in control groups. Even better when is explained to the group that they can gain more with cooperative attitudes. \n\ngame theory has a fee things to say about the claims of economics"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2odif2 | why do the launches of space shuttles look like they're traveling so slow? | When they launch it looks like they're going really slow, when in reality I know they are going hundreds if not thousands of miles an hour. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2odif2/eli5why_do_the_launches_of_space_shuttles_look/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmm370u",
"cmm3765",
"cmm3uot"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"When they're close to the ground, they're still accelerating, so they're not that fast.\n\nBy the time they've accelerated to very high speeds, they're far away, so they don't seem to move that quickly.",
"You have no point of reference. You can only judge distances when you have a basis for comparison, but they're launching against a clear blue sky.",
"At the start of a launch, shuttles aren't moving that quickly. They can't. Air resistance increases with the square of your speed. You can see this with your car (your gas mileage decreases dramatically once you start going faster than about 70). Space shuttles needs their fuel for reaching orbital speed, not for fighting air resistance. So what they do is accelerate slowly at first. Then when they are higher in the atmosphere (with much less air resistance), they accelerate much more quickly. At that point there is no frame of reference. There are no telephone poles whizzing by or what have you. Not to mention that you are really far away. Planes don't look like they are moving *that* quickly until you get closer to them. This next point is true for me: I have never seen a space shuttle launch. It is always a video of it which just hurts frame of reference even more. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2v0ct7 | why do some wires, such as phone chargers, eventually become fussy and work only when placed into a very specific position? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v0ct7/eli5_why_do_some_wires_such_as_phone_chargers/ | {
"a_id": [
"codarby"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Cables like that are made up of a bunch of very thin wires inside. If you abuse your cables, such as by coiling them up very tightly, you can break the internal wires or the connections between the wire & the connector.\n\nTreat your cables well - don't coil them up tighter than they were when you bought them. Pull out by the connector, not the cable. Don't try to make tight bends with the cable at the point where it meets the connector."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ktt4e | how are we able to control the flight of objects we send to space? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ktt4e/how_are_we_able_to_control_the_flight_of_objects/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2n674s",
"c2n6aft",
"c2n674s",
"c2n6aft"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"An object in motion stays in motion, unless it is acted on by another force.\n\nSo, if you push something in space, it will generally keep moving in that direction. The gravity of near-by stars and planets will effect the direction and speed, but other than that you're home free. Want to go towards Mars? Do the math for gravity and fire a rocket that way. (Or rather towards where Mars will be, when you get there.)\n\nThe same applies to smaller adjustments. Fire a rocket and/or manipulate gravity to change your direction or speed. For instance, the ISS uses small rockets and visiting shuttles to adjust her orbit. (And the orbit itself is just a manipulation of the Earth's gravity.)\n\nDoes that answer your question?",
"epdx is correct. Most of the path is mapped out before it is launched. Most deep space probes (going beyond the asteroid belt) use something callled a [Gravity Assist](_URL_0_) which uses a planet to increase the speed of the probe significantly. Other than that, fine adjustments (like rotating a probe to take pictures in different directions are taken care of by small onboard boosters. To some extent they can also use onboard gyroscopes to twist slightly I believe.",
"An object in motion stays in motion, unless it is acted on by another force.\n\nSo, if you push something in space, it will generally keep moving in that direction. The gravity of near-by stars and planets will effect the direction and speed, but other than that you're home free. Want to go towards Mars? Do the math for gravity and fire a rocket that way. (Or rather towards where Mars will be, when you get there.)\n\nThe same applies to smaller adjustments. Fire a rocket and/or manipulate gravity to change your direction or speed. For instance, the ISS uses small rockets and visiting shuttles to adjust her orbit. (And the orbit itself is just a manipulation of the Earth's gravity.)\n\nDoes that answer your question?",
"epdx is correct. Most of the path is mapped out before it is launched. Most deep space probes (going beyond the asteroid belt) use something callled a [Gravity Assist](_URL_0_) which uses a planet to increase the speed of the probe significantly. Other than that, fine adjustments (like rotating a probe to take pictures in different directions are taken care of by small onboard boosters. To some extent they can also use onboard gyroscopes to twist slightly I believe."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist"
]
]
|
||
fzaftt | why real phenomena like alternating voltage or current are represented by complex numbers? | I asked my friend this and he said, "It's represented in such a way to make calculations easier since writing out it's sinusoidal forms can be tiring." But is it the only explanation? I'm talking about Single Phase AC circuits. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fzaftt/eli5_why_real_phenomena_like_alternating_voltage/ | {
"a_id": [
"fn3xoqf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I agree with your friend, but you're right to question if that's the only reason. Your friend is correct if you've ever tried to simplify a circuit diagram that has RLC components, it is much easier to combine the reactance of the LC components by adding/subtracting the imaginary components (i.e. vector components).\n\nBut visually, drawing a vector is much more intuitive and thus you'll see phasors used for more concrete understanding of multi-phase (3-phase) circuits. Since a signal is cyclical, it's also easier to visualize it traversing a circle, rather than a sine wave stretched out on a timeline.\n\nAlso, even for just single-phase, the only parameters are magnitude, phase, and time. At any instantaneous moment in time we are left with a magnitude and phase which we can simply draw as a triangle and operate on it with more elementary methods."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
p6s7s | how cruise ships produce electricity | I don't know why this thought occurred to me, maybe it's because I'm going on a cruise tomorrow. I remember the last time I was on one and I was able to plug my laptop into a socket and use my laptop, recharge my phone, etc. I'm curious as to how ships produce electricity since they're not connected to a grid. Do they just generate electricity from the water? Is there electricity stored somewhere? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p6s7s/eli5_how_cruise_ships_produce_electricity/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3myybw",
"c3mz77y"
],
"score": [
17,
16
],
"text": [
"Same as a car, essentially - part of the power from the engine is used to drive a generator.",
"Newer cruise ships use diesel-electric drive trains like locomotives. Engines turn huge generators, which then drive electric motors that turn the propellers, no long, heavy driveshafts needed. You can then put the electric motors in [rotatable pods](_URL_0_) that allow you to turn the ship on a dime.\n\nSome of that generator output is siphoned off to power the ship and is converted to household AC power for the passengers to use. When there is excessive power demand, like when the ship's Air Conditioning is running full blast in the tropics, they may start up auxiliary powerplants or even some turbine engines."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuth_thruster"
]
]
|
|
appedd | why does sun dried fruit does not rot? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/appedd/eli5_why_does_sun_dried_fruit_does_not_rot/ | {
"a_id": [
"egad6xg",
"eghan0n"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Rotting generally happens because of the actions of microbes. \n\nMicrobes, particularly the kinds that like fruit, like moist conditions. They are not adapted to surviving in dry conditions, such as those in dried fruit. ",
"Any organism that wants to live on the dried food has to struggle with keeping water inside its cells in an environment that really, really wants to suck the water out of the cells.\n\nVery few organisms, mostly molds, have the ability to live in that environment."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2esx0a | why are a majority of currency symbols made from alphabetic letters? eg. $, ¢, ¥, £, ฿, ₩ etc | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2esx0a/eli5_why_are_a_majority_of_currency_symbols_made/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck2mdpa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Some are made from letters that have to do with the name of the denomination, such as the €uro, or ¢ents or ¥en.\n\nBut others, like $ have no apparent connection to the word Dollar. Except that the idea of the dollar originated in the $panish Peso which looked like a combination of of an S and P, with the P's stick going straight through the S, giving it it's look. As well as the American Dollar using the overlapping U and S, the two sticks from the U gave the S the double sticks that we now use for the $.\n\nThere are alternative hypotheses as to the origin of $, but that's not really the question.\n\nUnless the currency already has a standing symbol, like the Peso or Dollar did when it began to be printed, generally they simply take the first letter and add dashes to it to differentiate between the letter and the symbol. The same tactic is used to differentiate between a zer0 and a capital O"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
7mwoz2 | brine mining lithium | I originally wanted to learn how to "mine" lithium, and then I learned that the method of mining lithium is through "brine mining" and the Wikipedia page is extremely dense.
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7mwoz2/eli5_brine_mining_lithium/ | {
"a_id": [
"drx8nsd"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Basically they pump in salty water which is called brine and the material (lithium in your case) would disolve in it and then get pumped out. They then extract if from the fluid by evaporating it or adding chemicals that would cause it to precipitate (become solid)\n\nNow they have the lithium or whatever in a solid form above ground and they can purify it in any way they'd want"
]
} | []
| [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brine_mining"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
31cimi | why is it that books can stay on store shelves for years and be unharmed, but the second i buy them and put them on my bookshelf, the pages start to yellow? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31cimi/eli5_why_is_it_that_books_can_stay_on_store/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq0cbzg",
"cq0dpk3",
"cq0drm0",
"cq0heeq"
],
"score": [
8,
11,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Could it be the 10 packs of cigarettes you smoke indoors everyday?",
"Book stores have specially calibrated air conditioning that keeps the books in perfect condition. They do this so that when the books leave the store they begin to weather so it looks like you've read them, without you having to actually read them.",
"It has something to do with sun light. I have some books with a line down the center of the page where the sunlight wasn't able to hit that particular part.",
"The yellowing of paper is basically an oxidation reaction, the same as rust formation. Factors which increase the rate of this reaction are moisture in the air, with more causing faster oxidation, warmth, with warmer temperatures causing faster oxidation and sunlight, with more sunlight causing faster oxidation.\n\nSunlight is probably the biggest factor here, UV rays can form free radicals by splitting water vapour molecules in the air which then react with some parts of the paper to cause a yellow colour. If no water vapour was present, the paper might still be oxidised by oxygen in the air, but I think the process would be much slower. Finally, heat speeds up the reaction by giving the molecules more kinetic energy, making them move about more quickly which increases the chance of them coming in to contact with a surface that they can react with in any given period.\n\nThese factors are controlled in book stores, they might use silica gel packets like you find in some new shoes to draw moisture away from the air or use some form of air conditioning to keep the room cool and keep humidity low. Book stores in my area at least are usually quite cold. I've never really thought about it before, but now that I do a lot of book stores near me aren't that well lit and have few windows."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
2qz32u | why does the electric company provides incentives to purchase cfl over incandescent light bulbs? | Doesnt the electric company makes money of off kW/hr? So more usage = more revenue? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qz32u/eli5_why_does_the_electric_company_provides/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnavm26",
"cnaw06q",
"cnaw0bp",
"cnaxxt0"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Government gives power co money (Grants) to reduce emissions/promote energy efficiency, so they don't give them out of their pocket.\n\nAlso, These mobs aren't exactly short of money, so reducing your energy use by a few hundred Watts isn't going to stop them getting in the Champagne at the Christmas party.",
"For many utility companies, it is cheaper to give customers CFLs instead of adding production capacity (building power plants). Some states also mandate that utility companies spend a certain amount of money reducing consumption before building new plants.",
"Because the electric company wants to go on as long as possible without having to upgrade their infrastructure. The population is going to grow regardless of what they do so even if electrical demand per person drops total demand will still rise because of population growth. Electrical companies spend billions of dollars investing in infrastructure to deliver and provide electricity and if demand grows faster than they predicted then they will have to build new power plants and transmission lines.",
"In the US, many electric utilities are owned by the government. The Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, is a huge ($10 billion in revenue in 2013) federally owned corporation that generates electricity. The TVA does not provide power directly to individuals, they resell to local utilities that are owned by local governments.\n\nThe TVA's mission is not to make lots of money, among a few goals, it's to provide economic development in the area in services. Right now, the best way for them to do that is provide cheap power and inform people on how to reduce power usage.\n\nWhen the utility is privately owned, all bets are off. Privately owned utilities have shown multiple times to be completely incapable of doing anything correctly, and eventually go bankrupt after screwing over as many people as possible, including themselves."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
9v9lsg | why are so many children books/cartoons based around animals? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9v9lsg/eli5_why_are_so_many_children_bookscartoons_based/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9ae0tm",
"e9ahw1m"
],
"score": [
23,
3
],
"text": [
"It’s easier for kids to relate to and morph subjects that are typically tough into more light-hearted content because they are “animal” problems instead of “human” problems. Anthropomorphism goes a long way. ",
"You see, once there was a little tiger cub that couldn't go to sleep. Her papa tried telling her a bedtime story about a monster that walked on two legs and carried a magic metal stick in his front paws and could kill tigers from a long distance. This made the little tiger cub very scared and didn't help. \n\nSo papa tiger tried to tell a similar story, but this time it was a story about a little antelope that was grazing on a plain and a big, strong Tiger came and got it. This story the tiger cub understood as one of life and death, sadness and victory, but she also identified with the Tiger antagonist and knew this was just an anthropomorphic story and chuckled at the lighthearted nature of the story even while serious subject matter was being addressed."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
auxv1r | why is the illuminati or new world order viewed as bad? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/auxv1r/eli5_why_is_the_illuminati_or_new_world_order/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehb87to"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Simply put, it’s because the idea that a few. vastly wealthy, *unelected* individuals are controlling the majority, if not all, of the worlds states, finances, corporations means there is no accountability. \n\nThey own media outlets so they can feed the general population different versions of the truth or hide it altogether. They could be the ultimate puppeteers and each country is their marionette on strings. \n\nThink about it like this: How would you feel if the Illumanti was behind all of the wars in human history? "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
41mesc | why are electric skateboard so expensive? | Why is it that electric skateboards are so expensive however there are things like "hoverboards" that although $500 are literally a third of the price? What makes electric skateboards so expensive, aren't they just some batteries and motors. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41mesc/eli5_why_are_electric_skateboard_so_expensive/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz3gpor"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Electric motors and batteries are expensive. You figure that's a lot of copper windings in the motor, rare earth magnets too. However if you notice, those \"hoverboards\" are actually catching on fire a lot due to cheap manufacturing processes. So I'm going to wager that it's a \"get what you pay for\" kind of deal there..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3slxi0 | what is the difference between a resident physician and a practicing doctor? | As a nursing student, this is something I've always been confused by.
Do resident physicians decide what treatments need to be carried out, and are there specific procedures they cannot do or make the call on? How long do they go through the residency program and what do they have to do to become a licensed practicing Doctor? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3slxi0/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_resident/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwyelg6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A resident has finished medical school but has not had the opportunity to specialize or be on their own. Residencies are to give the new MD those opportunities while also being under someone to make sure they don't screw up too much. After a 3+ year residency, MDs have the opportunity to do fellowships to further specialize or to just do something general in what they do their residencies in. After that, they are fully ready to be on their own."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
eqs0d3 | why/how do intravenous medicines leave different tastes in your mouth when given? | I recently had surgery, and noticed distinct tastes in my mouth when I received different medications, as well as when they flushed out the IV (metallic copper taste). How is this as they are not taken orally? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eqs0d3/eli5_whyhow_do_intravenous_medicines_leave/ | {
"a_id": [
"fewgfid"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I did some research on this recently because this taste was causing my mom significant nausea and occasional vomiting during chemotherapy. Basically, some medications have different types of preservatives added to keep the product stable. We noticed the terrible taste was mostly associated specifically with pre-filled normal saline flush syringes (I’m sure there are plenty of other solutions and drugs that this happens with but of the repeated chemotherapy cocktail she took this was the worst offender). The research I did suggested that the preservatives are removed from the blood stream by the lungs and subsequently exhaled. As you exhale the air it crosses over the taste buds and that’s why you taste it. It may have something to do with the preservatives binding to nitrogen if I remember that detail specifically."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
9krcv4 | what is chirped pulse amplification? | The 2018 Nobel Prize for physics has been awarded for this... and I have no idea what it means | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9krcv4/eli5_what_is_chirped_pulse_amplification/ | {
"a_id": [
"e71j2bn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Basically we've been struggling for a few years to increase the power of the lasers we have. It's been pretty much flat, this research finally got us passed that. \n\n[NPR](_URL_0_) did a story on it. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/653576926/scientists-from-u-s-canada-france-split-nobel-prize-in-physics-for-laser-work"
]
]
|
|
1wfssr | onion routing and tor | I would appreciate it if someone could succinctly explain onion routing to me in a way my pea-sized brain could understand. Please and thank you! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wfssr/eli5_onion_routing_and_tor/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf1kxka"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Basically onion routing works like this. You have a long list of entry nodes, and exit nodes.\n\nWhen you start 'onion routing', you connect to an entry node (normally semi-random, which ever has the lowest ping, so geographically), then you'll randomly connect to an exit node. Between the entry and exit node everything is encrypted, so you can't see what happens in between. \n\nThe best way to think of it is a chase scene from scooby doo, there is no way of telling which door scooby, shaggy, or the monster will come from, even if you know which on they entered. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
36lnm6 | how does your body feed itself when you don't eat food for a smaller period of time? | I am talking about 3-4 days.
I know it takes the resources from your remaining muscles and fat in your body, but how exactly does the process work? How does your body take the resouces? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36lnm6/eli5_how_does_your_body_feed_itself_when_you_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"crf26t8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Think of your body as a laptop. When it's plugged in you can use the electricity (food) to run the laptop and it gets everything it needs from being plugged in. However, simultaneously it also charges up and saves some energy in the battery (fat and muscle cells). This charging process can be reversed so that the laptop then can use that energy to function even when not plugged in."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
8dqys5 | why is the term "patient zero" instead of "patient one?" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8dqys5/eli5_why_is_the_term_patient_zero_instead_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxpaard",
"dxpasjn"
],
"score": [
11,
17
],
"text": [
"It is a misunderstanding.\n\nThe term comes from research on the early transmission of AIDS. One of the early vectors was Canadian flight attendant Gaëtan Dugas, who in studies was referred to as Patient O (\"oh\", not \"zero\"). Journalists got it wrong, thinking the more interesting sounding Patient 0 was some sort of technical term and started using it as instead. The term stuck and now it is part of the language.",
"The origin of the term is actually Gaëtan Dugas, the \"patient zero\" of HIV who was accused of spreading the disease around North America.\n\nFrom Wikipedia:\n\n > A study by historian Richard McKay of Cambridge and others identified several causes for the Patient Zero myth. During early CDC analysis of cases in California, patient 057 (Dugas) was nicknamed patient \"O\" for \"outside the area\", but this was interpreted by others as Patient Zero. Dugas was particularly helpful in tracing his network of partners, which was further expanded because others remembered his distinctive name. Although many of the patients analyzed reported in excess of 1000 sexual partners, most remembered \"only a handful\" of names, making their contacts to other cases more difficult to trace.\n\n\"Patient zero\" is mostly a term used by the media. The medical term is \"index case.\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
qp1mg | why video game trailers ask for your birthdate, but porn sites are just one-click to get in | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qp1mg/eli5_why_video_game_trailers_ask_for_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3zany5",
"c3zccu9",
"c3zcv25",
"c3zitz6"
],
"score": [
17,
12,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"~~Video games companies are often sued. When somebody does a bad thing, like killing people, sometimes people will blame the video games that they were believed to have played. Video games companies can't afford to be seen to be putting \"dangerous\" material into the hands of children, especially in countries where it might be illegal to sell such games to children.~~\n\n~~Pornographers are less scared. There are very few attention-grabbing headlines about somebody doing something naughty because of the porn they looked at. And the only people who get really mad about children looking at porn are their parents (and they rarely want to try to sue the pornographers). More-importantly, pornographers *really* want you to visit their site, and don't want to put any barriers between you and them: anything that slows you down might make you go to a different site instead.~~\n\n~~**tl;dr:** They're both doing the same thing, but video games companies want to be able to say they \"took every precaution\" to stop children, whereas pornographers want to do the minimum that they can get away with (and sometimes less).~~\n\n**Edit: I stand corrected.** Several people have commented below and indicated that what I had been told was not correct. Please read their explanations; disregard mine.",
"This is a procedure enforced by the ESRB and the ARC: \n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_",
"It's required by the ESRB. See section 2.3 of this document: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_).\n\nIf you want to remain a part of the ESRB, you **must** have an \"Enter your birthday\" age-gate.",
"I guess you could say the porn sites\n\n*puts on sunglasses*\n\nDon't give a fuck.\n\nAWHHH YEAHHHH"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/03/m-rated-video-the-esrb-and-video-game-trailers.ars",
"http://www.esrb.org/ratings/downloads/ewc_code.pdf"
],
[
"http://www.esrb.org/ratings/downloads/ewc_code.pdf"
],
[]
]
|
||
2qewzj | why is elvis still big as a cultural icon? | He's been dead for 37 years but he has his own radio station, his own theme park, his own candle light vigil on the Eve of his death, and he still has a huge impact on American culture...
Why does he have such a big impact today compared to Marilyn Monroe, Frank Sinatra, or Michael Jackson? What makes him special? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qewzj/eli5_why_is_elvis_still_big_as_a_cultural_icon/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn5i5i6"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Elvis is the highest selling solo artist of all time with more than 600 million records sold in the U.S alone. The population of the U.S. was only 200 million in his prime. Elvis has the most hits in the Top 100, the Top 40, The Top 10, and has had 32 Number 1 Records. He broke color barriers of country and R & B, and was a sex symbol and a movie star. He was nominated for 41 Grammys. Elvis was everywhere, and he is known as the Greatest Entertainer of the 20th Century. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
9njs3h | why do particular spots on the body have a pulse? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9njs3h/eli5_why_do_particular_spots_on_the_body_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7mr3yf"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Blood pushes through the long tracks that cover your body to keep you healthy. Some of these tracks are closer to the skin than others, the close ones can be felt as pulses. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
29e0dj | how do those satirical interview on the daily show work? | Are they real? Do the interviewees aware that they're being lampooned? Is it heavily edited? Why do people still agree to be on the show or are they actually just actors? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29e0dj/eli5_how_do_those_satirical_interview_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cik0x1w",
"cik10sm",
"cik15zp",
"cik1j9y",
"cik1qa5",
"cik23pt",
"cik27k3",
"cik2a8u",
"cik31kf",
"cik3pf2",
"cik3to4",
"cik45p1",
"cik490g",
"cik4boq",
"cik4uim",
"cik4yam",
"cik52y2",
"cik55sj",
"cik56n6",
"cik57k8",
"cik5kby",
"cik5qj2",
"cik5us5",
"cik6ah1",
"cik6wox",
"cik6xdi",
"cik70j2",
"cik712p",
"cik7619",
"cik770p",
"cik78az",
"cik7d7f",
"cik7gj1",
"cik7iyt",
"cik7q65",
"cik7rob",
"cik7u17",
"cik8prx",
"cik8z1q",
"cik9kkg",
"cika15x",
"cika3pr",
"cikb3ds",
"cikb4x9",
"cikbnxj",
"cikc3b6",
"cikdsj0",
"cikdtm5",
"cike05e",
"cikhoe9",
"ciki09n",
"ciki7y7",
"cikl49h"
],
"score": [
54,
34,
842,
683,
22,
300,
188,
15,
386,
164,
3,
7,
909,
5,
10,
9,
2,
2,
7,
20,
3,
2,
13,
93,
2,
3,
13,
35,
5,
3,
2,
21,
2,
5,
9,
167,
6,
3,
3,
2,
10,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
15,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > Mr Pants: [laughing] You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?\n\n > Blackadder: No, not really. This is a different thing; it's spontaneous and it's called wit. \n\nAs I lack it.",
"Just from watching, it looks like they shoot it so that one camera shows the interviewer and one shows the interviewee (with each shot only showing the very back of the other person's head). It looks like they edit it so that sometimes they put the back of the interviewee's head in the shot (on the left half) and then (on the right half) put the interviewer saying something clever. \n\n\n\nIt looks like the right half was put in later, so that the cutting witty amazing comment was not actually made in the presence of the interviewee. This would be much like in tv when one actor plays two roles at the same time, with one character standing on the left and one on the right of right screen.\n\n\n\nThen, they cut to the reaction of the interviewee, which is usually baffled or incoherent or just a blank stare. It LOOKS like they are reacting to the comment, but really it is probably a reaction to another question or just sitting there in silence while the tv crew measures lighting or whatever.\n\n\n\nSplitting it up like this makes it looks like it is just a fluid interview (and a few questions probably are), but mostly it is cutting together pieces of unrelated stuff to make it look more polished and clever than it was in real life.",
"[Many people on both sides of the aisle believe that Colbert shares their own ideology:](_URL_0_)\n\n > there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism.\n\nSo, some people may be willing to go on his show knowing that they'll be mocked, but thinking that it's by someone who supports their point of view and wants to help them get their message out to a wider audience.",
"I'm convinced that some politicians, particularly around election time, will go on The Colbert Report knowing they're going to be satirized, but still do it anyway just to get even a little exposure to Colbert's elusive young adult market.",
"Really good question, OP. I've always wondered this too. Especially when the interviewee is like the CEO of some major cooperation and is defending the company's policy on kitten juggling while simultaneously punching babies in the face. I would love to see an answer to this.",
"According to a couple of the people that have been interviewed on The Daily Show, the interviewers are asked questions over and over again until they slip up and say something that can be taken out of context. This one guy, Peter Schiff, claims that he was interviewed by Samantha Bee for 4 hours and asked the same questions repeatedly. And out of the 4 hours they took 30 seconds that made him look like a giant asshole. He also said that he went on there because he figured he would be different from all the other people who have been made fools of, and wouldn't give them any material they could make fun of. If what he says is true, I suspect many people go on thinking the same thing.\n\nHere is an article where he describes the interview process a little bit: _URL_0_",
"According to one of the 'Google glass explorers' interviewed by Jason Jones on The Daily Show's recent segment on Google Glass wearers, the actual interview lasted about an hour. Only a few seconds/minutes of the actual conversation were selected (and the final edit is predictably hilarious)\n\nI'm guessing for individual guests, they are aware that they're facing a satirical interview. Having said that, interviewers like John Oliver and Colbert are very good at identifying and pouncing on contradictory statements, which is usually the source of humour.\n\n\n",
"Heavily edited. Much like \"Nathan For You\" I imagine these would be extremely hard to watch before the editing. I would be so uncomfortable as a member of the crew during interviews.",
"I met Aasif Mandvi one time and he explained the whole goal is to get a 'I fucked the chicken' moment. Apparently he interviewed someone once who admitted to fucking a chicken. He said silence is the secret. If you ask a question and just continue to stare at them silently, they'll volunteer more information than they should. Then you just edit it down to the ridiculous parts. ",
"I remember video leaked of Colbert back stage years ago with Kerry where he told him \"remember, I'm in character out there\". That says a lot about what's being asked here\n\n\nEdit: [Found the video](_URL_0_)",
"For a lot of them, there's editing to make responses funnier/more outrageous. Remember, it's a comedy show first and foremost.",
"Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing for some people. Colbert's interview bits tend to find people who are willing to admit, on camera, that they believe things that can almost always be refuted with publicly-available data.\n\nOnce you have the mindset of \"what I believe is right no matter what you tell me,\" it's a really small step to \"anyone who is reasonable *must* believe as I do\". And so they end up on Colbert, looking all earnest and well-meaning while they say horrible things and the interviewer is forced to say things like, \"Um, you *do* know that we can *hear* you, right?\"\n\nSee _URL_0_ , for example\n\n(Yesyes, I know, it's wikipedia - go do your own research to get further)",
"My friend's mom, who is a Congresswoman, was interviewed by Colbert. Apparently it was brutal. The interview lasted three hours and he never once broke character. Not before the interview began, not after it was over. He's a pro.",
"I think I remember reading somewhere that Colbert tells the guests before their interviews just to talk and say what they came to say while basically ignoring his ridiculousness.",
"_URL_0_\nColbert - \"We don't necessarily say we're from Comedy Central.\"\nPS: Can anyone give me the link to the segment they talk about?",
"I assume your asking this because of the recent interviee wirh the senator that had children work at his tobacco farm, Im somewhat curious myself as to why the senator would do that to himself",
"There was an interview with then San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (about happy meal toys) and at one point the interviewer said to him \" you're a very good looking\" apparently it took a few takes to get one where his didn't burst out laughing. ",
"One of the correspondents actually came to my University as a guest speaker and explained the process they take for interviewing regular people. Essentially what they do is go to an area where there is a story to cover and interview a large amount of people on the topic. Ask them all a series of mostly standard questions and then edit it down to the best responses. \n\n\nHe said that plenty of people would try to be funny with their answers, however the intentional jokers often gave the worst interviews. But essentially you just keep interviewing people for long enough and you'll get some sincere and genuinely funny answers.",
"I attended the recording of a John Oliver interview with Herman Cain several years ago (after the election though). I'd say it was pretty obvious that Cain was in on the joke.",
"Three primary reasons:\n\n1. People go in thinking they can defend their views unlike all the other poor saps. If you go up against the pros thinking you will be different, you are usually sorely mistaken.\n2. They have the power of just not using your material if you don't screw up and say something stupid.\n3. There's a lot of opinionated and stupid people out there on both sides. Rob Riggle often caught out crazy left wingers during his stint on The Daily Show.",
"This will get buried, but here's a blog post from an anti-vaccine proponent about her interview on The Daily Show:\n\n_URL_0_ ",
"Let me know if you find a real answer, I've always been curious about this.",
"I was listening Aasif Mandvi on the WTF Podcast the other day and said the biggest piece of advice he was given on those interviews was from Stephen Colbert, who told him, \"Don't be afraid of the silence.\"\n\nBasically, silence makes people uncomfortable and they'll often just start talking and babbling in order to fill that silence. So Aasif said he pretty much just asks a leading question or two and then gets out of the way and lets the interviewee stumble all over himself while trying to fill whatever awkward silence there is. And people tend to start rattling off the first thing that comes to their mind when the pressure is on, which often happens to be stupid, racist, or hilarious.\n\nIt's a really awesome interview, worth listening to.\n\nAs for whether the interviewees are aware they're being lampooned, I remember hearing another correspondent (maybe Colbert one time?) say that for the most part, yes, people are aware they're on a comedy show and aware that they may be made fun of. But the people being interviewed are usually people who aren't ever approached by other media outlets and so the Daily Show is the first real exposure they've had to express their opinions. So even though they are often aware of the risks, they're willing to take it just for the chance to have their voice heard. Although sometimes, people are just totally unaware what kind of show they're on.",
"ITT people don't understand the difference between The Daily Show and The Colbert Report",
"What I want to know is how they get the high profile interviews, like Jones getting one with Mikhail Gorbachev on the Daily Show. This man literally hasn't been seen in public in decades or given interviews rather, and then Jason gets it. What?!",
"One of my college professors, who is also on the city's school board, was [interviewed on the daily show](_URL_0_) in regards to him voting to shut down the city's Mexican American Studies program for k-12 schools. He says he was interviewed for 3 hours and they used only a few minutes to make him seem like an idiot. I mean...he was a cool guy and all, but he did say some racist things in class so I think the daily show got it right.",
"I remember hearing Jason Jones talking about their legal obligations with this. The low-profile interviewees often don't know that its a satire show. The interviewers may say something like \"I'm a journalist from Volcom Media\" and just not mention that they're from a satire show (if they ask which show, they have to be honest). They think its a professional, serious journalist.\n\nMany of the jokes are due to creative editing (using one reaction in a place where it would be funnier). Being silent gets them to say things that they normally wouldn't (people always want to break the silence). They don't show the interview in order - they ask the mild questions first and say all of the asshole stuff at the end so they can get more information. Some of the things they say aren't even to the person involved, they shoot from behind a double and edit in a reaction.\n\nIn short, the reactions are unreliable and somr statements are out of context. The people did actually say the things that you see them saying, though. ",
"I know a minor government official who agreed to be interviewed for the Daily Show because she gets interviewed fairly frequently and had only kind of heard of the show. A younger staffer found out and told her to be careful, so she was.\n\nHowever, they told her before the interview started that they only had one camera, so they were going to film each of them separately, her first. So the interviewer asked a bunch of very reasonable questions and she gave a bunch of very reasonable answers. Then they said, \"Okay, now we'll film me.\" And they moved the camera to the other side, pointing at the interviewer, and the person went on to ask *kind of* the same questions, but in an extremely inflammatory way (like using the n-word while asking about a race-related aspect of the issue) that put her previous answers in a very different light.\n\nYou can tell they're doing this sometimes if you watch carefully because the interviewee's posture is different when they cut back and forth.",
"A close friend went on Colbert. The producer gave him this advice 30 minutes before air time. \"You are in charge of driving a car. This road is going to be filled with potholes and turns. All you need to do is keep driving\" ",
"My old internship boss, homeless advocate Michael Stoops, was interviewed in one of the edited segments for the Daily Show back in 2005. He wasn't the guy being made fun of, and he said that the show put clips together that didn't always show context. He was quite alright with that since he was there to be the \"voice of reason expert\" that the show usually uses. [Here's the clip.](_URL_0_)",
"John Oliver explained this pretty well to Chris Hardwick on the Nerdest Podcast. [Have a listen](_URL_0_). (Spoiler: they are real interviews).",
"So colbert sits people down out of character and tells them what's going to happen.\n\nBut the Daily Show apparently doesn't. Samantha Bee (sp?) was on CBC talking about it, and how she's had a few mental breakdowns trying to do some of the interviews, and how they struggle to find the line between legitimate comedy and humour as legitimate criticism of people (particularly public figures) being ridiculous versus just rudely making fun of people. \n\n",
"Peter shiff had a 3 hour demonstration where he taught economics to someone from the daily show and they had an hour long q & a and finally on the show they used a 15 second segment where he was stuttering because he couldnt remember he politically correct term for retards.\n\nThe word he was looking for was mentally challenged",
"Although I was only 14 or 15 when I was on the show, I can explain how it works pretty easily. First of all, the interview can last upwards of 4 plus hours. The interview is fairly edited, but questions are not changed, they are (at least in my experience) reworded to put particular emphasis on a certain comment or statement. As the question is essentially asked after the reply is given, some pretty humorous exchanges can occur. I'm fairly new to this reddit thing, but I if I can post this website, it is the interview from circa 2003 from when I was on the show. It was shot in my basement, and I got to watch them reword the questions and spoke at great length with Mo Rocca and his producer (I've since forgotten her name/ lost her business card). I overheard them talk with my mother about this crazy lady that they got to say \"Motherf*cker\" like 5 times. I picked up on that and said it later in the interview. Apparently they weren't ready the first time, so they had me restate it at the end to make sure they had a good shot. Here's the interview: _URL_0_",
"I read somewhere that the interviewer and guest sit and they ask their list of questions normally, and film just the guests answers. Then they start over, but this time the interviewer is being filmed, and although they ask the same questions (so they can use the answers from before) they will put emphasis in different places or slightly reword a question based on guests earlier answer to make it funny. \n\nOne interview with a guest said he thought the first round of questions was normal but when they (i think Samantha bee) started asking the questions again differently he realized he was in trouble.\n\nTLDR: They ask the same questions twice, first normally to get the guest to answer, then a 2nd time, with minor changes based on how guest answered, for maximum funny. ",
"Penn Gillette from Bullshit once said that their interviewees agree to the show despite having seen previous episodes because they think their case is bulletproof.",
"I married into the family of former Congressman Victor Snyder. He was on the colbert show. He saw a few episodes and knew what he was getting into. He told me there was the interview that they filmed and then there was the interview they aired. They let the cameras roll the entire time he sat there, so some of the \"awkward silence\" made in to the show. He played along so he could plug a festival from Arkansas or something revolving around the veterans of foreign wars. He was on a VFW committee. I dont remember now.",
"Here they explain how they do it.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Most people obviously missed the boat on this, as the comments are all about Colbert pulling the wool over conservatives eyes, which hasn't been the case since season one of the Colbert report. \n\nThe question was about the \"best damn news team\" style interviews of the daily show correspondents. And as there hasn't been an educated opinion, I'd like to give credit to what is in all probability an amazing marketing team that finds the candidates, sells the interviews to people who are desperate for screen time, and makes them sign the disclosure agreements ahead of time. ",
"Peter Schiff went on the daily show to talk about the minimum wage. He knew that due to the philosophical differences between the liberal daily show and his libertarian viewpoint that he'd be edited to look bad but he wasn't really expecting to be edited in quite such an extreme way. He does a video that's his reply and explanation of his experience of the daily show.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Someone in my immediate family and very crazy was interviewed on the Daily Show recently. He is not an actor, he actually believes everything he says.\n\nHe went on hoping that his cause would get more exposure, and thought it would be worth the inevitable lampooning. It did get him more attention and positive reinforcement from the other crazies who agreed with him.\n\nThe interview was apparently very very long, even though the clip was only a few minutes, and was heavily edited - even his words being spliced together to make him sound more ridiculous. While they didn't make him say anything he didn't believe, they made him sound less intelligent in what he said.",
"I saw an interview with sombody, I think Rob Riggle, and he said that all of those questions are 100% real. ",
"Rob corddry spoke at my university once. He talked about how the interview process worked. They would sit down with the interviewee and ask them the questions, he would have a mic in his ear with a producer guiding the interview. The camera would be behind his shoulder recording the interviewees answers and reactions. After all the questions were done, they would flip the camera around and film him asking the same questions. He said as hard as it is to believe people always want to go on tv even if they know it's the daily show. The ones who try to be funny and out smart the process usually end up looking the worst, but it's all real.",
"I had to look up that anti-vaccination mom, and she's totally real. She said she still likes the show but the editing tried to make her look silly. She also was shocked that the show didn't lampoon the doctor who was totally biased by saying that vaccines work (since he himself helped invent a vaccine). She thinks she represented her movement well.\n\nSo yeah, there's people this stupid is really the answer. As for politicians, it's a way to get more exposure. There was a time when the GOP told its reps to quit going on Colbert, but being willing to stand up to mockery is a good sign for politicians imo.\n\nMeanwhile the people with google glass looked like morons. But maybe I'm biased.",
"Back when no one knew what \"The Daily Show\" was, they would hide their intentions when requesting interviews. They would not say what network they were with unless specifically asked.",
"Don't forget that not all the interviews are satirical. Sometimes you get artists, filmmakers, or authors who are brought on to promote their work and aren't hassled much. I tend to consider these as ad spots, and while they can sometimes be nice, I tend to ignore them, as they often get too close to actual talk show territory for my liking.",
"Are they real?\nYes. They're not actors. Well, the correspondents are actors to a degree. Some are more like their characters than others.\n\nDo they know?\nSometimes. Some people legitimately somehow think they're going to come out on top despite the fact that they are going up against people who are so good at making sure they don't that they can survive the pretty rigorous audition process of becoming a Daily Show correspondent. Some people think that since their politics tend to agree with the show's that they're going to be sort of the control group, the group that's meant to represent the average joe, and that therefore they're not going to be the butt of jokes, which is also kind of a silly presumption. I have seen hundreds of hours of these interviews and I don't think I have ever encountered someone who didn't know what the show was, at least in the sit-down interviews. The man on street interviews, sometimes you will definitely come across someone who has not heard of the show. Some people are smart enough to realize they'll be made fun of, and they won't agree to come on. Most people can be convinced in some way or another, and JUST LIKE there are people really great at making them look silly, there are people who work for the show really good at convincing these people that they're not going to look silly until it's too late.\n\nGenerally, people think, especially when they are familiar with the show, that they can outsmart the correspondent. I have never seen that happen. Never once. This show doesn't hire idiots. It hires very clever and well-read comedians.\n\nIs it heavily edited?\nThat depends. I mean any news organization is gonna sit you down for a lengthy interview and pare it down to just the essential bits since they only get a few minutes on TV. I don't know that I'd say The Daily Show does it worse than any news organization (having worked for both). Sometimes the pieces are heavily edited because the person being interviewed isn't particularly funny and it is, of course, a comedy show. Very rarely the interviews are cut together to mean something entirely different from what the interview subjects have said. More often than not, the embarrassing things that the subjects say were legitimate.\n\nSome people are just idiots and will blurt this stuff out. Some people take more convincing, and some correspondents are better at convincing them. John Oliver is a master of this and one of the smartest, if not the smartest, people I have ever met. He can convince you to say the most ridiculous and outlandish things without realizing that you have done it until you see it on TV.\n\nSometimes they are shot with a single camera, and they shoot the interview subject and then the interviewer. Sometimes this is so that the question can be rephrased so that it's funnier, but more often than not, this is because the correspondent is improvising and not everything that comes off the top of your head when you're flying by the seat of your pants comes out as elegantly as you'd like it. When they do this, it's usually so that the questions can be asked more neatly and expediently, which obviously makes it funnier. (Sometimes they do just come out that way, though.)\n\nWhy do people agree to be on the show?\nI feel like that, at least, has been discussed at length on this thread. I will say, though, that I have seen many people who are MORE ridiculous than they are portrayed on TV, and very few who are considerably less. I won't say ANYONE who tells you that they were edited together to look like a fool is lying to you, but I will say that a lot of them just said very foolish things without realizing they had done it, and then it ended up on television, and they blame the editing when they should be blaming themselves for saying those things. But it is a comedy show. Not a news show. So unlike when those news shows do those things, it does not present these pieces as anything but comedy. The most powerful pieces I have seen have very little splicing and dicing (I mean obviously they're cut considerably for time). Though I'm sure it must have happened, I cannot immediately recall an occasion on which I know someone's words were cut and pasted together to make them look dumber than they made themselves look already, which indicates how rarely it actually does happen. And guess what? That happens on the regular news also.",
"A lot of people don't even realize it's satire. That's the ridiculous part. I mean Colbert was asked to speak at the White House correspondents dinner while Bush was in office because no one that put the event together knew his show/character were satirical! Talk about embarrassing ",
"Well it's all about the tone. It seems to me like every time they go after an issue in an interview, the more conservative interviewees foolishly seem to believe the interviewer is in agreement with them, if not a little weird. The more liberal interviewees always seem a little uncomfortable or even indignant because they seem to feel someone is making a joke at the expense of some message they are trying to get across. Or sometimes indignant because they fail to see the humor and think the interviewer actually opposes their viewpoint with ludicrous examples.",
"Not sure about Colbert but I always wondered the same thing about Ali-G back in the day. Apparently the interviews are really long and filled with lots of well thought out, informed questions and the occasional \"Dumb\" question that might even be lead into with something that makes it seem less ridiculous. The rest is the magic of editing all that content into a 5 minute segment.",
"Ed Helms on the Nerdist talked about being on The Daily Show early on, and how hard it was being a total asshole to the people he was interviewing when they didn't really understand.\n\nI'd imagine that's completely different now, because everyone knows what the Daily Show is.",
"I knew a video shooter out of Boston who shot several of the segments over the years...might make for an interesting AMA, but I don't know if he would do it or not...",
"The top three comment are about the Colbert Report. OP asked about the interviewers on THE DAILY SHOW, not interviews done by Colbert."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mediaite.com/tv/peter-schiff-takes-mediaite-inside-the-daily-show-hit-job/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/DfiL2hpnmZ0"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Belief_disconfirmation_paradigm"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/0fnHcbQJiYM?t=2m14s"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/appearance-daily-show-jon-stewart/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ovmyo9/tucson-s-mexican-american-studies-ban"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/n2288l/face-for-rent"
],
[
"http://www.nerdist.com/pepisode/nerdist-podcast-69-john-oliver/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/a37399/bill-of-fights---backyard-wrestlers"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKAqby2dK7w"
],
[],
[
"http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F9LNP-yXXUc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
39xmif | if identical twins have the same dna, how come they are not 100% perfectly identical? | slightly different heights, different fingerprints etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39xmif/eli5_if_identical_twins_have_the_same_dna_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs7d9sv",
"cs7di0h"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"One, genetic changes. Mistakes are made in DNA copying, both from the original zygotes (sex cells), and within the child. Major effects of minor genetic anomalies are fairly rare, since humans use stem cells, where specific cells aren't predestined for a specific purpose. Butterflies, for instance, can be [gynandromorph](_URL_0_), where one half is one sex , and the other half another.^1 Regardless, you are not a cross between your two parents, but have (most likely) a couple hundred genetic differences (out of billions).\n\nTwo, epigentics. These are the switches on DNA, generally created during your lifetime. They mostly get stripped off during the copy process (of zygotes), but some remain behind. They're reason behind people who suffer malnutrition having children and even grand-children that are more likely to be skinny. Which ones a specific zygote inherites may be complete chance.\n\nThree, prenatal hormones. Estrogen and testosterone play a huge role in development, to the point of even overriding genetics. It's thought this could be a big factor why there are transsexuals (despite genetics, we could develop in some ways as one sex, and in others, the other, as opposed to the above mentioned butterfly). With twins, despite being in the womb together, each may receive a slightly different amount, or it may have a slightly different effect, either based on epigenetics or other factors.\n\nFour, diet and environment. Obviously, if someone exercises more, they will be stronger (assuming adequate food), whereas someone shot in the brain has a higher chance of development completely stopping.\n\nedit: The basic structure of fingerprints is largely genetic (loop, whorl or arch), but the specific pattern is formed through pressure. Literally how the fetus is touching the womb (or twin).\n\nedit 2: ^1 Gynandromorphism is really cool. Essentially, the fertilized egg, when splitting, looses or gains a chromosome, so the second cell is a different sex. [Butterflies that have an even number of Z chromosomes are male; Z is *very loosely* analogous to X in humans. A male cell that picks up an extra Z, or looses a Z, will be female instead of male; a female cell that gains one will be male, or extremely rarely gains three.] One cell represents one side, the second the other. When they split again, they represent the top and bottom. The next, front and back. So if it occurs on the second division, 1/4th of the butterfly would be the other sex (specifically, the lower left). On the 3rd division, the back side of 1/4th, etc. Humans, the cells are not rigidly predefined. The first two cells doesn't represent each side of our body.",
"DNAs are like recipes.\n\nIf you follow the same recipes twice, you won't get the exact same cake. But the two cakes would be more similar than if you had followed 2 different recipes.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.funnyjunk.com/imgrd/rd/pictures/25/02/250261_5118213.jpg/"
],
[]
]
|
|
c9so95 | why can't commercial aircrafts fly over the arctic circle to reduce flight time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c9so95/eli5_why_cant_commercial_aircrafts_fly_over_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"et29zd0",
"et2d3bt"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They sometimes do. Flights between extreme northern locations, like Iceland, Russia, and Canada fly over the Arctic Circle as opposed to following the latitude line.\n\nBut further south by too much, and they make better time by flying around the Arctic Circle because of the Jet Stream.",
"They can. This urban myth stems from the time when it wasn’t safe to do so because planes were less reliable and there are no emergency landing spots anywhere. These days it’s totally safe for most multi-engine airliners. The reason that most still don’t is because depending on high altitude winds and jet streams, it may be more economical to not do it, even if it is shorter. The “fact” that commercial aircraft can’t fly over either pole is mostly maintained by conspiracy theorist who think the earth is flat, hollow or the artic harbours secret alien bases."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
32qbkt | the difference between american 'liberal' and british 'liberal' | There seems to be two definitions of the word liberal... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32qbkt/eli5_the_difference_between_american_liberal_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqdm7qj",
"cqdmaif",
"cqdoohz"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"UK calls liberals what the US calls libertarians.\n\nIn the UK people who would be called liberals are in the Labour party.",
"There is! And in fact, most of the rest of the world uses liberal different. \n\nThe word liberal became popular in the 1700's and 1800's to describe the attitude that individual rights are important, that people have the right to have a voice in their government (as opposed to the very common monarchical governments of the time). \n\nIn the US the word has become synonymous with the left side of the political divide. Here it generally refers to the combination of political views that are socially liberal (i.e. strong support for individual social liberties) and the idea that government regulation and intervention can strongly help people. \n\n In the U.S. what we'd call a libertarian is probably fairly close to the original definition of the word liberal. \n\nThis is obviously way more complex and has some interesting nuances over the development of the concepts and the like, but this is ELI5 so this is the basic answer. \n\n",
"So originally liberal meant belief in liberalism, which means individual liberties, limited government, private property, and free market economics. This is generally the way most of the world understands the word \"liberal\". It's a broad political and economic ideology.\n\nIn the US though, we've started to dispense with the terms \"Left and Right\" for \"Liberal and Conservative.\" Left-wing ideas tend to support social equality and changes to society to promote this equality, whereas right-wing ideas support hierarchy and traditions and are skeptical of attempts to create equality. For whatever reason, in the US when we say \"liberal\" we mean \"left-leaning\" and when we say \"conservative\" we mean \"right-leaning.\" It's important to realize that this is highly problematic because if you go really far to the left, that's not super-liberal, it's not liberal at all, the far-left is where the anarchists, socialists, and communists are. Same with the right, far-right is not ultraconservative, it's fascism, theocracy, or monarchy. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1vvw1s | why do some companies put coupons on their products that give the customer say for example an automatic $2 off? why not make the price $2 cheaper? | I bought something the other day and this happened to me. It made me wonder why companies do this, sometimes they're almost hidden on the product or hard to peel off. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vvw1s/eli5why_do_some_companies_put_coupons_on_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"cew9kew",
"cew9pmt",
"cew9u6m",
"cewn4p8"
],
"score": [
7,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The manufacturer can't force the retailer to drop their price $2. So they offer coupons instead, which are widely accepted, to facilitate the price drop.",
"Finding a coupon for a discount makes you feel like you're getting a deal. If the price were simply lower, you wouldn't notice the difference. Consumers are more likely to spend money when they know they are saving money.",
"People love to get a deal, even if it isn't",
"In addition to what other people said, coupons can come out of different budgets within the company, and the internal company structure can be quite complicated.\n\nSo for example, a subsidiary company makes you a box of cookies which they sell to a retailer for 3 dollars who sells it to you for 5. Now to drop the price 2 dollars they'd have to get 1 dollar. That looks really bad on the balance sheet of the corporate sub entity. But marketing and advertising can be under a different branch of the company, so marketing pays 2 dollars per bag of cookies to the retailer, and they increased sales 300%! While the sub entity is still looking like it drew in X number of dollars per bag. \n\nBasically just different levels of strategy at work, and different arms of the company. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
24vf85 | how can a sniper rifle be accurate at long range but so bad close?? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24vf85/eli5how_can_a_sniper_rifle_be_accurate_at_long/ | {
"a_id": [
"chb0in3",
"chb0khl"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"What do you mean by close range?\n\nThe probably with very close shooting for a sniper rifle is that you can't use the scope, which is necessary for aiming the rifle. Also, that if you use the scope it is focused for a longer range.",
"It is not the accuracy that makes it bad at close range, its the mobility of the gun. Sniper rifles are generally heavy and long. So hitting a moving target at close range is very difficult because you have to move the muzzle more to stay on target. At distance you can take your time dialing in on the target and their movement only takes minor adjustments on your part to account for that. Also at close range they generally know where you are and that is really bad for a sniper. So distance is proffered."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
6g4yoy | why on open highways do drivers generally drive in clusters? usually someone blocking left lane as well. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g4yoy/eli5_why_on_open_highways_do_drivers_generally/ | {
"a_id": [
"dinj1go",
"dinl98y",
"dinny52",
"dinsgv4",
"dinxlnw"
],
"score": [
4,
9,
11,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"The is because someone drive slower then then the other cars and faster cars will catch up. And it takes som time to pass the car and therefor the will be a cluster.\n\nIf someone blocks the overtake lane it is quite obvious why the cluster dont spread out",
"People tend to park in the same area, go to the same stores, be more interested in something they see another person react favorably to, etc.\n\nWe are extremely social animals and we do things in groups. A lone driver might unconsciously speed up or slow down to be relatively near other cars. When we see someone else going that speed, we think there's probably a good reason they're doing so and we do the same.",
"If you drive faster than average, you will eventually reach the back of another group of cars. Until you can overtake, you just added to a cluster.\n\nIf you drive slower than average, eventually other cars will reach the back of you. Until they can overtake, they just added to a cluster.\n\nIf an obstruction or problem appears, causing several drivers to all slow down, a cluster is almost guaranteed to form behind them, until everyone can speed back up and then let the fast drivers overtake the not-so-fast drivers.\n\nOnly by all driving at the same speed, or by making overtaking so easy that it always happens right away, could we prevent the natural formation of clusters.",
"Some of it is psychology, some of it is fluid dynamics, and some of it is driving habits. \n\nCars driving on a road behave a little like water flowing through a pipe. Because cars, like water, can't have 2 things occupy the same point in space, they displace each other. This leads to behaviors like wave motion, where a single slow driver causes a feedback loop where drivers behind them must brake harder, which slows down drivers behind them who brake even harder etc. Going from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if there is steady traffic forces either the drivers to drive faster, much like a smaller diameter pipe increases speed and pressure, or it causes back pressure and bottlenecking where the road narrows, similar to the pressure increase when a pipe is reduced. \n\nWhat this means is that a single slow driver, especially on a cross country 2 lane road, can act like a stoppage in a water pipe, forcing water to flow around the blockage, which is a bottleneck, slowing traffic behind the driver, and forcing drivers alongside to speed up through the bottleneck in order to maintain their speed. \n\nThe psychology and driver habit aspects of it are that many people keep up with the flow of traffic out of habit. If everyone on the road is driving 20 mph under the speed limit, most drivers will slow even if there is no obvious reason why. Maybe it's a cop, maybe they are worried about driving 20mph faster than traffic even if it's legal and someone pulls out in front of them causing an accident. \n\nIf the group of cars is moving together above the speed limit, it means that in order to pass them and get ahead of the bundle of cars, you would have to speed even faster, and even once you got ahead of them you'd need to continue speeding or the group of cars would soon catch back up. People fear tickets and so they do not want to speed by themselves. Also having a group of cars around you provides some protection from the predators of the road (the ones with radar guns) much like a group of gazelle. One or two drivers may be picked off by speed traps, but the group will usually not be pulled over. ",
"Left/passing lane campers, for whom there is a special place in hell.\n\nThey do this because they are either completely self-centered and hopelessly oblivious to the world around them, or they are aware of the CF they are causing everyone else and proceed to it anyway, because they are assholes.\n\nActually, they are assholes either way."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
cyup2w | why is it that animals such as a bat or sloth can hang upside down for long periods of time but a human cannot? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cyup2w/eli5_why_is_it_that_animals_such_as_a_bat_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyuar7v",
"eyuawan"
],
"score": [
48,
8
],
"text": [
"Humans would suffer because we haven't evolved to maintain that position for very long, and blood would struggle to flow correctly, and begin to pool in the head. Bats and sloths by contrast have specialized valves and muscles to compensate for gravity when they're inverted. In their case blood is still distributed correctly, and doesn't just pool in the head.",
"There is two problems for human to hang upside down. They will have an hard time to bring blood to their head, and second is that they will fatigue their muscle.\n\nWell both of them are smaller than human. If you double the size you quadruple the volume, basically your weight increase faster than your surface area of your bones and muscle, so smaller animal are stronger relatively to their weight than bigger animals. They also don't hang up by their muscle strenght only, the bones and claw take a portion of the weight of their body, which put less stress on their muscle. We don't have that, but we have a lot more dexterity in our hand.\n\nThey are also not as long, so their heart don't have to pump the blood as far as it would need to do for a human."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
7q6gin | intermittent fasting | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7q6gin/eli5_intermittent_fasting/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsmt5sg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Intermittent fasting is a way to schedule food intake for multiple reasons. These reasons might include: easier counting of calories because it's easier for us to watch one meal a day; we're after the hormonal effects of eating one large meal a day; we're busy and eating is a chore; or maybe we're on a new diet and it's complicated so just one meal a day is simpler to figure out.\n\nThere's controversy over whether the medical effects and hormone effects are significant enough to bother with the diet. But, the meal planning and the personal preferences around eating once a day aren't terribly controversial. And, generally eating a well balanced meal only one time a day won't hurt healthy individuals as long as we aren't entertaining malnutrition.\n\nBut, how do you manage to eat only one time a day?\n\nIt's unfortunate English only has one word for hunger. In my own experience with intermittent fasting there are several different sensations I've thought of as hunger. The one I will focus on is the general \"I want to eat\" and not \"hangry\" or other nearby sensations.\n\nIn general, we get hungry at the times when we habitually eat. This sensation is just a timer. If we ignore it or minimally eat just a bit it passes quickly. It's possible to train your body to slowly get used to new eating times. To get into intermittent fasting that's all we are doing ... slowly training the body to use a new rhythm.\n\nOnce a one time a day rhythm is established other rhythms can be trained ... like only eating every other day.\n\nAnd that's really it. Beyond that there's other motivations, ideas, or possible medical effects but those aren't intermittent fasting itself."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
b892ha | what is blood plasma? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b892ha/eli5_what_is_blood_plasma/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejwhkd0",
"ejwhlwu",
"ejxg3m3"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Blood plasma is the part of blood that's not red, white, or platelets. Basically, it's the liquid part of blood.",
"It's the bit of the blood that *isn't* blood cells, the liquid part. Mostly it's water, with a few minerals dissolved in it.",
"Medical Lab Scientist here.\n\n\nBasically plasma is all the part of the blood tissue (yes, blood is a type of tissue) which is not cellular, as in the RBC, WBC and platelets. \n\nWhile in normal conditions it is about 90% water, it also contains the nutrients your cells needs, like vitamins, minerals, sugar, fat, aminoacids (which makes up proteins) also antibodies and other plasmatic proteins, like the ones involved in coagulation.\n\nNot to mention hundreds of other molecules which are metabolic waste or result of tissue damage and are going to be excreted mainly through the transformation of plasma into urine in the kidneys.\n\n\n\n\nBasically, plasma is the delivery truck and our blood vessels are highways and streets bringing our needs to our houses (cells and extracellular matrix), and also taking out our trash.\n\n\nAs to why blood banks need only plasma sometimes? Well mainly for patients who lack coagulation molecules and proteins.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
7wl66e | what's the difference between chinese taipei & taiwan (if any)? | I don't know about others, but I found the aforementioned state names confusing. I know both state names have their roots in China, but I'd like for someone to put an end to my confusion as far as my query goes | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wl66e/eli5whats_the_difference_between_chinese_taipei/ | {
"a_id": [
"du16nv9"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Once upon a time, \"China\" referred to both Mainland China and the Island of Formosa (now Taiwan).\n\nWhile, to most people, \"China\" and \"Taiwan\" very obviously refer to Mainland China (People's Republic of China - PRC) and the island of Formosa (Republic of China - ROC), the political status of the two countries is much more complicated.\n\nROC was the government of *both* Chinas before the communist revolution. During the Revolution, the PRC took over the mainland and pushed the ROC government to Taiwan, ending in somewhat of a standstill. PRC, however, doesn't want to recognize the legitimacy of the ROC so they insist that Taiwan is just a rogue province under the control of a rebel group (ie - they're still the rightful ruler of Formosa). To further this, they put huge amounts of pressure on other nations and international organizations to *not* officially recognize ROC as a country.\n\nBecause of this, you get things like \"Chinese Taipei\" that let the IOC recognize the reality of their being two Chinas without having to officially say \"Taiwan is independent of China\". Similarly, the US doesn't *formally* recognize Taiwan so we don't have \"embassies\" but we have an \"American Institute in Taiwan\" and they have the \"Taipei Economic and Cultural Representation Office\" in the US.\n\nThe idea of \"nations\" and \"sovereignty\" seems pretty straightforward until you start looking into it in detail. This is just one of the *many* special cases you're going to find around the world."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1zio31 | why are many despots like putin so powerful individually? in reality doesn't it take everyone beneath him to reinforce his status and create his power for him by following all his orders? | Is it because of a cult like status in DPRK or something else thats making everyone working in the government agencies below him, the police, army, etc and in parliament bow down before him? Why doesnt anyone else want that power? What gives him alone all the power? Why are people so loyal to him? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zio31/eli5_why_are_many_despots_like_putin_so_powerful/ | {
"a_id": [
"cftzyc3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This just addresses the portion asking how he keeps power.\n\nIt doesn't take everyone under him to follow orders, only enough people. And they're loyal for different reasons. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1uv5br | how does a person "get over someone" that they've loved and can no longer be with? is there something within our brains? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uv5br/eli5_how_does_a_person_get_over_someone_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"celyvg9",
"cem4zuc"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The grieving process denial, anger, depression and acceptance no one grieves the same and it doesn't always happen in that order, some people bounce around never accepting it. ",
"On a psychological level everyone must endure grief. and everyone deals with it differently based upon resiliency and personal accountability. \n\nOn a social level we deal with grief by seeking affirmation from others as to our position and by also replacing what has been lost. \n\nOn a biological level love creates a complex circuit that fires more often then others inside the brain. As this circuit continually fires it increases the \"Action Potential\" of the circuit. This means that you have used the circuit so it will fire faster and more often because your brain uses it more. During the grieving process this circuit is interrupted which has drastic effects on how your brain processes everything. Imagine a hundred car pileup on an interstate. Sometimes we do ourselves a disservice by \"attending\" to the circuit through perseverating. When you do that you just add more cars to the pileup and the circuit fires more leading to the torture of being unable to accept the loss. The best way to atrophy the circuit is to put yourself in a position where you are not able to dedicate mental resources to the circuit, but sometimes that is difficult because the whole brain is in disarray. That is why going out and having fun is probably the best medicine for loss even though its the last thing you want to do, you are not ignoring anything. Simply you are moving onto positive things."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5s8coj | why do engines produce max power at certain rpm? | Shouldn't power and RPM correlate? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5s8coj/eli5_why_do_engines_produce_max_power_at_certain/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddd68if",
"ddd6oqc"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"There are lots factors that dictate when an engine is most efficient. The stroke of the crankshaft, the design of the cylinder heads and how they flow air etc. engines are usually designed to reach their peak power where the application needs it. If a cylinder head can only flow a given amount of air no matter how fast the engine turns that becomes a limiting factor. There are many more than just this.",
"Horsepower is 550 ft-lbs per second. If you lift 100 lbs 5.5 feet you are generating one horsepower. It is a combination of force and speed. An engine produces power by igniting a fuel/air mixture in a cylinder, the expansion pushes the piston down, applying force to the crankshaft, generating torque. The speed of the crank spinning is what makes the torque horsepower.\n\nAt a certain RPM the cylinders fill most efficiently due to valve timing, resonant tuning of intake and exhaust, and the maximum amount of fuel/air mixture that can flow through the ports/intake manifold/exhaust. Think of making waves in a tub by rocking back and forth. At a certain frequency you will make the largest waves with the least effort. The air flowing through an engine also has a frequency that moves waves of air into the cylinders most effectively.\n\nThe rpm at which the cylinder is most effectively filled will be the torque peak. Horsepower is lbs-ft of torque x RPM/5252. As the RPMs increase the torque will taper off. When the torque tapers off faster than the RPM's rise you have just passed the peak horsepower.\n\nThere is also rising friction within the engine that will move these figures to a slightly lower rpm and reduce the amount of torque available for propelling your car but that's a fraction of the available torque, I would guess 10-15%.\n\nTLDR: torque is how much fuel/air you burn in each combustion stroke, horsepower is how much fuel/air you burn in a certain amount of time."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
c6vj2p | cbd full spectrum | Can it get you high or just relaxed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c6vj2p/eli5_cbd_full_spectrum/ | {
"a_id": [
"esbhcew"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I have a feeling that there are people who can do a better job of describing it then I can but oh well, here it goes. \n\nSo if you know anything about marijuana, you know about THC or tetrahydrocannabinol. It's the active ingredient that makes you high which can include sleepiness, increased appetite, visual and auditory hallucintations, nausea (in large amounts, think being \"greened out\"), and euphoria. THC is the part that contributes to weed being a psychoactive drug (just like acid and shrooms). Marijuana also has more than just THC as an active ingredient. \n\nCBD is another cannabinoid in marijuana, and it's the second active ingredient. CBD is non-intoxicating, which means that it will not give you any euphoria, alter your mind state (actively), and none of the other crazy effects that smoking marijuana does. It does however have many potential health benefits (studies being done still). These potential health benefits can include reducing anxiety, help reduce soreness, sleep, and even to help against seizures. \n\nNow for a direct answer to your question from personal experience. Currently, (as in literally while writing this) I vape CBD and I dont really actively feel anything, and that's normal. Since it's not psychoactive, it's not supposed to be felt like a high. So no, it definitely will not get you high. However that being said, my anxiety is definitely reduced a noticeable amount and my usual back pain is not as bad. I do fall asleep easier and I feel that it actively helps. Hopefully I helped answer your question\n\n\nTL,DR: No it will not make you high in the way you think and the relaxation is a lot more subtle than most people think."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
51skjn | since a fetus shares the same life supply as its mother, how can the child end up with a completely different blood type? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51skjn/eli5_since_a_fetus_shares_the_same_life_supply_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7ehf6b",
"d7ei6hs",
"d7eidrz",
"d7eiwl5",
"d7enent",
"d7f1q7p",
"d7f7i8r"
],
"score": [
132,
9,
6,
2,
96,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The Placenta.\n\nIt acts as a nutrient exchange between fetal blood and maternal blood so they don't need to mix at any point.",
"[The child's blood and the mother's blood don't interact directly](_URL_0_) but rather have an interchange kind of like the digestive system.",
"The placenta is a very unique organ that acts kind of like the lungs and kidneys combined. The fetus does not have direct contact with the mother. The placenta acts as a buffer to protect both the mother and baby from each other, but it stills allows the transfer of what is needed to keep the baby growing and prevent the mother's body from rejecting the baby and the baby's blood. The placenta produces special cells called trophoblasts that act as a go between for the blood exchange. ",
"The fetus and the mother don't share the same blood supply, that's what the placenta is for.",
"Your blood is made in your bones, the soft part in he middle- the bone marrow. The type is determined by your DNA (more on this below). So, even though they share all their nutrients, baby makes his or her own blood rather than using mum's. \n\nTheoretically, baby's and mum's bloods are kept apart by the placenta- think of it like the desk at the bank with a thick dividing screen and a tiny slot you can pass money back and forth through. Mum's blood passes nutrients and oxygen through to baby's, and baby's blood passes back waste products. \n\nThere are 2 main parts to blood type: the letters (A, B, AB, or O) and the \"positive\" or \"negative\" which means with or without extra proteins called Rhesus proteins. What letters you have are decided by the 2 copies of DNA you got that tell your bones what to make- you get one copy from mum and one from dad. The code for O is a wuss though, so it always lets any other code have the final say. If you're group A, both copies are A or one is A and one is O; group AB is one copy A and one copy B. You're only O if both copies are O. So mum might be group A (with A and O from her parents) and dad could be B (let's say both of his are B) and baby could end up either AB (A and B) or B (O and B) but could never be A like mum. \n\nIn fact, small amounts of blood do cross over into each other's supply, especially during childbirth- that's why it can be dangerous when their blood groups are different, especially if baby is Rhesus positive and mum is negative. To her immune system, the Rhesus proteins are completely foreign, so her body assumes they belong to an infection. What usually happens is her first pregnancy goes fine but during the birth, her blood meets baby's blood for the first time and she develops antibodies against Rhesus. Then if she has another pregnancy with a Rhesus positive baby, the anti-rhesus antibodies (which are small enough to cross the placenta) get into baby's blood and wreak havoc. ",
"Simple answer: genetics. Slightly more complicated answer: you have two copies of genes for blood type, one from mom, one from dad. You can get one copy of a specific blood type from mom and a different one from dad. Blood type \"O\" is \"trumped\" by more dominant blood type genes A and B. If you have even one of your two genes as an A or B, you will have that blood type. If you have one of each you will have blood type AB. Rhesus factor (positive/negative) is similar in inheritance. Post note - the whole A/B/O thing - if you have one copy of the \"O\" blood type, if your other copy is either A or B, you will have the A or B blood type dependent on which gene (A or B respectively) your second gene is since it is dominant to the \"O\" type from the other gene. ",
"Here's a semi-simple yet sciencey way to think about it.\n\nIn closed cycle nuclear reactors, you have water exposed to the core itself, this water contains quite a bit of radiation and is at a stupidly high pressure. You don't want this going through many pipes and moving parts just in case it breaks. So you have a really fancy piece of metal that on one side is touched by the core-water, and on the other side you have the water to be pushed through the turbines. The heat passes through the metal, but not the radiation. This is called a heat exchanger.\n\nWhile the biological process is completely different, the concept is the same and the placenta fulfills this purpose."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.abclawcenters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/medium.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4y76eq | if everything has equal and opposite reaction, where is antigravity? | I remember something about mass distorting space/time (we've all seen the plane with the earth pushing it down in space), but if that's the case, what is the thing doing the opposite (pushing away). Anti-matter? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4y76eq/eli5if_everything_has_equal_and_opposite_reaction/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6lrm50",
"d6lrorn",
"d6m9w9z"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Everything is pulling on everything else. The gravity of the sun is attracting the earth, but the earth's gravity is also attracting the sun. The earth and the sun both exert the same force on each other, but in opposite directions (the earth is pulling the sun towards it while the sun is pulling the earth towards it). There's your equal and opposite reaction.",
"Gravitational interactions actually do obey the rule of equal and opposite reactions. Let’s say you are falling - when the earth pulls you towards it, you actually pull the earth a very, very little bit toward you. \n\nIn fact, when planets orbit their stars, they cause the star to wobble back and forth a bit, all in accordance with the equal and opposite rule. Star wobble is one of the ways we detect planets outside of the solar system, even though we can't see them. If you had two objects of similar size in space, like Pluto and its moon Charon, they would actually orbit around each other. If you suddenly made them stand still, they would both fall towards each other!\n",
"\"Equal and opposite reaction\" as you say it is somewhat incomplete.\n\nI'd phrase it more as \"whenever a performs an action on b, b performs an equal and opposite reaction on a\"\n\nie: When a gun pushes away a bullet, the bullet also pushes in the opposite direction on the gun (recoil)\n\nSo, when you are pulled downwards by the earth, the earth is also pulled upwards by you."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
dc8hur | what determines which cast member gets featured in the opening credits of a show? | I was watching The Office and I realised only Michael, Jim, Pam, Dwight, and Ryan were featured in the opening credits but not the rest of Dunder Mifflin Scranton. Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dc8hur/eli5_what_determines_which_cast_member_gets/ | {
"a_id": [
"f277791",
"f278wzi"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The first names or the last names \"And Starring...\" are considered the most prestigious, and so actor's agents will negotiate for billing as part of their contract. Being elevated to the title credits of the show is usually a sign that the producers are committing to your character.",
"There are no set requirements, so long as there are full credits at the end. Opening credits are so the actors can increase their name recognition and so the produces can say \"look at all these famous people you love\". As such, they are subject to both creative whims and contract negotiations. *Deadpool*, for example, used joke opening credits, some movies don't have opening credits at all.\n\nAlso, in TV, there is usually a distinction between regular cast, who get credited even if they are not in an episode, supporting cast, and recurring characters, who only get credited for episodes in which they appear. *The Office* is kind of an outlier because it has several supporting characters who appeared in almost every single episode (Stanley, Phyllis, Angela, and Stanley appeared as often as Jim, Pam, and Dwight) even if they were just in the background. Having that number of consistent, long-running supporting characters is unusual, most shows have no more than 4-6 characters who appear in most every episode."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
agyobx | why do smokers not cough while smoking daily but cough after quitting? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/agyobx/eli5_why_do_smokers_not_cough_while_smoking_daily/ | {
"a_id": [
"ee9yxlq",
"ee9yy8t",
"ee9zss5",
"eea0974",
"eea153h"
],
"score": [
22,
3,
3,
4,
10
],
"text": [
"Smoking causes death and paralysis of the cilia in your lungs. These are tiny hairs that move things up and out of your respiratory tracts. Smoking is also an irritant and produces a lot of mucous. When you stop, these cilia come back online and begin to propel that mucous upward along with the dead tissue and other smoking products trapped in the lung. Coughing is how we clear these things from the airway. ",
"I believe the lungs finally have a change to clean. I can't clean when you put tar you longs everyday. When i stopped with smoking i felt like i couldn't breath for a few days, but it gets better overtime.",
"Coughing is not necessarily a bad thing. It's like vomiting - might not seem or feel like something good, but it removes shit from inside of you that your organism doesn't need.\n\nAnd lung cleaning process does not initiate before quitting smoking. ",
"Cigarettes are sprayed with a variety of chemicals. A lot of these chemicals help to prevent the symptoms of smoking like coughing, sore throat, and sinus irritation, so that people will keep smoking cigarettes even though it is bad for them.\nEdit : pluralization",
"Actually, smokers do cough daily, especially in the morning. There's something called smoker's cough. It's especially pronounced in the morning after waking up.\n\nSource: former smoker, quit 24 years ago Jan. 1, married to a smoker."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5d1gzs | how do video game developers make games for the next console if the next console has not been made yet? | Here are a few examples:
* Final Fantasy XV is on the PS4. However, development started during the PS3 era in 2006.
* The Last Guardian is on the PS4. However, development started during the PS3 era in 2007.
How are games like these made? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5d1gzs/eli5_how_do_video_game_developers_make_games_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"da11mxn",
"da11sv9"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Initial development, such as ideas, game mechanics and artwork, don't require specific details of a computer system. Later things can be worked upon if the specification for the \"new\" console are generally known. ",
"Both of those games started development with the aim to release on PS3, so in their case the answer is they repurposed the work they had done for the latest generation some time after initial development started.\n\nDevelopers do get access to new consoles some time before consumers do. Development work is done using special versions of the consoles called devkits. They release those to developers some months before the console is released to the public. \n\nVery early devkits might just be PCs that have hardware about on par with what they expect the console to be like. So developers can start using those before the console has even been finished. Then as the console is developed more newer devkits are released that get closer to the final thing.\n\nIt's still possible to do early work even before you have a devkit. If you have a rough idea of how powerful the console will be, you can start developing it for a similar spec PC and then adjust it when you get access to the devkits. A lot of code is reusable across different platforms."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3xhzm6 | how do employees at a suicide hotline or a psychiatrist/psychologist assess the risk of suicide? | Not just if there is a suicide risk present but how big is the risk of a suicide.
Are there any guidelines for it?
Also, if it's not too demanding to ask, what do they say to a person in risk in order to prevent suicide? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xhzm6/eli5_how_do_employees_at_a_suicide_hotline_or_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy4s12z",
"cy4v393"
],
"score": [
10,
10
],
"text": [
"There generally isn't a gradual scale of risk, the assumption that everyone who calls needs the service. The only time there is a call for elevation (calling police, etc.) is when the caller makes a specific and immediate threat to themselves or others. \n\nIn addition to basic training, call operators have a set of written guidelines to help them navigate certain issues. ",
"I was in the Army and had training in Suicide Prevention, more than the bi-annual class Soldiers would get. \n\nWhen you are concerned about a friend, although it is hard to do, you can ask them directly, “Have you thought about killing yourself?” About “hurting yourself”. Many have this misperception that by asking the question, you are putting the idea in their head. That is not true, the hurting person is glad someone finally understands them enough to ask the hard question. \n\nThere is a higher risk if they have specific plan- this method, this place, this time etc. And if they have access to things that are lethal- pills, a gun, razor blades, a high building or bridge. If they have a specific plan, that is the time to get them to professional help or even call the police. My training also says not to leave them alone at that point, stay with them, take them personally to someone else who can help. They might be mad at you for breaking a confidence or getting others involved, but at least they are still alive to be mad at you. \n\nAnd in talking with them, generally their life has made them feel Helpless, Hopeless and Worthless, and you try to find a connection to them that gives them hope for tomorrow. A reason to live even if just for another day. \n\nI had a very low point like this in my own life and what kept me from hurting myself was the thought of how it would hurt my kids.\n \nGenerally the person doesn’t want to die, they just want to find a way to stop the pain. They get a kind of tunnel vision that death is the only real solution. \n\nOP, if you have a friend that has any level of risk, either get them to make a call or even make the call yourself: US suicide hotline is 1-800-273-talk (8255) or 1-800-SUICIDE (1-800-784-2433)\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
e7oyub | recently i saw a video where a zebra tries to drown the offspring of a rival male. how are animals in the wild able to tell the difference between their offspring and others’? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e7oyub/eli5_recently_i_saw_a_video_where_a_zebra_tries/ | {
"a_id": [
"fa287od",
"fa2jjyx",
"fa2loyr",
"fa43n56"
],
"score": [
91,
9,
28,
2
],
"text": [
"The truth is, we really don't know for certain. It's kind of a drag really, not being able to just directly ask them. It also almost certainly varies because animals perceive the world differently based on their species. Some rely heavily on sound while others use smell as a primary sense. Do some babies smell different? Sound different? I'm sure there's some primary literature out there where researchers tried to control for the five senses and see if fathers could still recognize their offspring: coat them in a strongly-smelling substance or put them behind glass so they can't hear or smell them at all. It would be an interesting experiment. \n\nMany mammals *can* definitely recognize each other just as we humans do, and there are some species where females routinely mate with multiple males. I believe the theory behind that just boils down to a female trying to trick all males in the area into thinking her kids might be theirs so they don't kill them when they run into a female they know they've mated with. Everyone wins.",
"Chimps have been tested by matching parents and kids pictures. Oddly enough the accuracy that chimps do this is much higher than humans. \n\nPoint is the ability to tell relations between parent and child may be more instinctive than cognitive. \n\nIt could also be as simple as the male is new to the area or is young and has never successfully mated.",
"Not known. For horses (DK about zebras) in a herd the stallion knows if a foal is his or not, and the mare knows her foal and will reject a foal if it isn't hers, or gets aggressive with her foal.\n\nIt is said that after a foal is weaned from the mother and there is a time of separation, the mares and their former babies don't recognize each other.\n\nThere's no proof of any of that, but personal experience when a mother and grown baby are reunited after years, there doesn't seem to be recognition. The male will breed his former mother, although a mother and daughter will probably get along in pasture.\n\nHow zebras differ or are the same for horses in this behavior is unknow because wild zebras are hard to follow and observe for long periods of time. \n\nAlso, there are three types of zebras. two types are more like horses and one type is more like a wild donkey genetically.",
"It depends on the animal. With land mammals, it is a lot to do with scent. A good example of this would be sheep. A sheep will reject a lamb which isn't there own, they will head butt it away, not let it suckle etc. However, if you have sheep that has just given birth, you can get it to accept an orphan lamb if you coat that lamb in the goop that's coating her own lambs before she has had a chance to clean them off. Gross but means the orphan lamb gets a new mother!"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
b1k865 | why add salt to a water softening system? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b1k865/eli5_why_add_salt_to_a_water_softening_system/ | {
"a_id": [
"eimafv7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"\"Hard\" water is water that has a lot of non-sodium salts dissolved in it - calcium salts, potassium salts, etc. Those are the cause of build up on taps and in water heaters.\n\nWater softeners remove those salts through a process called \"ion exchange\" where the calcium and potassium ions are pulled from the water and replaced with sodium ions - which don't stain or deposit on fixtures. The easiest and cheapest way to get sodium ions is to regular old salt."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
a2es61 | is water never produced, only recycled? | I read recently that the total amount of water on earth is always constant. Not a drop more, not a drop less. Everyone on the internet says contradicting things. What do you guys think? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2es61/eli5_is_water_never_produced_only_recycled/ | {
"a_id": [
"eaxjg1h",
"eaxkfnz",
"eaxkgri",
"eaxmbqu",
"eaxmdun",
"eaxmfhl",
"eaxzcgf",
"eay4z8b",
"eayoz5w"
],
"score": [
18,
12,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Water is produced by burning all forms of hydrocarbons and is used by plants to combine water and CO2 into sugar. You turn sugar back into water and CO2 when you eat and metabolize it. ",
"Forming new **atoms** is a rare process on Earth, but forming new *molecules* is easy.\n\nBreath out. *Haaaaaaaa.* You just breathed out some Carbon Dioxide, that Carbon came from something you ate and the Oxygen from the air you breath. When you burn sugar it makes CO2 *and water*. \n\nYou are making new water molecules right now.\n\nNew *atoms* are formed by nuclear fission which is happening in the ground all the time, but much less so than all the biological processes making new molecules",
" > I read recently that the total amount of water on earth is always constant. Not a drop more, not a drop less.\n\nThis isn't entirely true. Big picture, though, I think it's reasonable to think about it that way; the amount of water cycling through groundwater, rivers and streams, into the ocean, and back into land via weather is roughly the same. Of course plants and animals take in water and use it for different biological processes. Some byproducts of these processes include water or incorporate that water into other chemicals like sugars (carbo*hydrates*).\n\nThere are a number of chemical reactions that produce water, like the combustion of hydrocarbons that somebody else mentioned. But these don't make a significant change in the water available on the planet.",
"That is just not true. \n\nYou produce water all the time. A average human produce 250-350ml ow water per day.\n\nWhen we use sugar for energy we combine it with oxygen and the result is water and carbon dioxide. Plants convert carbon dioxide and water to sugar and oxygen. We also produce water when we use fat and protein for energy.\n\n\nSo water is produced and destroyed all the time. I suspect the article you have read is on the larger scale. If you look at the net amount from plants and animals the change is close to zero. If plants do not get used and became peat is will rescue to total amount of water. If we burn oil from the ground you produce water. But compare to the total amount of water on the earth is it negotiable. There move around huge amount of water so net changes are not relevant. \n\n\n\n",
"lots of things make water. every campfire, charcoal grill, candle, car engine, diesel generator, coal/natural gas powerplant makes water molecules by combining a hydrocarbon with atmospheric oxygen to make H2O. \n\n\nwhen people talk about water being recycled, it means the water cycle from rain to river to lake to ocean, and evaporating back to rain. \n\n\nalso when you talk big numbers, losing a few tons of water here and there isn't the main conversation",
"Lots of chemical reactions create water.\n\nFor instance, a methane molecule is one carbon and four hydrogens (CH4). Burn it, and you create one molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) and two molecules of water (H2O). So right there, two new molecules of water created! The hydrogen and oxygen atoms that the water is made from are not newly created, but the water itself is.\n\nSame thing when you metabolize fat in your body. Fat is mostly hydrogen and carbon, and the hydrogen from the fat combines with oxygen that you breathe to create new water molecules. ",
"Water enters the earth in comets. Water can also boil out of the atmosphere and off into space. ",
"For the most part, the amount is constant. That's assuming you consider ice and water vapor to be just different forms of water.\n\nAs others have pointed out, water can be broken down into oxygen and hydrogen, which become atmospheric oxygen and hydrocarbons, and of course that oxygen and those hydrocarbons eventually become water again, so the amount of water is roughly constant.\n\nVolcanic activity does release fresh material into the atmosphere from time to time, and some of that fresh material eventually becomes water, so the amount of water does increase that way.\n\nAlso, an estimated 30,000-80,000 tons of meteors hit the earth every year. Some of them are ice comets, and those also add to the water on the Earth.",
"All matter is recycled and is interchangeable with energy. \n\nYou cannot create or destroy new energy, it's all just converted back and forth. It's the first law of thermodynamics. \n\nTechnically you can synthesize water in a lab, or produce it as sweat or as steam from burning wet wood or any number of other infinite ways. But the components of water were already there you are just shufflng molecules that always be there in one form or another"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1x6k3x | how does internet explorer make money for microsoft? | Do they use it to collect data? Do they not need it to make money? I really don't know. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x6k3x/eli5_how_does_internet_explorer_make_money_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf8j2b5",
"cf8jdlp"
],
"score": [
7,
8
],
"text": [
"IE's default search engine is Bing, and the default homepage is _URL_0_. They make lots of money on those.\n\nBy getting people to use IE, that means they are most likely not using Google's product and getting familiar with the Google's ecosystem of products.",
"Browser revenue is generated mainly in bundling of a default search engine and certain websites. When you install IE, you get default bookmarks for MSN websites, which is designed to guide you to browsing their pages. It's also about brand consciousness - getting people, as /u/ZebZ says, to use an \"ecosystem of products\".\n\nInitially, [as this page describes](_URL_0_), there was an intent to sell browsers to consumers, but open-source free ones like Netscape popped up so quickly and became so dominant that the idea of selling any of them quickly went out the window."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"msn.com"
],
[
"http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2012/how-do-internet-browsers-make-money-goog-msft-yhoo1227.aspx"
]
]
|
|
302xi1 | relative to wages, are some things really cheaper now than they were in 1900? | ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/302xi1/eli5_relative_to_wages_are_some_things_really/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpom4fy",
"cpom5rz",
"cpomuww"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
8
],
"text": [
"computers, televisions and other technology are crazy cheap in comparison to a few decades ago. a walkman for cassettes was $200-$300 new, now you can get an 8gb ipod for $100\n\nit all depends on where you live. in america the average wage has remained the same since the 60's but cost of living has tripled. if you are thinking the 1900's then things like candles, glass, clothing and other mass produced items are now cheaper than 100 years ago ",
"with a few minutes of google i haven't been able to find anything that specifically says how easily one could have earned the equivalent wage in prior years. Most online calculators won't go back as far as 1900 though. \nThis seems relevant. _URL_1_\nETA: another good writeup here: _URL_0_",
"Yes, many things are cheaper in terms of labor, and not just electronic gadgets.\n\nHere's a good look at a broad range of items from the Sears catalog in 1975 and 2003, calculated in terms of hours worked.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn addition, air travel, postage stamps and air conditioners are cheaper.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.mybudget360.com/cost-of-living-2014-inflation-1950-vs-2014-data-housing-cars-college/",
"https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf"
],
[
"http://cafehayek.com/2013/01/cataloging-our-progress-using-sears-com-selection-on-new-years-day-2013.html"
]
]
|
|
elnr5o | if tonsils are supposed to be the first line of defense against germs and bacteria, why would a tonsillectomy stop someone from getting strep or other bacterial infections? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/elnr5o/eli5_if_tonsils_are_supposed_to_be_the_first_line/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdjbgak"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Getting your tonsils removed is generally done to treat severe, recurrent or chronic tonsillitis, which is infection of the tonsils. They get all sore and inflamed. \n\nStep throat is an infection that affects your throat and tonsils and also makes them all sore and inflamed. \n\nSince the symptoms are similar, some people use the terms interchangeably (just how people will call any vomit-inducing sickness \"food poisoning\"... Even when it's viral and unrelated to food). But they're not the same thing. \n\nIf you have your tonsils removed then you cannot get tonsillitis. But you can still get strep throat (although it will obviously be unable to make your non-existent tonsils swollen)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5n3bwx | betting: why can't you bet on both sides, i.e. $1.50 : $2.60 odds, make a guaranteed profit of at least $50? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5n3bwx/eli5_betting_why_cant_you_bet_on_both_sides_ie/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc8djay"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Let's just say it's one to one odds.\n\n\nYou bet $10 for something and you bet $10 against something.\n\n\nCongratulations! You just paid yourself $10.\n\n\nOne bet losses $10. And the other pays $10."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
edkgpd | what is the process by which mass gets converted into energy? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/edkgpd/eli5_what_is_the_process_by_which_mass_gets/ | {
"a_id": [
"fbief4r",
"fbiejfz"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Well I can get you started, what do you think a particle is? A very tiny small ball? \nthat's actually not what it is, fundamental particles are sizeless, they don't have a size, they don't take up any space what so ever to begin with.",
"A particle turning into a photon cant happen without some other piece in the puzzle to start with. Second energy =/= photons. Your question needs to be more specific to give any real answer but ultimately what you are probably going to boil it down to is the 'process' is a quantum mechanical phenonium that we can describe with math but isn't intuitive."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2bvwl3 | the "market basket" situation | Could someone please explain what is going on with the boycott of the Market Basket supermarket chain? I feel lost as to how it got this point.
Thanks | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bvwl3/eli5_the_market_basket_situation/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj9f96n",
"cj9fdih"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Essentially the store is owned by the Demoulas family. It was started in 1906 in lowell and has grown to 71 stores since then. The original family sold it to their sons George and Telamachus (Mike) Demoulas for 15k. They owned it 50/50. Sadly George Died at the young age of 51 in 1971. The two brothers always said that if one died they would \"take care of the other family\". Mike's side, over the course of 20-30 years slowly diverted corporate funds into the chain that we all know as Market Basket. When Georges Side represented by Arthur S (the guy who who fired Artie T) figured this out they sued Artie Ts side of the Family. The judge made them take all the money and put it back into the company and split the shares so that Artie S had 51% of the shares. Artie T was originally thought to be the bad Artie. However over the years he taken care of the higher level management with excellent profit sharing plans and good retirement benefits. Ever since he has been fired the employees are in fear that the new CEO's wont continue this tradition and do not want their benefits cut. Note: He still owns his shares in the company, he just lost his title. So the management went on strike. Thus closing the distribution center in Tewksbury which as a result chokes out most of the products in the stores. Additionally customers have vowed to boycott untill Artie T is rehired. Their goal is to reinstate Artie T. and to keep the benefits they fear will be lost. This is a good article today that explains the history _URL_0_",
"The company has historically been controlled by one family member (Arthur T).\n\nRecently, the enough control shifted to another family member (Arthur S) through purchase/family agreements/family disagreements that Arthur S became president and Arthur T was fired.\n\nSome managers apparently were more loyal to Arthur T than the rest of the family / the store in general, and refused to work. They were subsequently fired as well.\n\nNow, more employees are refusing to work until Arthur T is reinstated. He apparently has an offer to purchase back enough shares to have > 50% stake, which would remove Arthur S from power, and put himself back as chair/CEO/president/whatever position he had previously.\n\nThe board of directors is evaluating the bid to determine whether or not existing shareholders (including Arthur S) will accept that offer.\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x1927887999/Arthur-vs-Arthur?zc_p=0"
],
[]
]
|
|
8ajfuq | why can’t the cold sore virus be cured permanently? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ajfuq/eli5_why_cant_the_cold_sore_virus_be_cured/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwz36zf",
"dwz7m0z",
"dwzhgft"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It’s hard to combat viruses. They attack your cells and can easily replicate once a cell replicates. It’s hard to attack them since they are relatively smaller than the cells themselves. There are medications to help but not to completely destroy a virus. There is no cure for the common cold- a virus. No cure for hiv also a virus. I get cold sores and they suck and the treatment only helps with the symptoms but cannot kill and remove the virus itself. ",
"Well, 10 years ago they thought a cure was at hand by denying the virus its ability to go latent & thereby driving it out of hiding to be killed with standard antivirals. _URL_0_ also _URL_1_ I'm guessing clinical trials in the intervening decade haven't panned out.",
"There are multiple strains of cold virus and they're not all the same. Figure out how to cure one and there's still hundreds of other strains. Even if you figure out how to cure one and manage to eliminate 99.99% of that strain, the remaining 0.01% survives and adapts to a new strain requiring a new cure."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://www.reuters.com/article/us-herpes-treatment/new-approach-offers-chance-to-finally-kill-herpes-idUSN0229815620080702",
"http://arrafunding.uchicago.edu/news/feature_roizman.shtml"
],
[]
]
|
||
48urm6 | what is the nuclear proliferation treaty and why do india, pakistan and a few others refuse to sign it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48urm6/eli5_what_is_the_nuclear_proliferation_treaty_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0mp3w9",
"d0mpkfd",
"d0mqgjq",
"d0muc0f",
"d0mupuy"
],
"score": [
8,
7,
2,
11,
4
],
"text": [
"In simple terms. Advanced countries limit their nuclear weapon stocks. Developing countries wont sign because they believe they have the right to the weapons for self defence ",
"They are sovereign nations that don't think it's fair. \n\nThey also research, develop and possess nuclear weapons so being a party to the agreement would make this illegal. Because they have not signed it, this is completely legal.\n\nWeird, but that's how international politics works.",
"The NPT is a treaty that is designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The idea is simple: the main reason that most countries develop nuclear weapons is because their neighbors/rivals might. If you take that threat away, most countries actually have no interest in developing such weapons.\n\nAt the time the NPT was drafted, there were five nuclear weapon states: the US, USSR, UK, France and China. Most countries were happy to sign it.\n\nBut India didn't. Why? Because China had nukes, and they have border disputes with China. And then because India wasn't on board, Pakistan wasn't going to sign either. Result? Now India and Pakistan have nukes.",
"The nuclear non-proliferation treaty says two important things:\n\n1. All countries have a right to research and develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and the more-developed countries should help them.\n\n2. The goal for the entire world is global nuclear disarmament, the permanent abolition of nuclear weapons. Until then only China, Russia, the US, the UK, and France may possess nuclear weapons and they must make gradual efforts toward dismantling their arsenals. \n\nIndia thinks this is unfair, because China has them, and China acts fairly aggressively towards India sometimes, meaning India wants nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Pakistan also has disputes with India and felt threatened that India had them, so they created their own. Signing the treaty means they can't have them anymore, so they refuse. ",
"The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is an international agreement that says that no countries except the US, Russia, UK, France, and China can have nuclear weapons. (Actually it specifically says that only countries that had tested nuclear weapons before 1967 could have them, which works out to these five. The treaty was signed in 1968, which is why 1967 is the date. The \"tested\" requirement is meant to disallow states that might have covert programs but hadn't tested — Israel in particular was suspected then of secretly being a nuclear power.) \n\nIf a country signs the treaty, they agree that they won't help other countries get nuclear weapons. If the signatory country doesn't have nukes, they promise they won't try to get them. If the signatory country does have nukes already and is one of the \"allowed\" parties, they agree to eventually try and get rid of them (someday — there is no time limit or anything, but it was made clear that if they didn't appear to be making a good-faith effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world that other countries might pull out of the treaty).\n\nBasically the reason that a non-nuclear country would sign it is that they get the ability to receive help developing peaceful (civilian) nuclear power from the other nations, under safeguards that make it hard for them to divert the technology into weapons.\n\nWhen the treaty was first proposed there were many countries that did not sign it. Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Israel, India, Pakistan, and even France and China refused to sign it. They gave various reasons, though a common thread with the non-nuclear states is that they were in somewhat dodgy circumstances with neighbors (Brazil vs. Argentina, South Africa vs. other African countries, Israel vs. other Middle Eastern countries, India vs. Pakistan) and they didn't want to limit their options. India also put forward the argument that it would be basically discrimination to say that some states could have nukes and some couldn't — they'd have signed a treaty (so they said) that prohibited _all_ nuclear weapons, but not one that created a situation of \"nuclear apartheid\" of \"haves\" and \"have-nots.\" \n\n(China refused to sign it because they said it was a product of imperialism — this was China in its Cultural Revolution years, so they rarely participated in international agreements. France said it agreed with the sentiment and that they would act in the spirit of it but they disliked any treaty that potentially inhibited their sovereignty. As an aside, China helped Pakistan get the bomb, and France helped Israel, so they had perhaps other reasons for not wanting to sign a treaty of this sort.)\n\nAnyway, in the early 1990s pretty much everybody signed the treaty except for three countries: India, Pakistan, Israel. India developed nuclear weapons in the 1970s and 1980s (out of tensions with China and Pakistan), Pakistan in the 1980s (out of tensions with India), and Israel in the 1960s (out of tensions with Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries). If they were to sign these treaties now, they would have to get rid of their nuclear stockpiles first. They aren't going to do that anytime soon.\n\nNorth Korea was a signatory to the treaty but pulled out in the early 2000s and started developing nuclear weapons. (South Africa developed a few nuclear weapons in the 1980s but dismantled them shortly before signing the treaty.) \n\nThe only other nation that is a non-signatory is South Sudan, but in their defense they are a very new country in the middle of a civil war and this is probably not the top thing on their agenda at the moment."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
27p47k | why do many men's faces suddenly get puffy in their mid-20s and up? | Nothing like reconnecting with old high school friends to see that the women basically look the same (with some exceptions) but by-and-large the men have shockingly puffy faces, almost to the point of unrecognizability (some look like they got a bunch of bee stings in the face). These guys are not particularly overweight. It doesn't affect every guy, but it's common.
What is this phenomenon? Is it fat? water bloat?.... and why?? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27p47k/eli5_why_do_many_mens_faces_suddenly_get_puffy_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci2z24r",
"ci2zavv",
"ci34nh2"
],
"score": [
14,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"They are overweight. Their clothes are hiding their stomachs. But I know exactly what you mean about the puffy face. \n\nI'm assuming you're about 5-10 years out of high school. Wait till you're 15-20 years out. Men age much better than women. Generalizing here, of course. ",
"Desk job. For me at least, it was going from being an active person to sitting at a desk for 9 hours a day with 2+ hrs sitting in a car for the commute. Sitting all day does wonders for your figure. \n",
"The metabolism that can burn off crazy amounts of calories during the teenage years slows down at a rapid pace without aerobic exercise.\n\nSo if you maintain a high calorie/carbohydrate diet while your metabolism slows, voilà, you have yourself a puffy face.........and belly.\n\nConsidering two slices of whole grain bread increases blood sugar higher than 6 teaspoons of sugar, your body becomes a fat cell storage facility trying to regulate glucose levels.\n\nSource: I got puffy, started jogging, cut back on carbs (even \"good\" carbs), increased protein intake, and got un-puffied."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5nt8db | how do services like square do 'instant deposits' to debit cards? what technology powers that? | I saw Square offers this feature, but it only works on 'some' debit cards. There is no explanation beyond that. What is the qualifying factor to make that happen? Chip vs no chip? Something else? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5nt8db/eli5_how_do_services_like_square_do_instant/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcers5n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's simply reverse debit. It's nothing special. When you return a product at certain stores they will ask you to swipe the card you used to buy it. Often times you can just swipe your debit card even if you bought it on a different credit card. The store simply credits the amount.\n\nI'm sure the cc processor ha an agreement that says fees on a return get credited back. After all you're not supposed to do the above mentioned returns as the bank returns a fee it never charged and you're converting credit to cash. 99.99% of people likely do as their told and it's not a problem.\n\nSquare works similarly. I don't know how they get away with it besides living on VC money, negotiating cheap rates, and charging 3% on credit cards. I'm sure if you ran 10s of thousands through this either your bank, square, or both will ban you"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2icqiy | german sentence structure | I have researched it but I don't fully understand the format as in where what words go where in multiple positions. I thought maybe a ELI5 version would benefit me instead. Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2icqiy/eli5_german_sentence_structure/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl11yoj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"German, like other languages such as Latin, doesn't structure it's sentences to give the words their meaning. Where English uses the position of a word to appoint it's grammatical function in a sentence, German uses Grammatical cases (_URL_0_). In German word position does matter (I'm not sure how) but in gramatically similar language like Latin all of the words could theoretically be placed randomly in a sentence as their meaning and relations are structured by suffixes. \n\nTL;DR: German uses grammatical cases instead of the position of it's words to determine meaning.\n\nEdit: Though my explanation maybe be correct, it is very incomplete and ambiguous. Please refer to the comments for a more detailed (and generally better) explanation."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_case"
]
]
|
|
19yz9h | anxiety disorders | What sort of things trigger attacks? What does it feel like to have an anxiety attack? How long do the attacks usually last? How does the person feel after an attack?
Also, what causes anxiety disorder? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19yz9h/eli5_anxiety_disorders/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8skpkx",
"c8sktqw",
"c8smh2z",
"c8smrhc",
"c8sqd52",
"c8sr2y6",
"c8sr6r4"
],
"score": [
17,
4,
2,
3,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I have generalized anxiety disorder so I hope I can answer your questions to your liking. \n\nPanic attacks are a biological alarm system we have built into us to get adreniline going when we are in danger. Your body is telling you to get out from where you are and your thoughts are screaming at you that there is some form of impending doom and you need to escape. Panic attacks make you feel as if you continue in your current situation, you will die; where you are, what you are doing, is going to ruin your life.\n\nPeople with a regular functioning brain will only experience these when they truley are in some form of danger. someone with an anxiety disorder will experience them more often, as false alarms. different types of anxiety will cause panic attacks for different reasons. most people have a specific situation which causes them to panic, but others, like myself, can experience panic attacks for no reason at all. The important thing to remember when tht happens is to remove yourself from the situation and try to convince yourself it's a false alarm. you will be OK.\n\nThe attacks can last anywhere from less than a minute to hours on end. it depends on the person and the situation.\n\nOnce an attack is over the person feels drained. They feel week and have little energy and often feel depressed.\n\nAnxiety disorders are caused by an imbalance of serotonin levels in your brain. Medication can be prescribed to help balance these. ",
"I can only answer from my experience. \n\nImagine you're sleeping at night and suddenly wake up with extreme chest pains. You have numbness and tingling in your left arm. You start freaking out and drive to the ER. The doctor hooks you up to the EKG and monitors your heart. He says there is nothing wrong with you. That's what my panic attacks were like. Apparently my body, knowing the symptoms of a heart attack, simulated those symptoms. Why? Because I have panic disorder, that's why. \n\nThis isn't necessarily how it works in other people, but it happened to me.",
"There's no one cause of anxiety disorders, and there's not always clear consensus on what kinds of things can contribute to a disorder.\n\nSometimes it's brain chemistry. Certain functions in your brain aren't working right because of a chemical imbalance. You could have also had exposure to certain chemicals. Stuff like caffeine can (not surprisingly) make you more prone to anxiety attacks, as it alters the chemistry of your brain.\n\nStress is also a big factor. I still get panic attacks that are related to a bout of severe illness I had a few years ago. It was such a stressful situation that I panic when I find myself noticing something similar to how things were the day I fell ill - certain smells, certain places, remind me of being sick, and my brain takes that and assumes that means I will be sick again, and I panic. \n\nIt's almost like I survived being attacked by a tiger, and now every time I see something that looks even remotely like a tiger, I panic. Only in my case, it's much more innocent stuff, like if I pass the corner I was on when I first got sick, or if I eat something I was eating the day I got sick. For a long time, I had to take medication just to feel comfortable leaving the house, because I would panic when I tried to go out - I didn't know if I'd get sick again and be unable to return home.",
"I don't have any specific trigger but I get thoughts that I cannot controle, even though I know it's just bullshit. But I can't convince myself about it.\n\nI'll think for days that my boyfriend is cheating on me, even though he is hugging me and kissing me and telling me that he loves me. I think that everyone are lying to me. I'll think that I'm getting crazy. I'll have trouble realizing what's real and what's my imagination playing tricks on me. I'll think that my sister will get raped on her way to school. I'll think that my dad might have killed himself. I might think that my mom doesn't love me. I might think that my cat can read my mind. I wake up at nights thinking that I'm dying at the very moment or that I'm having a heart attack or I simply can't catch my breath because I'm so afraid that the house will fall down in a hole like happened in Florida or simply that something horrible is going to happen. Etc.\n\nI get those thoughts everyday. Sometimes I worry so much about something that I get an attack.\n\nWhen I get attacks it's usually when I'm stressed about something (like going to an exam, or to the doctor, or my dentist) and/or something has happened that doesn't happen every day. (I got in a car accident few months ago, got an attack in my car afterwards and then for a few weeks when I thought about it). I also can have attacks when something changes, like when I'm supposed to go somewhere at 5 o'clock but half past 5 someone calls and changes the plan then I get very stressful and sometimes I get attacks.\n\nMine can span from 15 mins (small ones) up to two hours (huge). I do have medicin to prevent those attacks so when I know that I'm going to have one I'll take a pill and my fear goes away. I only do that when I know that a bad one is coming. \n\nThe attacks make me feel dizzy, and I cannot controle my thoughts or emotions. Sometimes I get very angry but usually I get very sad and feel useless, even suicidal. I can't controle my breathing so I'll breath very fast, and inhale too much oxygen and won't return it fully so my lungs fill up quite fast! I feel like that I have to vomit and sometimes, when I get a bad one, I'll shake for hours, when I'm having the attack and while it's going down. My mind also get very frustrated and I'm so scared that something bad is happening that I cannot figure out what's bullshit and what's not. \n\nAfter an bad attack I tend to be very slow, and feel like my mind and body are not the same person. That is; I can feel my mind but not my body and every movement that I make feels unreal and like that I'm not the one who controles it.\n\nMy anxiety disorder is in my genes. My dad has it and my grandmother also. Some people just get it and it doesn't have to be in their genes. Some people get it because something bad happened and they are afraid that it will happen again. \n ",
"You can't really pin point a situational cause, it is mostly due to the chemical imbalance but different people have them in different situations. I find that with most people, social triggers are more common. For myself, I can hang out at the same place with the same people every night but still have an attack. Sometimes I can get past it but others, i'll sit quietly for hours and can't shake it. It can be caused by one new person in the room or the smallest change. I tend to want to remove myself from whatever situation I'm in, especially if I have a lot on my mind. \n\nIf I'm at home, I don't want to be alone. If I'm hanging out somewhere, I want to be home by myself. If I'm at work, I want to be off. Its just a feeling of being uncomfortable wherever I am(not all of the time but in episodes) and feeling anxious about fixing it. As your heart rate speeds up, you focus on the uncomfortable feeling and want it to stop.",
"I would like to add that:\n\n* Panic attacks are sufficient but not necessary for the diagnosis with Anxiety Disorder.\n\n* Anxiety disorders is a very loose term that it could refer to both personality and non-personality disorders. For example, while Avoidant Personality Disorder (APD or AvPD) and Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD, aka Social Phobia) both have social anxiety in common, the former is considered a personality disorder (as its name would suggest) whereas the latter is not.\n\n* Some possible causes of anxiety disorders are traumatic events (e.g., Agoraphobia), being a victim of bullying (e.g., SAD), heredity (e.g., AvPD).\n\n* Research have shown that 15% to 20% of the population are Highly Sensitive People (HSP). This is an innate trait that is considered normal and not a disorder, though (imo) it could be strongly related to people with any type of anxiety disorders.\n\n* Anxiety disorders differ in type and severity. There is a wide variety of symptoms, depending on which kind of Anxiety we are discussing, though almost all sufferers of Anxiety have Depression in common.",
"I started having anxiety attacks after a medical incident. I now have PTSD from what happened. My triggers vary but mostly stem from things that remind me of past things that happen when I originally got sick. \n\nExamples: large crowds, new places, eating in public, sitting in traffic, when I don't care extra medication with me. Then sometimes for no real reason at all.\n\nMostly what the others said, you feel vary fearful, scared. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3kcfmf | why are i.q. tests used as the primary standard for gauging intelligence? | Many IQ tests that I've seen really just boil down to pattern recognition, which is kind of a problem since intelligence isn't concretely defined by psychologists/neurologists anyway (that is to say, recognizing patterns isn't the only way to be intelligent). Yet when we think of someone as a genius, we say or think "They must have a really high IQ", which implies that they were assessed according to the intelligence standards of IQ tests and nothing more. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kcfmf/eli5_why_are_iq_tests_used_as_the_primary/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuweigq",
"cuweny3",
"cuwf3tn",
"cuwg2ee",
"cuwkian"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Pattern recognition is a very important part of intelligence. IQ tests do involve much more than that. As for why we use them... it's because we haven't really developed anything else. ",
"Honestly? It's because they give us something that's easy to measure and compare. It's like considering someone a hard worker because they work more hours than others, or considering someone more successful because they make more money. These things may well not be the greatest way to know whether someone's actually these things, but it's been turned into a number and so easy to measure and compare.",
"To paraphrase Winston Churchill, IQ tests are the worst way to measure intelligence, except for all the others.\n\nWe don't complete understand intelligence, but we don't have any better tools to measure it with, either.",
"Fundamentally, IQ tests cover one main field: Logic. Whether they be mathematical questions, verbal questions, or spatial/pattern questions. Logic is really the foundation of all our learning and application of knowledge. IQ tests dont ask chemistry or history questions, b/c not everyone knows chemistry or history..it's biased. However, everyone generally use and understand logic..can't be biased. ",
"When people first started seriously investigating intelligence, they expected to find several mostly independent factors (verbal ability, mathematical ability, spacial reasoning, creativity, etc.). But to their surprise, those abilities turned out to be pretty highly correlated to each other, and seemed to heavily depend on a single underlying factor, *g* (which could be something physiological, like how fast neurons communicate or how much working memory one has or how large a brain one has, etc. it's still under discussion).\n\nSo they looked for tests that gave a good indication of that underlying factor, and combined together they are what we call an IQ test.\n\nFor an analogy, imagine people were trying to measure how athletic someone was, and looked at a lot of factors, but found that actually, just measuring oxygen levels in the air you breathe out when making an effort is a surprisingly good predictor of all kinds of performances (I'm making this up!), so out of convenience defined an \"Athletic Factor\" measured by a breath apparatus. You could say \"but that's completely unrelated to how fast one runs!\" but it still would be a good predictor. (And actually, I don't think they found a similar underlying factor for athleticism - unlike IQ, it *can* be decomposed in several somewhat independent factors).\n\nSo there you go, what IQ tests check may seem not-very-related to some forms of intelligence, but that's not because psychologists arbitrarily defined them that way, it's because it turned out to be a good predictor."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4mzywe | why is it flooding everywhere? | Texas forever, Mississippi, Vegas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma have already had notable flooding this year. Whats going on? Is a certain amount of flooding per year normal? Is this more than normal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4mzywe/eli5_why_is_it_flooding_everywhere/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3zobli",
"d3zpzdh"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A certain amount of periodic flooding is normal. However, as global warming continues, more ice is melting, and there is therefore more liquid water around, which means there will be more rain, more snow, larger storms, and more dramatic flooding.",
"Some of it is seasonal and/or due to normal cycles and some it due to climate change. What seems to confuse a lot of people is how such a \"small\" change of only 1 degree or so can have a real impact. It's true that you won't feel much of a difference, but heat is a for of energy and to raise the average global temperature by one degree represent an astounding amount of energy. That energy affects the weather by making it more extreme. Stronger, more frequent storms; bigger hurricanes; warm air holding more which then turns into flooding; even more severe blizzards though that's counter-intuitive."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
69osq7 | why do humans have such long life cycles compared to most animals. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69osq7/eli5_why_do_humans_have_such_long_life_cycles/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh883uc",
"dh88q6e",
"dh8a4zq",
"dh8afww",
"dh8c1h0",
"dh8cfzi",
"dh8czm8",
"dh8frws"
],
"score": [
92,
4,
4,
2,
12,
2,
21,
2
],
"text": [
"Idk if 'most animals' is accurate, but I guess it's relative. Lots of turtles, parrots, big mammals like elephants, and a PLETHORA of marine life can live longer than the average human! In ancient nature we had much shorter life spans, but with modern medicine and agricultural advances we've been able to extend our own life cycles; this doesn't mean we were necessarily long-living creatures before, where as Greenland sharks can live for upwards of 150 years with no medical or other interventions. ",
"Our competitive advantage is our brains. Education, farming, & amp; healthcare have stretched everything out. Females can give birth at 12 but my wife gave birth at 31. My dementia-addled 99-year old grandma would have been long dead if it were 10000 years ago, but she is safely propped up in assisted living. Etc... ",
"Think about other animals/humans in the wild as a whole.\nSick? Dead.\nBroken bone? Probably dead\nCan't hunt? Dead\nIssue with your immediate local eco system? Dead\n\nNow the reasons team people kicks ass\nMedicine\nFarming\nScience\nLanguage\nCognitive abilities\nConciousness\nBasically we do everything a fuckin hell of alot better than any other animals. I also think it just has something to do with DNA we are 96% the same as primates(human gnome), and they have a pretty decent lifespan \n~50 years for 'common' champs\n~40 years for bonobo\n\n",
"Modern medicine, and not having to worry about too many things killing and eating you helps.",
"It's important to point out that humans have had the capacity to live relatively long lives for much of our existence. Even before medicine, agriculture, and scientific advances, an individual could live for 60-70 years if they made it past childhood and could avoid predators and/or injury. Humans and our primate relatives take much longer to develop and reach sexual maturity and cannot reproduce as frequently--necessitating a relatively longer life in order to reproduce and raise offspring. Our metabolism is much slower than mammals of similar size, resulting in slower growth and less frequent cell turnover, which causes the accumulation of DNA damage associated with aging. ",
"One reason longer lifespans were probably selected for in human ancestors is that older members could pass on their knowledge to future generations, and could take care of kids while the younger adults were out gathering food. ",
"In general, lifespan is related to the time it takes to raise one litter of progeny. It takes longer to raise a human infant to adulthood than almost any other animal. \n\nSo if a bear mom dies at 16 she may have raised several litters. But a human mom would be leaving behind a helpless toddler. \n\nSince we evolved language and a second data set beyond our genes, It has been of benefit for parents to live long enough to share their wisdom about things later in life, like how to be a parent.\n\nContrast, animals young who require no care die after spawning/laying eggs.",
"Every response I've seen here is answering about lifespans, but OP asked about life cycles.\n\nI don't know the answer but I'd imagine it might have something to do with us being a highly intelligent species. It takes a long time for our brains to fully develop. A mother with a more fully formed brain would be better fit to help her child survive in the wild."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1v8jgs | how a complex operating system (like ubuntu) can run on a 2gb usb | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v8jgs/eli5_how_a_complex_operating_system_like_ubuntu/ | {
"a_id": [
"cepsxk7",
"cepuu57"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't \"run\" on the 2 GB USB. The USB acts in the same way that your hard drive works for Windows. \n\nWhen you boot in Linux, the bulk of the processes needed to run Linux are loaded from the USB into your RAM. From there, the USB only needs to be accessed for getting files or anything that is in storage that hasn't been loaded into RAM.\n\nAs to why Linux is only 2 GB as compared to Windows' ~10-20 GB or so, it's because Linux is a significantly less complex OS than Windows with significantly less bloat.",
"The same way a computer with a SSD can run windows.\n\nA SSD is kind of similar technology, but packaged in a larger package, and thus more chips to store data on, thus, larger sizes.\n\nA USB stick is a very small SSD drive with a USB interface instead of SATA (which is what most computer motherboards use nowadays for internal hard disks). SSD tends to be a bit more hardy/denser with the data on the chips as well, but in simplistic terms they work quite similar.\n\nAs others have said the Data doesn't matter, as long as the computer can load it and execute it. You could run it off a floppy drive, if you had one and it fit onto it also, in theory. You could probably even run it off a camera card or something like that, provided you could get the computer to \"boot\" from that \"drive.\"\n\nAs long as the computer can read the data into memory and execute it, it will run. Simplistically. Operating systems often have to refer back to the disc, which is why back in the days of floppies and DOS if you only had one drive, you usually made a backup copy of your DOS disc and kept the original safe, because depending on what you were doing, you might have to take out the disc you're executing a program on and insert the DOS disc so it can grab something on it, then reinsert the program disc. Dual drive computers were a godsend for that reason, you could leave DOS in the bootable drive and do everything else with the other one.\n\nThe DOS disc got a lot of wear and in a few months, usually would start having read errors and you'd have to make another one. A USB stick is a bit more hardy than a 5.25\" floppy was."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
1t93zy | why doesn't the topical application of disinfectants like alcohol select for resistance the way using antibiotic or antibacterial agents can? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t93zy/eli5why_doesnt_the_topical_application_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce5kvqh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because alcohol kills everything. It's not possible for a microorganism to be resistant to alcohol. Alcohol is a tiny molecule that competes with water. Consequently, it's a dehydrating agent. Nothing can survive being catastrophically dehydrated. Same thing with bleach, albeit by a different mechanism. Bleach kills *everything.* You can't be resistant to bleach."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
6n3l9k | why do people get red when they are hot? why does the area around the mouth and eyes turn white when they are about to have a heat stroke? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6n3l9k/eli5_why_do_people_get_red_when_they_are_hot_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk6gcg0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Bloodflow, blood is expanding the capillaries (blood vessels near the skin) to increase heat exchange. This causes changes in what blood is where in SEVERE SEVERE SEVERE case, because more blood is right on the surface. Eventually your body goes into a weird sort of self destructive loop to try to stay alive and you ded.... but we have the best heat tolerance and ways of dealing with it in the \"large\" animal kingdom.\n\nUnrelated note heat illness is extremely severe. _URL_0_\nI need to add if you have a hose or something leave your clothes on and spray them down, ice packs in arm pits and groin are also very effective.. and for gods sake call EMS is you get severe symptoms... "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.emsaonline.com/mediacenter/articles/00000166.html"
]
]
|
||
30rr42 | why is raw salmon considered "safe to eat" | My parents gave me raw salmon for dinner and I wondered why it's safe to eat. I mean it's raw that means you should cook it first before ingesting it right? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30rr42/eli5why_is_raw_salmon_considered_safe_to_eat/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpv7lva",
"cpv7r11",
"cpv89do",
"cpvaok0"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
6,
7
],
"text": [
"In general, actually, raw salmon is NOT safe to eat. It is only safe if it has been frozen to certain specifications, below a certain temperature for a period of time. Salmon tends to contain parasites. Sushi grade salmon is frozen in this manner before being sold. For this reason, you should never eat fresh raw salmon that was not intended to be eaten raw.",
"Lots of things, depending on preparation, are fine to eat raw. Just because something hasn't been cooked doesn't mean it should be cooked. Some of my favorite foods, like sashimi, tartare, and oysters are served raw. Very delicious and safe. ",
"Raw does not mean you have to cook it. In many cases raw food can be perfectly healthy and even better for you.\n\nHowever, raw food that had been in bacteria growing conditions should be cooked to kill that bacteria. The majority of \"raw\" beef and chicken and whatnot you get from the supermarket has been processed through major factories and shipped hundreds of miles in these conditions, so most of the \"raw\" food **you've** come in contact with should be cooked.\n\nBut appropriately fresh and well cared for raw foods can be perfectly fine. Always check first though, and when in doubt, cook.\n\n**TLDR Raw isn't necessarily bad, having bacteria is bad. Cooking gets rid of both, so they're often associated**",
"from _URL_0_\n\n\"The FDA has required all fish (with the exception of tuna) destined to be served raw in the U.S. to be frozen at a minimum of minus four degrees Fahrenheit for seven days or minus thirty-one degrees Fahrenheit for fifteen hours. Either process will kill any and all parasites inside of a fish. Freezing in this method happens so quickly that the ice crystals that form are very short and don't pierce through cell walls, and so the fish can legally be sold as fresh.� Home freezers cannot freeze this quickly and so not only do parasites survive the process but the long time lapse of freezing creates long ice crystals that pierce cell wall after cell wall as they grow. Freeze a strawberry or onion in your home freezer and let it thaw and you will get a very dramatic example of what damage can occur. \"\n\nSo yea they're safe to eat if you buy them from a legit store. Some sushi restaurants actually have their own flash freezing fridge for freezing their own fish.\n\nTD:DR - Raw fish you buy (intended to be eaten raw, are \"sushi-grade\") are flash frozen frozen to below -4 degrees with special freezers which kills all the parasites and bacteria."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.eatsushi.com/article.asp?X=628"
]
]
|
|
4kuorr | why do electronic artists still need tonnes of equipment? why can't a computer produce all the sound design they need? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kuorr/eli5_why_do_electronic_artists_still_need_tonnes/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3hw77g",
"d3hyxbt",
"d3hztkn"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Theoretically it can, its just very difficult, inefficient. And time consuming. While you can program each note into the computer its much easier to just use a midi keyboard.",
"Another thing that's not been mentioned is the simple *feel* of an instrument. What I mean is, a guitarist can pick up any guitar and go. But certain guitars, they feel a connection to. They want to play *that* guitar for whatever reason, even if the other 9 guitars they own are basically the same guitar (yes, there are people who will own 9 Gibson Les Pauls, and they'll still have a favourite).\n\nSo, aside from convenience- and having all the gear right there and set the right way for the song is useful, there is a connection to instruments that software cannot emulate.",
"When you see big walls of metal boxes with various displays and knobs and buttons, a lot of those things aren't really *making* the music, it's coloring it!\n\nThings like compressors, limiters/de-essers, rackmount reverb and delay units, these all provide effect chains and timbre changes that an artist may prefer over digital recreations of the same modifications/modulations, along with equipment to establish things like where they are placed in a stereo spread, their leveling, their signal paths being sent to a sidechain compressor...\n\nNow, getting into hardware synthesizers, well... it may have to do with ergonomics or features, it may have to do with connectivity, or ease in creation of arpeggios/sequences, if they're micing an amp it instead of plugging directly in, etc., all of those will come into play in music creation. I only have two hardware synths and a few digital synths, but they all do something different or complement each other; nothing has really replaced anything else (as of yet!).\n\nIt's a lot of cool stuff that makes cool sounds!\n\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
45ag8j | since i live in a country, state, and city with modern waste water treatment facilities, how is running water while shaving, brushing teeth, showering, ect. wasting water? | Isn't water reclaimed, treated and reused? Since it is not destroyed (by changing states) can it truly be wasted? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45ag8j/eli5_since_i_live_in_a_country_state_and_city/ | {
"a_id": [
"czwbuu6",
"czwbxuf",
"czwbzkl",
"czwc4fx",
"czwdov2",
"czwjrvf",
"czwlvpn"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
6,
8,
21,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"I mean, you are still paying for it. So you are wasting money. Also, waste treatment facilities are not 100% efficient, some water is lost in the process.",
"That depends on your local set up, but some of it is lost. In some locations, water is pulled from sources that are hard to restore, such as aquifers, that fill very slowly (decades or even hundreds of years) and can be permanently damaged or even ruined if drained excessively. ",
"It's really not. That type of thinking is fostered by environmental groups who don't want to go after the real issues. It's easier to tell people to take shorter showers than it is to get them to stop golfing.",
"It's not wasting water, per se. There's plenty of water. \"Wasting water\" is what we say when we mean \"wasting the resources used to treat and transport water to you.\" ",
"More accurately it's about the resources (energy, chemicals, facilities, etc.) needed to obtain water from the environment, treat it to make it potable (IE safe for you to drink), and then distribute it to everyone in the area. Then, after the water has run from your tap down into your drain, more energy, chemicals, and facilities are needed to move all the wastewater to wherever it's being treated, remediate it (make it safe to release into the environment or back into the drinking water system), and then push it out to wherever it's going, either into waterway of some sort, or back into your drinking water. \nAll of those steps cost materials, time, and energy to happen, so that's what's really being \"wasted.\" ",
"No. Water is taken, cleaned (unless it's Flint), used, cleaned again (hopefully), and released.\n\nSewage treatment plants are normally positioned such that the water leaving them is returned to the environment instead of returned to the drinking water supply.\n\nThis happens for two reasons:\n\n(1) People are grossed out by the idea of \"drinking toilet water\".\n\n(2) When sewage treatment plants break they let sewage out in the exhaust.\n\nSo typically you should think of a source (like the mountains or a well), then a resivour, then a cleaning plant, then your house, then your sewage treatment plant (assuming you have one) (and this includes very local plants like the my septic tank and drain field), and then a river or swamp or pool or drain that just takes the result away.\n\nYour house isn't part of a short circle, the only way water gets back to the start of your water circle is rain/snow or seepage.\n\nThough lots of places get water from a river that someone up-stream uses as a sewage dump.\n\nAnd even if you _did_ live in a closed circle system, those two cleaning cycles, and the energy to pump the water around isn't free either. So passing water without using it wastes energy and \"capacity\".\n\nCapacity? you ask... Well each of those plants runs constantly more-or-less while you, and everybody else, uses water in short bursts. So the various towers and resivours fill slow-and-steady but drain in tiny-but-fast bursts.\n\nIf everybody turned on every tap and shower and hose at the same time in your water system it would quickly drain to a trickle.\n\nThe system's ability to make the water clean is matched to the average usage, which is that most taps are off at any given moment. Change that and you mess up everything.\n\nTechnically the system waits for clean water the same way you wait for coffee to come out of the coffee maker. If a pot is ready it's like it's endless. But if the pot is empty you have to watch it drip.\n\nAnd like coffee grounds are only good for making so much coffee, water filters get dirty clog up and so each filter segment is only good for so much water. Once that filter makes that much water it has to be replaced.\n\nSo leaving a tap running is wasting the volume of source water, the capacity to filter, the total-lifetime of the filter, and the electricity that runs the whole system, and so the coal, gas, or whatever is used to make that electricity.",
"It's less actually wasting water and more wasting the treatment company's money that they spend to provide you with that water. Also, leaving the tap on every time can add up on your water bill. So in a way you are wasting both yours and the company's money. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1jafvz | the relationship between andrew carnegie, john rockefeller and jp morgan | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jafvz/eli5_the_relationship_between_andrew_carnegie/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbcpd7l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"#1 They were all insanely rich. As in, for their time, their wealth would trump that of Bill Gates. \n\n#2 They pushed forward major industries of the U.S. \n* Andrew Carnegie owned most if not all the steel industry\n* The same goes for Rockefeller with oil \n* JP Morgan with investments/involved with steel/electricity distribution (note however, he was crazy influential with government. While not being as wealthy, he could swing our entire government into his favor, and he even bailed out the United States with his own money at one point!) \n\n#3 They made monopolies a thing, as they would own 80-90% of their given market and thus dominate all the sales, forcing the government to break up their trusts.\n\nBecause they owned monopolies, they would often be exploiting the common man by raising prices and giving the customer no alternatives to compare prices. Due to this ,they are also known \"Robber Barons\" who are businessmen that gain wealth and power through exploitation. This is opinion based however. _URL_0_"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)"
]
]
|
||
cyywr1 | why is chemistry branched into organic and inorganic? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cyywr1/eli5_why_is_chemistry_branched_into_organic_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"eyv254f",
"eyx2vwd"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Organic chemistry, or chemistry of Carbon, is so complex that it has as much or even more variety than all other chemicals combined. It's so complex that you basically spend an entire career just being an expert in Carbon-based chemistry, where the rest of chemistry take the same amount of time to learn as Carbon all by itself.",
"Nature doesn't tells us how to divide it and classified it. So we must try semi-arbitrary choices. In the case of chemistry is was noted in antiquity that some matter turned black and got destroyed when burned (charcoal) and some other matter don't.\n\nThen it was also noted that the matter that turned black was coming from living things. So as a broad classification it was discovered in antiquity.\n\nThen in the XIX century \"the chemistry century\" the living matter / dead matter distinction endure as it was discovered that the living matter chemistry corresponded to Carbon Chemistry."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
38aki4 | why are cable companies constantly trying to push their home phone service? most people already have cell phones and it sounds like an added burden to their existing infrastructure. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38aki4/eli5_why_are_cable_companies_constantly_trying_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"crtl0r4",
"crtl1h4",
"crtn75b",
"crtnqv3"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
9,
6
],
"text": [
"Money, if they can make $10/mo off of landline service, why not? \n \n > added burden to their existing infrastructure \n \nWhat burden would it create? Adding landlines aren't that difficult.",
"Because they want to stay in business. A lot of people still prefer home phone services, especially for emergencies. 911 cannot trace your number easily if you are using a cellphone.",
"Somewhere around 40% of Americans live without a landline in their home. Virtually all of those homes had a phone at one time, the streets that those homes are on all have telephone poles/lines and the all the infrastructure is already in place to operate them all. There's not much that the cable companies have to do if you opt to pay the monthly fee beyond flipping a switch. ",
"the equipment for your internet is capable of producing a dial tone, it's already in your house, and it has almost no effect on bandwidth. it's just extra cash every month. \n\nimagine if, for some reason, you paid for 5 blinking lights each month, but the modem had 6 lights on it. they would of course try to get you to turn on the last light for additional money. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5zlmuc | why do some people smell burnt toast before/during a heart attack? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zlmuc/eli5_why_do_some_people_smell_burnt_toast/ | {
"a_id": [
"dezadze"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"1. You're thinking of a stroke, not a heart attack.\n2. While smelling burnt toast is a popular example, it's only that, an example. It's meant to illustrate the point that a person having a stroke can sometimes experience strange, very specific sensations."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
2eifb8 | why does pointing a fan outside work better for cooling a room down? | As opposed to pointing it inside, which always seems to feel better. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2eifb8/eli5_why_does_pointing_a_fan_outside_work_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjzsqn3",
"cjzsuzt",
"cjzt4e3",
"cjzxnad"
],
"score": [
5,
14,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's easier to pull air out of a room than it is to try and push more in. You're fighting turbulence the fan creates and air pressure when pushing air into the room.\n\nYou're also effectively causing all of the air in the room to circulate, versus just the air the fan pushes.",
"A room which has heated up throughout the day can be effectively cooled by moving the hot air to the outside and replacing it with slightly cooler air. The only reason why it feels cool to have a fan blowing on you is due to the latent heat effect of the evaporation of moisture on your body. As the water evaporates, it takes energy from your body in the form of heat which is why wind chill can often make a day seem colder than it actually is.",
"Do both. Point one outside, and one inside, with windows open. I got a 20\" box fan with those 20\" square shaped AC filters. It's awesome, I don't have to worry about blowing dirt in my apt, and I don't use my AC as much. I live in Las Vegas.",
"Someone kind of touched on this already but here it is in more ELI5 detail. When you think about how to move to air around it sometimes help to think of it as a fluid. Its really hard to push a fluid effectively. You can do it, but as soon as you stop pushing the fluid kind of swirls around. If you are on one end of a pool for example you couldn't push a handful of water all the way the other side. What you could do is suck the water. For every inch of water you suck from one end the other end gets an inch closer to you. Another way to think of air is like a chain laid out on the ground. Air is a chain of molecules. Pushing a chain isn't very effective, it will just bunch up, but you can pull it very easily.\n \nIf you room is hot and it is cool outside then you want to draw in cold air from outside. Don't put your fan in your window, but in your doorway facing the hall. Keep in mind this will create direct line of airflow from your window to the door and might create dead spots in other parts of your room. If you have a second fan, or a ceiling fan, you can use it to 'stir up' the air in your room to help evenly distribute it.\n\nedit to address the second part: When fan is in your window and pointing out then it is drawing air through your room from the rest of your building. When it is pointed inwards then it is just buffeting air around less effectively and a large portion of your room isn't getting airflow."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2cf7mw | what is holding us back from developing a tire that does not need air and thus can't get a flat? | Edit: I was referring to car tires for those asking. Also, courtesy of /u/Schnutzel, it looks like they are currently a work in progress and the technical challenge that we are still facing is:
"Airless tires generally have higher rolling resistance and provide much less suspension than similarly shaped and sized pneumatic tires. Other problems for airless tires include dissipating the heat buildup that occurs when they are driven. Airless tires are often filled with compressed polymers (plastic), rather than air."
Here is a picture of what most currently look like, courtesy of /u/Dead0fNight:
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cf7mw/eli5_what_is_holding_us_back_from_developing_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjeusth",
"cjeuswc",
"cjeuyrz",
"cjevuzw",
"cjevx1u",
"cjevxu1",
"cjew73x",
"cjewg2i",
"cjewlww",
"cjewz6c",
"cjex424",
"cjex5zf",
"cjexe95",
"cjey1mw",
"cjeyc71",
"cjeydhq",
"cjezksw",
"cjf0uwu",
"cjf1b0l",
"cjf4hzv",
"cjf50e0",
"cjf66lu",
"cjf6ay7",
"cjf7gqj",
"cjf7l0g",
"cjf7tfi",
"cjf8ctn",
"cjf8jtf",
"cjf8n45",
"cjf8zpa",
"cjf99uy",
"cjf9ljp",
"cjf9wi8",
"cjfay9f",
"cjfbix1",
"cjfbwr4",
"cjfc690",
"cjfep9j",
"cjfeyyp",
"cjffh02",
"cjfhvkk"
],
"score": [
58,
1481,
7,
7,
3,
171,
2,
3,
87,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
14,
34,
2,
2,
3,
4,
6,
19,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"[They're currently working on it.](_URL_0_)",
"Well, they do exist. The issue is that they're much heavier than inflatable tires, which leads to really bad fuel economy.",
"Fuel economy, mostly. ",
"Look into the tweel. Michelin created it, problem they have had is road noise right now. Still used for off road.",
"Money. I remember there was a guy some 10-15 years back who invented a lightbulp that would last 50 years plus. Of course when they last so long, not that many people come back to buy more = bad business.",
"[These](_URL_0_ ) are the ones I'm most familiar with. However they still have difficulties to overcome. \n\n",
"You might want to check this out.... Some companies and the military are testing different strategies out. This one is pretty neat - a honeycomb structure:\n_URL_0_\n",
"There's also these 'Run Flat' tires that exist for regular consumers\n_URL_0_",
"Nothing. They exist and you can buy them:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThe original tyres were also solid rubber and therefore puncture-proof but the ride was rough. Pneumatic tyres were invented by Mr Dunlop to make his son's tricycle more comfortable for riding.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nModern air-free tyres use foamed rubber. You pick the pressure you want (e.g. 100 PSI for a road bike) and then buy the solid tyre that \"simulates\" that pressure.\n\nThere are still issues. Removing air-free tyres is difficult so no good if you bust a spoke. Also the ride is still arguably worse than pneumatic. Also its more expensive than a pneumatic tyre.",
"Sell a man a fish, and he can eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and you lose a great business opportunity.",
"I've used them before. They're tremendously heavy, and would actually have a decent effect on vehicle performance (be it a bicycle or car). \n\nMy experience was with a bicycle. \n\nAlso, at least in a bike, the suspension isn't the only thing absorbing an impact. I ride rigid bikes and the tires, grips, and elastic bending of the metal components is the shock absorption. If you get a picture at the right time, most rigid bikes when they land compress the tires a lot, enough that the picture would scare you. ",
"The issue is that air supports the tire, it allows the tire to flex for traction and grip. Imagine you used an all metal tire, you would not have much traction. Now add a rubber layer on top of that. you would still have very little contact with the ground. (A hard circle would only touch at one point, the tangent). The weight of a car will push down on a regular tire making a flatter contact spot (more surface area to the ground) which makes for much better traction. If you remove air from the equation you will still need to compensate for the lost traction and that is one of the problems.",
"Air-less tires already do exist but are still very expensive, I'm assuming due to manufacturing. _URL_1_. Michelin too- _URL_0_",
"On tractors some people use water instead of air to gain weight, you can fix a flat just putting a screw in it. ",
"It's the same thing as with jet packs. They exist, but in practice they kinda suck. (With the tires it's a lowered gas mileage and uncomfortable ride, with the jetpacks it's general impracticality/danger).",
"[Here](_URL_0_) is an airless tire mounted on a HMMWV. IIRC, the problem with these is that they make a lot of noise as the air goes through them.",
"nothing. we have them.",
"Did you just watch How It's Made? They were doing an episode earlier this morning about tires made of some sort of rubber foam stuff and doesn't need air and I had the same thought.",
"Wouldn't aerogel have some benefit?",
"Check out the tweel!\n_URL_0_",
"Air is cheaper than rubber",
"Because we have to finish making solar roadways first.",
"They could be made, but no one would buy them. Consumer demand dictates the market for car tires and a non pneumatic tire cannot be produced for a price that provides equal or greater value than current rubber pneumatic tires. When there is an alternative tire that offers equal or greater consumer value, it will exist and people will buy it. ",
"The money made by selling tires that go flat?",
"They exist and they are being worked on, but what's holding them back is cost (of course), as well as customer expectations. If these tires ride harder, or don't last as long, or change a car's handling, then customers won't buy them. Some customers already complain about regular pneumatic tires for some hybrids because they are harder to reduce rolling resistance. ",
"I guess you're talking about full-rubber tyres? They exist but only on really big, heavy industrial vehicles because full-rubber tyres are crazy heavy and lead to lower fuel consumption. They also offer poor suspension.\n\nAn alternative in my eyes would be to to fill the normal tyre with something that would be as effective as air but be less dense than rubber... That wouldn't cause the weight or suspension issue...",
"I give you the tweel. The best solution I've encountered yet.\n\n_URL_0_",
"They exist...and they suck. Don't last as long, don't handle or grip as well in most applications, are more expensive, not as good MPG....just in general all around, they are not as good...Yet.",
"_URL_1_ (Military prototype) relevant. \n\n_URL_0_ (CNET with a couple more variations) also relevant.\n\nSorry I don't know how to hyperlink.",
"Why dont they just make a really thin solid tires. Like a film over the rims",
"itd be extremely heavy, making fuel economy terrible. and it could deform over time.",
"Correct answer to OP's question = money. Something that needs fixed less makes less",
"Well if cars could just fly already, we wouldn't need tires.",
"The air lobby.",
"Did a project on this last year, Polaris has their terrainarmour tires that work very nicely, bridgestone is working on ones for mobility scooters, and Michelin has their own. The only problem of why they are not in production is that they are still testing them and there is a law in the US that states that all vehicles on the motorway must have air in them.\n_URL_1_\n_URL_2_\n_URL_0_",
"Is this a technology that's even needed? Seems to me tires are doing a fine job. ",
"Funding and idiots who like to say \"don't reinvent the wheel\".",
"_URL_0_\n\nIs this what you're looking for? ",
"The desire for a smooth car ride.",
"planned obsoletion. the no flat tire has been invented many times over and every version has been bought and killed by the big giants.. you dont know about it for the same reason most people dont understand electricity comes out of the air",
"As I understand it, the problem is that, any material other than a gas (or maybe some liquids?) only compresses where the pressure is applied. Where as when you compress a gas (like air) the pressure is evenly distributed across the hole body.\n\n[see my amazing diagram for details](_URL_0_)\n\nYou can design it so there is compression next to the point of impact and tension on the opposite side, by suspending the wheel in a sort of spring type thing, which is the usual solution. \n\n[See equally great diagram](_URL_1_).\n\nBut even this there are still the sides of the tire that are absorbing much less of the force than the bottom and top of the wheel. The springs at the side do absorb *some* of the impact, but not close to an equal amount.\n\nSo to produce a tire that is as good as an air filled one, it would have to be filled with a substance that has free moving, compressible molecules and is as light at compressed air. To be an improvement on using air it would some how have to have free moving molecules while in the wheel but have no desire to escape when the tire is punctured. This puts some pretty hard constraint on what would be a suitable material, considering air is also pretty much free. hence the only real use for non air tires being ones where it is an absolute requirement for them not to ever deflate, or where there is little need to have any impact absorbing properties. "
]
} | []
| [
"http://airless-tire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/TweelAudi02-1024x682.jpg"
]
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airless_tire"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://airless-tire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/TweelAudi02-1024x682.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.gizmag.com/reinventing-the-wheel--the-airless-tire/10398/"
],
[
"http://www.goodyear.ca/en-CA/tires/category/run-flat"
],
[
"http://www.dunlop.eu/dunlop_euen/_header/about_us/history/",
"http://www.bicycles.net.au/2013/03/tannus-musai-puncture-proof-airless-tyres-alternative/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.airless-tire.com/the-michelin-tweel-the-mother-of-all-airless-tires/",
"http://gizmodo.com/bridgestones-futuristic-airless-tires-are-almost-ready-1469598671"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://cfile4.uf.tistory.com/image/1652253F4EFA8375294A43"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweel"
],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/371Ad04DPL0",
"http://youtu.be/4jYcX_D09ig"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.michelintweel.com",
"http://www.polaris.com/en-us/atv-quad/2014/sportsman-wv850-ho-avalanche-gray",
"http://gizmodo.com/bridgestones-futuristic-airless-tires-are-almost-ready-1469598671"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/polaris-new-airless-tire-can-withstand-a-50-caliber-bullet/#!buaUHC"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/PZbNKMd",
"http://imgur.com/xK0NZmk"
]
]
|
|
82ytm4 | what are tariffs and why are people upset that the president wants to impose them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/82ytm4/eli5_what_are_tariffs_and_why_are_people_upset/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvdrvqd",
"dvds0bz",
"dvdslbl"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
28
],
"text": [
"Tariffs are just taxes on imports. When another country wants to sell their product domestically, we can tax them when the import that product for sale.\n\nThe current POTUS wants them because he feels that it would be good for domestic production and national security. If China can produce a product for $1/lb, but the US producers can only do it for $2/lb, then no one is going to want to buy US product. This means the US industry will shrink because no one will buy the goods. This can be problematic if the good is important for our country - if China were to all of a sudden **stop** sending the good to the US, then we wouldn't have the ability to produce it ourselves and that would cause major problems. By putting a $1/lb tariff on the Chinese imports, the US firms are price competitive again and we will continue to manufacture the good in question.\n\nNow, I'm not advocating that that is a good reason for the tariffs, but that is the logic.",
"A tarriff is an import tax, making something made in another country more expensive. This is supposed to increase demand for domestic versions by either making them cheaper or at least more competitive.\nBut the overall impact is raising the price for the good with the tariff applied.\n\nSay foreign steel was $1000 a ton. American Steel was $1200 a ton. a 25% tariff means that the foreign steel now costs $1250 a ton. So if the market was 50/50 foreign and domestic, then the average cost increases from $1100 to $1225. This in turn means that prices have to raise for cars and washing machines made with steel, increases construction costs for buildings made with steel supports. The hope is that the artificial price increase will cause more buyers of steel to buy domestic, but even so the average costs remains higher.\n\nAdditionally, tariffs are often met with new tariffs in response -- this is what sometimes gets called a trade war. So we add a tariff to steel from China and Korea. They add a tariff on American wheat, Harley-Davidson motorcycles, and U.S. movie distribution.",
"Tariffs are basically a special government tax on imports in general to protect domestic markets.\n\nFor example, lets say the average American company sells steel at $2 a lb, while China sells steal in America at $1 a lb. Obviously, more consumers would buy the cheaper steel from China at $1 a lb. But a tariff on Chinese steel, would increase that price. Let's say the government puts a tariff of $2 on that $1 Chinese steel, making the steel from China cost $3 a lb. In theory, this would make the American steel that cost $2 a lb more attractive, and would increase consumption of the American steel. But remember, this is in theory and it would work if everything is static (aka nothing else changes.)\n\nThe reason why this is bad: Nothing in life stays the same. \nUsually, when tariffs are put on imports, the domestic companies would also increase their prices to maximize profit as well. So going back to that example of Chinese and American steel. When a $2 tariff on foreign steel is enacted, making the Chinese steel cost $3. The American companies also have an incentive to increase the price too, maybe to $2.50 a lb or $2.99 a lb, because they know it will still be cheaper than the foreign Chinese steel. This in a way, makes it more costly for the consumer, who now, see that they have to pay about 3x as much for something that they used to pay a dollar for. And when consumers, like companies that use steel have to pay 3x as much for it, they have to cut costs elsewhere, either in staff, workers, benefits, or salaries; or increase the price of their products to offset the increase cost, meaning it will cost more to buy a car, or build a house, or pack of canned soup. Sure, the steel manufactures may do better, but everything else down the chain would suffer. \n\nAlso, this does not include the fact that China and every other country, could do the same with our exports to their country. So maybe they sell steel cheaper here, but we sell Harley Davison motorcycles and bourbon over there. They can retaliate and put tariffs on those items that we sell over there. Making it more expensive for their people to buy our product, and making them buy their own brands or something else. Because of this, our exports will drop, and companies might lose money, and with less money, that means less jobs or wages for the American workers of those companies. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
8owwfe | why is haggling commonplace at the car dealership but not at other stores? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8owwfe/eli5_why_is_haggling_commonplace_at_the_car/ | {
"a_id": [
"e06rq87",
"e06tr72",
"e06v6wx",
"e06xuw6"
],
"score": [
54,
4,
3,
10
],
"text": [
"Large ticket items like this are usually where the most negotiating happens. Same as buying a house, boat or RV. The sales model of dealerships lends itself to negotiation. \n\nPricing for smaller ticket items can sometimes be negotiated too: things like furniture and stuff. You can negotiate for anything but the roadblock is often going to be that you aren’t talking to someone who has the authority to make a price change and the fact that it’s not likely a profitable sales model to negotiate for 30 minutes over cheaper goods. ",
"You'll notice that almost everything you can better on is\n\nA: very expensive\n\nB: an uncommon purchase.\n\nCar dealerships mark their prices up SIGNIFICANTLY (sometimes up to 3 times what they played for it). This is because a car is an uncommon purchase. You may not get more than a few purchases per week and, if you miss out on a sale, that's going to have a significant impact on your income.\n\nThus, to maintain profits and stay in business, they'd rather make a bit less on that third car than not sell it, so they give their salespeople permission to go down on the price to a certain degree if it means getting a sale.\n\nA grocery store on the other hand will handle hundreds to thousands of sales every day. Your business isn't important enough to a normal store to cut down on profits. If you don't come in next week, they're missing out on a relatively negligible amount of profit. ",
"The main reason is that major retail outlets (supermarkets, cracker barrel, etc) believe that they've already found the optimal price for their goods; letting individual salespeople negotiate is likely to lead to less revenue than simply setting a price and forcing them to stick to it.\n\nAnother reason is mass-market advertising; advertising based on price is less effective (really, impossible) if customers then have to negotiate for each item anyway. If a product is advertised for $10 on the basis of competing on cost, and then a customer is quoted an opening price of $15, that is likely to result in lost sales.\n\nBasically 'haggling' over price still takes place in modern western countries, the haggling just takes place between competing businesses as they struggle to set the most efficient price for their goods.\n\nThe exception to this as others have pointed out is high-end/luxury goods or occasional purchases; in addition to the inherent elasticity of demand for those goods (nobody *has* to buy a Ferrari if they don't think they're getting a good deal) there are a variety of value adds and conditions that influence the price (financing, warranty, features, etc) which are all subject to negotiation.",
"Others have covered why its common for cars. But here are the reasons it's not commonplace in other stores:\n\nA) Haggling takes time\n\n If a customer wants to haggle for every single item in their cart at a supermarket, that makes the line slower. Which means that one of two things happens. \n\nCustomers have to wait longer and are now less likely to go to your grocery store as often because it takes forever. I mean, would you go to the Grocery store just to pick up a gallon of milk if there was a really good chance you had to wait in line for 30 minutes?\nThe way grocery stores make their money is that most customers go to the store to pick up one quick thing, and then end up buying a candy bar or something they don't need too. So having customers go to your store less often reduces your income. \n\nOR you have to now hire more cashiers. Now your labor cost goes up. \n\nB) Haggling is a skill, one that not everyone has, or wants to deal with it. \n\nHow many 16-year-olds that are cashiers at a grocery store even care enough to do this? Not to mention how much responsibility that is. Each Casher would need to now know the prices, as well as the lowest price you are allowed to sell.\n\nC) Cultural, most American's don't like to haggle and think its rude and you come off as cheap.\n\nGoing off of my grocery store example, how many people do you think want to be known for holding up a line because they wanted to haggle to save 10 cents on their ground beef?\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
ewzdmb | is there a limit to how much food we can process? | Assuming someone eating standard portions normally, is there a limit of how much food they can absorb? For example, if they eat to their physical limit every hour throughout one day or longer, (without throwing up) will some food essentially pass through almost undigested (without body actually getting much out of it), or will they just feel full until everything's digested as usual? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ewzdmb/eli5_is_there_a_limit_to_how_much_food_we_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"fg5ibes"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your body is really good at extracting nutrition. Your gut can slow down movement and take it's sweet time. Most people won't be able to eat enough regular food to actual shit out significant amounts of unabsorbed nutrition. The only real exception to this is if you tried drinking a liter of olive oil, or maybe a liter of syrup. Assuming you don't vomit, you probably wouldn't have enough lipase to breakdown and absorb that much fat from olive oil. A liter of syrup would give you an osmotic diarrhea, and you may evacuate it before you can actually absorb a whole lot of it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3y8lir | why has there been a vinyl resurgence in the music industry? | What's the deal with vinyl records making a comeback? I feel old when I say that I don't really "get it." But, as a music lover, why should I care? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y8lir/eli5_why_has_there_been_a_vinyl_resurgence_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cybfo0h",
"cybfxoq",
"cybh6do",
"cybiew2",
"cyblct9",
"cybmfm1"
],
"score": [
2,
19,
53,
33,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's making a small resurgence, nothing big. In terms of being a music lover, the only \"benefit\" vinyl has is the sound of vinyl playing due to imperfections, the actual \"quality\" is less than a CD.",
"They're just neat. Why do people like anything?",
"You can get them cheap. They have a slightly different sound quality, and many people enjoy that difference. Album art is pretty great in and of itself. You can roll a joint on an album cover, but you can't on digital music. People like actually having physical items. They have a cool factor that dates back more than a century (the term groovy specifically refers to the grooves in an album, for example). If you are into certain scenes, 7\" singles are a great way to pick up and try out new music in a more interactive way than simply going through youtube. Many people enjoy the nostalgia factor. You can give them away as physical objects to people who also enjoy albums, and that beats the hell out of just sending them a link. You can leave them to your kids. You can get them from your parents. People like them. ",
"I'm risking sounding super hipstery here... There are 2 huge reasons I got into vinyl. For one, a vinyl record jacket doubles as fantastic wall art. These artists usually put a lot of time into their album covers, and a basic MP3 thumbnail or even a cd cover just doesn't do it justice. I use them to decorate a wall of my theatre room behind my projector screen. Secondly, and more importantly for me, a vinyl record forces you to both buy and listen to an entire album, not just cherry pick the songs you like. As a music lover there's something comforting about that; so much so I have a separate room in my home for listening to music (linked below). Also, as mentioned above the price is the same now as buying a digital copy, and vinyl records come with a digital download key in most cases. It's nice to have something tangible. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"The first thing to know about vinyl records is that they never totally disappeared like 8-tracks, cassettes, and reel-to-reel, and there is a robust market supporting the technology required to play them. So as a medium it is and has been better positioned for surges in popularity. \"Hipsters\" can sort-of be credited with the current rise, but really just a rise in the entry-level aspect of vinyl enthusiasm. Sure, the cool kids can swing into Urban Outfitters and pick up a Crosley portable and a Lana Del Rey LP, but consider for a moment that [the Clearaudio Goldfinger cartridge](_URL_0_) exists. Yes, that's a $15,000 record needle available on a commercial site alongside $35 options. The Hot Topic resurgence crowd isn't driving an economy that allows for the manufacture of things like the Goldfinger. My belief is that the resurgence you see may be at the storefront, but it has more depth than a typical hipster fad because of the culture behind it that has never gone away. \n\nTo answer your second question, \"why should (you) care?\" You shouldn't, necessarily. You will certainly read a lot of arguments about whether the typical human ear can hear a difference between digital and analog compression, MP3's vs FLAC vs vinyl, and so forth. There will be a lot of arcane jargon with precious little explanation. At a basic level, for you the music lover, I would explain a vinyl playback system as being one that is more customizable. It's analogous to gear heads that are always souping-up their cars, or computer guys who like to build their own system. You can take a record, play it on System A, and hear the song. Take the same record, play it on System B, and hear the song *plus extra sounds.* Typically what you read/experience are people saying things like, \"I upgraded my cartridge from stock to a $500 Ortofon Bronze and heard a string section I'd never heard before on that Rolling Stones song.\" Hearing new *music* may be a matter of psychology or attention to detail, but there are definitely different *types of sounds* that can be perceived with different equipment. The needles, tone-arms, decks, amps, and speakers all have infinite options that can be tweaked to eek out different qualities to the music. So it's not a matter of *how does it compare to MP3,* necessarily, but rather 'how much do you enjoy interacting with your hobby?'",
"I don't think it is hipster culture really but there is a certain hard to explain factor about having a physical medium. A record (or say a DVD) takes up physical space in our collections. And it cost money. When we run out of space or money we have to get rid of it. It is a physical connection to the music as a medium. We only ultimately keep the music/movies we like in those instances.\n\nWhere as I don't have that connection to my spotify account or the four terrabytes of movies in my Home Cloud. That is so many movies you are just overwhelmed with the choices. So you end up not watching anything. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://m.imgur.com/a/9QvVO"
],
[
"http://www.needledoctor.com/Clearaudio-Goldfinger-Statement-Phono-Cartridge"
],
[]
]
|
|
2vts79 | what would the short term consequences be (up to a few years) if the united states ended all corn subsidies? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vts79/eli5_what_would_the_short_term_consequences_be_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"cokuxbh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Corn and corn syrup based produces (which are a lot of different products) would get a bit more expensive. And maybe some percentage of the corn crop was changed to grow something else that was more profitable."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3ud3qx | why isn't cannibalism more common in extremely poor regions? | I'll start off saying I'm not supporting the idea of cannibalism. But I was thinking, in regions full of turmoil/extreme poverty, where people are consistently starving to death, why isn't cannibalism more of an issue?
I know there's a huge difference between humans and all other animal species, but a lot of meat-eating animals wouldn't hesitate to eat their own species if they were dying (whether the meal had died prior, or was killed with the intent of consumption). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ud3qx/eli5_why_isnt_cannibalism_more_common_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxdtktq",
"cxdve1l",
"cxdvqjc",
"cxdw6av",
"cxdxbz3",
"cxdz2nx",
"cxdz6lf",
"cxeefq8"
],
"score": [
3,
14,
183,
5,
2,
12,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Cannibalism is often associated with rites and rituals--eating the heart or liver of a defeated enemy. It is not usually done for food, except in the most dire situations when the strong taboo is overcome by a desperate will to live.",
"There's very little to eat on a starved to death human. They're also generally diseased and take a lot of effort to butcher. ",
"The reasons below combine to make regular cannibalism either explicitly illegal or at least a strong taboo across most cultures:\n\n- Empathy & attachment\n\nPeople aren't likely to eat their deceased friends or family because it feels wrong (due to human empathy and the association between one's physical body and personhood). We develop a natural disgust to the thought of consuming human flesh for this reason.\n\nFor the same reason, families/friends of the deceased would not permit you to consume the deceased without resistance.\n\n- Religion & ritual\n\nMany religions (especially tribal ones) often place religious significance on deceased bodies or view it as being connected to the afterlife. To consume a body would then be viewed as a sin or offense to god in such religions; cannibalism would lead to self-shame/guilt, ostracization from society, and sometimes outright punishment.\n\n- Legality & slippery slope\n\nSimilar to religious rules, it is often illegal to consume human flesh. If society allowed the consumption of human flesh to be a legal activity, there is only a thin line that separates the consumption of someone who is already dead and killing someone for the purpose of consumption.\n\n- Societal selection via disease\n\nYou can get a lot of diseases from human flesh that you wouldn't get from another animal's flesh. People/tribes in the past that constantly ate human flesh would have had higher rates of death & morbidity and thus, these societies/practices would have felt selection pressures against them.\n\n- Societal selection via war/competition\n\nOnly impoverished, weak nations/tribes would resort to consumption of human flesh for the purpose of survival. Such nations/tribes would have likely been conquered by a more powerful neighbouring nation/tribe or self-destruct due to poor economic conditions (negative selection pressure).\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"It's a moral bridge that can't be uncrossed and an absolute last resort for 99.9% of people. Even in the poorest parts of the world, today it is extremely uncommon to have mass famine. Realistically speaking, people in abject poverty enjoy a standard of living that far surpasses that of typical Bronze Age farmers. Ancient people would see families living indoors with intermittent electricity, several pairs of clothes, and 5 of 6 surviving children and think they had it made. Doesn't mean they're any less poor, just like you're not wealthy in modern North America because you can afford your very own basement apartment when your great-grand-parents from the old country slept 6 to a room.",
"Taboos are powerful things. Even in desparate situations, many if not most people can hold on to their principles, and put them above their very survival. There is much more to human existence than just holding onto physical existence, and people living in poverty-stricken areas can know that just as well as anyone else.",
"To start with, most animals do not engage in cannibalism, so that assertion isn't correct. There are a few notable exceptions, but most carnivores and even scavengers will not eat members of their own species, regardless of the cause of death.\n\nSecondly, where are these places in which human starvation is common? The global community has gotten very good at responding to famine conditions, so large scale death from starvation is quite rare. Large scale malnutrition is common, but it isn't acute enough to force people to violate the social taboo against cannibalism.\n\nIsolated famine conditions, like among survivors of plane crashes, seamen in lifeboats, etc. occur sometimes, and sometimes cannibalsm occurs.",
"Most people never become that desperate, you can always try to steal food. Easier than killing a human, tastes better, less guilt.",
"1. We get sick from eating human. See [Kuru disease](_URL_0_\n2. We aren't as nutritious as you'd think, at least not to our own species.\n3. All the other moral, ethical, taboo, reasons everyone else thinks are the main reason."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)"
]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.