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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
datt4t | why before withdrawing blood, it takes time for the nurse to find your vein, while mosquitoes can bite you anywhere and get blood? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/datt4t/eli5_why_before_withdrawing_blood_it_takes_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"f1urgk7",
"f1usub6"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The nurse needs a lot more blood from you than the mosquito. You can indeed find blood basically anywhere in your body because of course every cell needs a supply. But most cells are getting this supply by blood seeping through capillaries and the tissue itself, not the strong flow of veins and arteries. The nurse needs a lot of blood comparatively so they go for the main supply.",
"The mosquito is looking for wayyyy less blood. When absolutely completely full a mosquito has 0.01 mL of blood, but is generally trying for 0.001 mL when it hits you.\n\nThe nurse drawing blood into tubes is trying to get 3-5 mL in just a few seconds. They need ~5000x the flow rate that the mosquito does. To get that they want to tap into a nice big vein and let your blood pressure help fill the tube quickly.\n\nYou could poke anywhere to fill test tubes with blood but you'll be waiting an hour for each tube to fill and ain't nobody got time for that"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
yxjfm | biological clocks. | I often wake up moments before my alarm or sometimes just "know" how much time has passed. How is this and why? How do our "clocks" compare with other animals'? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yxjfm/eli5_biological_clocks/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5zq353"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is a ~25 hour \"circadian rhythm\", which can be 're-synchronized' with the 24-hour clock as long as you're aware of the time of day. As a result your body's own biochemical cycles can closely follow the change of day into night and even the period of the day, so if you need to wake up at a certain time persumably your brain translates that somehow into something your body's doing at approximately that time, and can wake you up as needed.\n\nAll this can (not *is*, but just *can*) be thrown off if you sleep irregularly, or demand of yourself too little sleep before the next wake time. For example, there's no way I can go to sleep at like 4 AM and really wake up at 6. I invariably find I wake up at 7 or 8. But if I go to bed around midnight or earlier, I have no problem waking up nice and early. :)\n\nAll the above is not backed by rigorous scientific study, so if anyone has journal articles on the subject feel free to back me up or shoot me down."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
ychki | how did the astronauts take off the moon? | It seems like the launching of the rocket from the Earth is not an easy thing. Any little error or deviation can delay the launch.
But how the hell without any equipment, launch station, etc did they manage to leave the moon? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ychki/how_did_the_astronauts_take_off_the_moon/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5ub729",
"c5uc44l",
"c5uctt6",
"c5ucveb",
"c5ud81t",
"c5udrn0",
"c5ueig9",
"c5uep6t",
"c5uff30",
"c5ufw8w",
"c5uil80",
"c5ul4wq"
],
"score": [
78,
618,
3,
57,
20,
8,
5,
3,
3,
16,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's no weather on the moon, which definitely helps. Also, the moon's gravity is 1/6 of earth's, meaning that the rocket engines can be smaller. But, yeah, in the end all they had was a rocket engine, with stabilizers, and there was a lot that could have gone wrong.",
"A rocket engine. But the trick is that the rocket stage that took off the moon only needed enough fuel to bring the Astronauts (and soil samples from the Moon) back to Lunar orbit, where the much more powerful command-service module (CSM) was waiting to bring them back to Earth. Also, the descent stage of the lunar lander acted as a sort of \"launch station\" and was left behind.\n\nAlso, it should be noted that there are many different types of rocket engines. The ones used to take off from Earth are very maintenance-intensive, because we can afford them like that. For example, they're powered by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, which have to be stored so cold that they literally boil in the tanks and have to be replenished continuously during the countdown. \n\nThe kind of engine used in the Lunar ascent stage uses hypergolic fuel. This basically means storing two different chemicals that ignite on contact, then making them come into contact on purpose - they don't require an external ignition source, which removes a possible point of failure. Much easier to operate, but much less powerful than a liquid oxygen/hydrogen engine - but that's fine, because gravity is much weaker on the Moon.",
"I'm glad you posted this question because I started to wonder this when I saw the speech for Nixon in case the astronauts would be stranded. And thanks to ZankerH for answering.",
"Here's an [album of NASA images](_URL_6_) depicting the stages of the Apollo 11 mission. It may help clarify things for you.\n\n1. [Launch And Translunar Injection](_URL_4_)\n\n2. [Translunar Flight](_URL_7_)\n\n3. [Descent To Lunar Surface](_URL_5_)\n\n4. [Lunar Surface Activities A](_URL_3_)\n\n5. [Lunar Surface Activities B](_URL_2_)\n\n6. [Lunar Ascent And Rendezvous](_URL_1_)\n\n7. [Transearth Injection And Recovery](_URL_0_)",
"[This comic actually gives a pretty good explanation.](_URL_0_)\n\nSurprise! Relevant XKCD.\n\nOK, so for a rocket to escape Earth's gravity, it must take off with enough force to launch it about 6000 km upwards. To escape the moon's gravity, you only need about 300 km. So, they didn't need nearly as large a rocket because they only had to go to a small height.\n\nIt's the same reason the astronauts weighed only 1/6 of what they weighed on Earth and bounced around lightly even in their heavy, bulky spacesuits.",
"In a rocket ship.",
"It's still there, they didn't really take it off.",
"Another question. If something would have gone wrong and the rocket engine did not work. Would we have been capable of sending a rescue mission to get them?",
"In addition to whats been said there is the added fact (or i suppose removed) of less gravity to overcome along with little to no resistance as the moon has little to no atmosphere. That along with a much MUCH lighter payload makes it much easier to launch from the moon.\n\nBecause of this the idea for a moon base is a highly sought after idea (after a space elevator of course) as it gives a place to not only store supplies and personnel but it allows for easy launches that would likely only require a shuttle rather then a gigantic multi-stage rocket. The moon is literally our stepping stone to the solar system because of how easy it is to launch from.",
"time to play [Kerbal Space Program!](_URL_0_) You could do it yourself!",
"Astronauts took off the moon?!?! Why do they hate us?",
"Astronauts tried taking off the moon by using a scraper. When that didn't work they used a nuclear device."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/afHT8.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/ck8vv.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/UZVEl.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/jndyd.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/r8mfK.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/XEAt5.jpg",
"http://imgur.com/a/vldH3",
"http://i.imgur.com/jPlfM.jpg"
],
[
"http://xkcd.com/681/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
9cjlho | has the earth always had an atmosphere or did it develop one at some point ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9cjlho/eli5_has_the_earth_always_had_an_atmosphere_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5b7h68",
"e5bc1j7",
"e5bfbfa"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In the biginning there was no atmosphere. It evolved over time when elements like oxigene or nitrogen lost zheir bindings to other elements. Earth gravity hindered the gasses to evaporate into space.",
"Young earth was very volcanically active and those gasses helped kick start an atmosphere but it wasnt anything that we could live in. It had to evolve to one that was more suitable to life. The evolution of algea and bacteria helped this process.",
"The history of the Earth's atmosphere is surprisingly complicated. It's difficult to say anything certain about the early Earth, but our best educated guesses look something like this:\n\n\nAccreting planets capture a *primary atmosphere* of nebula gases (mainly hydrogen), but this would have been lost from the Earth as soon as the nebula thinned and cleared. What we are really interested in is the *secondary atmosphere* consisting of volatiles which were outgassed from within the Earth itself ie. via volcanic activity. \n\n\nThe composition of this early secondary atmosphere was likely some combination of water vapour, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and hydrogen. Our estimates at this sort of thing come from the analysis of meteorites which represent some of the earliest building blocks of the solar system - these are the volatiles contained in them that would outgass in an early Earth. Note that there is no free oxygen in this secondary atmosphere, it was still all bound up in the silicate (silicon and oxygen based) rock of the solid Earth. \n\n\nThe giant impact event proposed for creating the Moon, around 4522 million years ago (less than 50 million years since the Earth had become in many ways a fully fledged planet), would have caused a later phase of extensive melting of the Earth and further outgassing. The short term effects have been described as such:\n\n\n > For a thousand years....silicate clouds defined the visible face of the planet. The Earth might have looked something like a small star or a fiery Jupiter wrapped in incandescent clouds.\n\n\nOnce that had all settled down, the outcome is thought to have been water vapour, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen (in that order). Still, there was no free oxygen to make its way into the atmosphere. \n\n\nIt was not until 3800 million years ago, with the appearance of microbial life that this began to change. Early organisms must have thrived in the Earth's oxygen-less atmosphere, but some of this included a sort of algae similar to today's *cyanobacteria* which led to photosynthesis, which we know was well established in cyanobacteria by 2700 million years ago. Over the next billion years, the oceans then atmosphere [were slowly oxygenated](_URL_0_). This not only led to higher levels of oxygen the atmosphere has today, but all the photosynthesis also helped to draw down much of the carbon dioxide that was in the atmosphere. This happened to the point where there are thought to have been several 'Snowball Earth' episodes of extensive glaciation between 750-570 million years ago, before oxygen levels finally reduced slightly and stabilised at present day levels by about 540 million years ago. \n\n\nThe oxidation of the atmosphere is therefore probably the most profound change in our planet for all life. We currently live on an Earth that has a heavily modified secondary atmosphere, which depends upon photosynthesis and all the feedbacks of the Earth-Life system. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event"
]
] |
||
3ywe2n | what junk status is and what it means for a country? | South Africa is about to hit junk status in 2016 with alot of political uprising and the firing of the finance minister. ELI5 What exactly junk status is and what it means for the future of S.A. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ywe2n/eli5_what_junk_status_is_and_what_it_means_for_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyhba8t"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Junk status refers to country debt because just like people, countries get a credit rating. Anything lower than BBB rating by Moody's is considered junk, meaning bond holders may expect a default. The junk rating can arise as a combination of too much debt so that the country does not have enough resources (imports and tax revenue) to make a payment on the debt. There are of course other variables, but once this status is attained, interest rates on the debt go very high and it is often a virtual loop downwards: junk rating -- > rates go higher-- > country has to pay more-- > can't afford to pay more because no income -- > goes deeper into junk-- > rates go even higher...etc. this is what has happened to Greece. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
pz8wn | why did the biosphere 2 project fail and why aren't they making a biosphere 3? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pz8wn/eli5_why_did_the_biosphere_2_project_fail_and_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3th1zk",
"c3thp8o"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of places online you can go to read about Biosphere 2. The basic idea was to create a completely sealed-off environment that could survive without any contact from the rest of the Earth. If they could get people to survive in it for a year or two, they could survive long space journeys, too, even create permanent colonies or space stations. \n\nUnfortunately, it just didn't work. One problem was the concrete used was slightly porous - oxygen was absorbed by it, and that wasn't in their calculations. As oxygen levels dropped, the people inside began to feel more tired, and eventually they had to open the doors.\n\nIn addition, food production never seemed to work as well as intended. When the humans inside began eating the chicken feed because they were still hungry, it was only a matter of time before the chickens got eaten. And then you didn't have a source of protein (eggs) to eat, which just made things worse. \n\nI'm sure there was more to it - I forget all the details. Some of the crops didn't do well inside (I don't think anybody figured out why), insects may have gotten in - I can't remember all the details. Essentially, though, they needed it to be more air-tight and probably much bigger to support even so few human beings. \n\nAs to why they haven't made a sequel, I have no idea. At a guess, it's because Biosphere 2 was so expensive to build, and the potential rewards from building one are hard to justify for a corporation or government. \n",
"* It was freaking expensive\n* It was managed poorly\n* The 'crew' was pretty ragtag and not really a good fit for the experiment\n* There were chemical problems with the concrete leeching oxygen from the air\n* We didn't know enough about biomes to make a truly self-sustaining one\n* When trying to get funding for 3, everyone is going to remember the miserable failure that was two, and nobody is going to want to pay for another debacle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4ekx9h | is the speed of light a literal physical speed limit in our universe, or is light simply the fastest thing we have found so far? is faster-than-light travel speed physically possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ekx9h/eli5_is_the_speed_of_light_a_literal_physical/ | {
"a_id": [
"d20z677",
"d20z7t5",
"d20z8jm",
"d20zb79",
"d210dtw",
"d215ilj",
"d217zcl"
],
"score": [
12,
24,
2,
2,
5,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"It is the ultimate speed limit. You have to learn a little math to understand why, and get some concepts down.\n\nThe simple term is 'relativistic effects.' As things get towards the speed of light then the effects of relativity take hold. To increase the speed of a material object, something with mass, it takes more energy. \n\nThe faster they go the more energy for the same speed increase. You do not notice this at ordinary speeds. But when you start accelerating things to the speed of light they never get to that speed. They get close based on the energy you provide. But it would take an infinite amount of energy for them to actually get to the speed of light.\n\nLight itself has no resting mass. That is why it can go so fast. It does have mass when it travels so very heavy things can bend light as it goes by.\n\n",
"Faster-than-light speed is, as far as physicists know, impossible.\n\nIt's a fundamental property of the universe, as fundamental as its age or its size. It can be thought of as the universal speed limit.\n\nTo be more exact, no two things can move at a speed greater than *c* (as the speed of light is known) relative to each other. Speed is always relative to *something*, and at very high speeds some odd effects come into play -- it's not quite what you expect it to be.\n\nIt's tough to visualise exactly what's going on, but here's a way to try to understand it. If you and I stand back-to-back, and then start walking in a straight line in opposite directions, what's the furthest distance we can be from each other? The answer is approximately 20,000 kilometres, the distance from one side of the earth to the opposite side (for example, from the North Pole to the South Pole). We can't be further away from each other than that, no matter how far we walk. We can't be further away from anything else on the planet's surface, because that's the size of the planet.\n\nIn the same way, if we're in spaceships and we accelerate away from each other, we can (in theory) increase our distance from each other at a rate of up to about 300 million metres per second. We can't move away from each other faster than that, and we can't move away from or toward anything else in the universe than that. That's because that's how the universe is constructed.",
"The speed of light is the fastest matter and information can travel. Changes in a field, such as gravity and electro-magnetic fields, also travel at the speed of light. So nothing can travel faster. So faster than the speed of light travel also cannot occur. However, in theory one could move across space via wormholes or by distorting space itself. Wormholes connect two places in space and, if they exist, you could travel between different points via one of these \"shortcuts\". Also, in theory, you could distort the space in front of you to make the space itself shorter and thus, not by traveling faster but making space itself shorter, you could travel to distant places faster than light would have had to travel by the original distance. ",
"It's a physical speed limit. As you approach the speed of light, the kinetic energy of a particle sharply increases, at a rate growing so high that you can't possibly get to the speed of light. Essentially, the energy of something moving at the speed of light is infinite - with the exception of photons, which follow their own rules.\n\n[Here](_URL_0_) is a graph I pulled from wiki. On the x-axis, you have the speed of a particle (1 is the speed of light in vacuum, c), and on the y axis, you have the kinetic energy. The green line represents traditional newtonian mechanics, which would allow something to move faster than the speed of light. The orange line is the energy calculated with relativistic physics, which results in the steep climb towards infinity at the speed of light.",
"Light speed is the fastest theoretical speed at which anything could possibly travel. The explanation is a bit beyond ELI5 territory, and you might want to /r/askscience for a more complete understanding. But let's try it here anyway. \n\nSo, to start I'll remind you that speed is relative. If you're on a train, and you throw a ball forward on the train, the speed at which you perceive the ball moving is much slower than what someone standing on the platform would observe. And we're all on a wet blue marble hurling through space, orbiting a star that is also moving through the galaxy at incredible speed. \n\nNow the tricky bit is that time is also relative. As you move faster, you experience time at a slower rate. And at the speed of light, time stops. That's why nothing can go faster than light. Think of it like absolute zero for time. ",
"The speed of light,c, isn't just something that applies to space. When we consider space time, not just space, all objects are travelling at c at all times. You can use your speed through space time purely through time, as we do. We are travelling at c, the fastest speed possible, through time while barely moving through space. Or light can travel c through space, while not travelling through time. If you speed up relative to space, you slow down relative to time and vice versa, such that your speed through space time is always c.",
"It might help to stop thinking of it as \"the speed of light.\"\n\nInstead, think of it as \"the speed of time\" -- the speed at which time \"happens.\" (Only as an aid to understanding, not as an actual definition)\n\nThinking of it this way, something that's going the speed of light is going across the universe at the same speed at which time propagates. \n\nThis makes some of the relativity brain-busters like time dilation easier to understand. The faster you get, the more you catch up to the speed of light/time, the slower time seems to pass for you. A photon, which has caught up to the speed of time, doesn't experience time passing at all. It's traveling at the same speed.\n\nIt is definitely a speed limit for anything with mass. It takes more and more energy to accelerate mass one step closer to that speed. It's like climbing a hill that gets steeper and steeper, until it's finally vertical. Doing the math, it would take an infinite amount of energy to get all the way there.\n\nFaster-than-light speed means one of two things. The first thing would be something traveling *backwards* in time. But that's probably not what you mean. You probably mean traveling *forwards* through time, only faster than light does. The only way to accomplish that would be to travel in a higher dimension than time -- \"outside\" of time, if you will. (That'd be interesting to view as an observer within the 4 dimensions we experience. Would you pop out of existence in one location and reappear elsewhere seemingly instantaneously?)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Rel-Newton-Kinetic.svg/300px-Rel-Newton-Kinetic.svg.png"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1l1vq3 | why is the tick almost an universal symbol of something being correct, whilst a cross is indication of something being wrong? where did this practice originate from? and when? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l1vq3/eli5_why_is_the_tick_almost_an_universal_symbol/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbuxknu",
"cbuxwa6",
"cbuy8h6"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"In Sweden and Finland, a check mark means something is wrong, and an **R** means something is right.\n\n\nI just read up fast on it, and the origin seems to be from the Latin, in which a **V** means Truth or verified, and thats where the check mark comes from.\n\n\n\nIts just universal in the English speaking countries mostly.",
"It isn't universal. You're just projecting your limited experience and saying it's universal.",
"It's not universal. In Korea they circle if it's correct "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20vb76 | why dont wood nails just slip out of the wood? | Theyre smooth and the wood is squeezing on them, why dont they just come out all the time? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20vb76/eli5_why_dont_wood_nails_just_slip_out_of_the_wood/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg72k1x"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Friction is a powerful force. The wood that got pushed aside is squeezing right to where the nail is, but it's not squeezing upwards the way the nail came in so that friction is what holds it tight. For extra strength, some nails are coated with a heat-activated glue. The friction of being pounded into the wood heats up the glue, which then quickly dries.\n\nYou'll notice that nails in old wood do come loose because the wood dries out and expands, which greatly decreases the friction."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5ewijk | what's the deal with renewable energy? | I've noticed a sudden surge over the past several months towards renewable energy. Countries from all over the world suddenly seems to be moving away from coal and to resources like solar and wind. What's the reason for this? Has there been a recent event to spark this? Also, are there any predictions as to wether this will actually work? It's seems like a lot of these plans never actually go into action. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ewijk/eli5_whats_the_deal_with_renewable_energy/ | {
"a_id": [
"dafqjkd"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"If by \"sudden\" you mean \"long-standing\" and by \"past several months\" you mean \"past several decades\", then you are absolutely right. \n\nYou're basically seeing a few big news stories breaking around the same time and equating it to something that's \"just happened\". \n\nPeople have been fighting for renewable forms of energies in a serious way since (at least) the 1970s. It gained a lot more traction in the 1990s with the whole ozone layer thing and in the 2000s with global climate change - none of this is new. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5voizm | why is water a good coolant and a good insulator of heat? | Seems kind of like an oxymoron to me. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5voizm/eli5_why_is_water_a_good_coolant_and_a_good/ | {
"a_id": [
"de3mzak"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on if the water is moving or not.\n\nThere are three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation. Radiation is irrelevant in this example.\n\nConduction is heat transfer through the collision of molecules. Hot molecules collide with colder molecules and transfer energy. The speed at which a material transfers heat through conduction is described by its thermal conductivity, which is a basic property of the material. Water has an incredibly low thermal conductivity of about 0.6 W/(m\\*K). For reference, most metals have thermal conductivities of around 300 W/(m\\*K). As a result, water is a very good insulator, as long as it is not moving. If the water is moving, we move to our next mode of heat transfer.\n\nConvection is heat transferred by a moving fluid. It is much much faster than conduction because it is a combination of both conduction and something called advection. You can think of advection as basically the hot molecules moving somewhere else and mixing with cold molecules. So instead slowly transferring heat to different locations by colliding with other molecules, convection just moves those hot molecules to different locations. In addition to convection being faster than just conduction, water also has high specific heat, which means its temperature does not change quickly when heat is added. Heat transfer is faster if there is a large temperature difference between the hot and cold material. Since water is able to maintain is temperature longer even when absorbing heat, it is a rather effective coolant."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3diyqu | why do movies still use the wilhelm scream? every time i hear this i get disappointed with the producer/regisseur, because it's just so dumb. is it a "running joke" kind of thing? if so: who on earth finds it something else than annoying and stupid? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3diyqu/eli5_why_do_movies_still_use_the_wilhelm_scream/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct5kie6",
"ct5klh3",
"ct5mq5e",
"ct5nmtp",
"ct5onud",
"ct5ry0e",
"ct5scrl",
"ct5vyqi",
"ct5yz2z",
"ct60ubu",
"ct61hi0",
"ct63x2y",
"ct645qx",
"ct64f7e",
"ct6516a",
"ct656qe",
"ct65azk",
"ct65c7e",
"ct661f8",
"ct66206",
"ct6631u",
"ct66uvk",
"ct67rzh",
"ct67tdg",
"ct67xuj",
"ct685l6",
"ct6929i",
"ct69c8s",
"ct69jpi",
"ct6b90s",
"ct6bssx",
"ct6feft",
"ct6mjdv",
"ct6n2tn",
"ct6nx7o",
"ct6rl53"
],
"score": [
714,
283,
8,
14,
30,
108,
14,
51,
46,
11,
7,
7,
7,
5,
22,
16,
2,
3,
5,
6,
3,
3,
3,
12,
10,
8,
3,
2,
5,
4,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
" > Is it a \"running joke\" kind of thing?\n\nPretty much, yeah.",
"It's a running joke between sound editors. It features in most George Lucas films, lots of Disney films as well as Pixar films (before Disney bought them). Tarantino, Jackson and Burton have also been known to use it (deliberately, as a joke) in all of their films too.\n\nYou may wish to refer to _URL_0_ which features over 12 minutes of lots of movies using it (including, randomly, die hard 3) and there's even a reddit dedicated to it (_URL_1_) although it's empty.",
"i'm with you op, i hear it all the time and think, 'you could have done so much better.' \n\nbut i think it's now a cultural phenomenon to be ironically self aware - which is what adding the wilhelm scream feel like to me. an ironic nod to how silly it is. but now it's old and totally played out.",
"I heard some enclave soldiers give out a good ol' Wilhelm last night in one of the post-ending BoS missions of Fallout3. Dont remember the name of the mission but it's the mission where Liberty Prime gets bombed from orbit. IIRC it's the only part of the game I heard it used but it was like 5 times between 2 rooms. I couldn't help but laugh.",
"It's a running joke, yes, and to answer your second question: people like a certain person writing this. Makes that person literally lol every time, unless it ruins a serious scene.",
"Personally, I like when the sound editors manage to work in a good Wilhelm scream- sure, it can be used badly, but they could have as easily recorded a new scream and used it badly.",
"I actually love the Wilhelm Scream. The one at 01:11 during [this scene](_URL_1_) in Wet Hot American Summer is my favourite.\n\nAnd as far as stock sound effects go, the [Howie scream](_URL_0_) is way more ridiculous. (26 seconds in)\n\n",
"Yeah its a running joke. I hate it, because every time i hear it it takes me out of the immersion of the film. I'm no longer believing the world in the movie is a real thing instead it's just a movie.",
"I just saw some guy wearing a shirt that said \"Wilhelm Scream\", with a picture of a green blob monster on it. Had no clue what it was about. This threads was a coincidence in my life!Thanks reddit.",
"Im with you, OP. I hate hearing the wilhelm scream. It is a nod/running joke, but its so common that it always takes me out of the scene and makes me roll my eyes.",
"They're a lot of really old sound effects sounds that are reused, one I recognize a lot is a monster roar that I think started with doom or duke nukem or some other old monster video game.",
"Ok, I always here this police radio sound that turns up every time you see a cop car pull up somewhere in a movie. Anyone know about that one? I think it was in the early GTA games as well. Someone talking, but kinda muffled...",
"Tradition and it's an in joke. There are not many businesses that do sound effects compared to production companies that shoot movies and television. The sound editors, foley artists, and other professionals put little touches in a film as a kind of stylistic signature. For people that are in the know about these things, there are all kinds of subtext to audio in both movies and music. \n\nFor instance do you know what a Linndrum is? I doubt it, but if you heard a Linndrum play a beat you would likely think of Prince, Nine Inch Nails, Depeche Mode, and hundreds of other artists that have used one in their music. It's a signature sound, instantly recognizable to anyone who's ever worked with one. The same with a mellotron or a theramin. \n\nSound effects don't usually get any billing on a movie poster or recognition outside of the Oscars and movie credits, so these little flourishes are their way of being heard and artistically and humorously working within the confines of their jobs. ",
"Same goes for horses whinnying. It's sounds like the same damn horse.\n\nAlso, we can all tell the cups are empty. ",
"Same with the \"shhhinnnn\" sound on reality shows....specifically Ramsay's reality shows (Masterchef, Kitchen Nightmares, etc). Here's an example: _URL_0_\n\nI get so tired of hearing the same sound effects in the same show, and even moreso in different shows.",
"I can't be the only person wondering what the fuck the Wilhelm scream is, can I?",
"Theres a scream that alot of music producers use, Young Chop does it the most, its sort of like an extended Wilhelm Scream....",
"I don't get how it's dumb, but okay.",
"It's better than the opening door sound from Doom, which seems to be in every single low and mid-budget sci-fi production.",
"I want to know why movies and TV shows keep using the same audio clip from the Atari 2600 version of Donkey Kong whenever they show a video game on screen. You can hear the audio here...\n\n_URL_0_",
"It always makes me laugh when I hear it, it's just a lighthearted \"inside joke\" that a lot of people don't know about or don't recognise. \n\nIt's like a little secret we share. ",
"\"Mah leg!\" Anyone? ...anyone?",
"the reason I know this sound effect so well is due to the Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire video game on N64. Whenever you'd kill a stormtrooper and they'd fall off a ledge, they would make this sound. Especially in the Echo Base level which had lots of cliffs, my brothers and I would do this all the time for fun.",
"That and it's free to use. It's originally from the 1951 film Distant Drums in which a group of soldiers are attacked by alligators, but is named after Private Wilhelm from 1953's Charge at Feather River. Feather River is believed to be the first film to re-use the sound effect from WB's stock sound library. It's believed that Sheb Wooley, who sung Purple People Eater, is the voice behind the scream. Actually, there are several screams from his recording session which are all commonly referred to as a Wilhelm scream. Star Wars and Indiana Jones sound designer Ben Burtt is credited with naming it the Wilhelm, as it was previously only labeled as \"Man attacked by alligator\" in the sound library. ",
"It's a running joke between sound engineers. They don't expect YOU to find it funny, they expect their coworkers to find it funny. \n\nThese kinds of things are all over different art forms, too. In music, for example, there is the \"Dies Irae\", \"The Lick\", and all sorts of instrument-specific riffs and quotes. ",
"For me it's the \"kids laughing\" sound that I find gets over used. Seems just like lazy sound design, and not a case of \"tradition\" like the Willhelm scream.\n\nI first noticed it playing Roller Coaster Tycoon because you hear it constantly, and then realized that almost every movie/TV Show/game will use it as a background noise and it really stands out.",
"I like it, I expect it to be in everything so I always wonder... This person looks like they are going to die, will they have the Wilhelm scream ? and If I'm right then I feel a little smug ",
"I'm with you, brother. Annoying as fuck. Totally pulls me out of the immersion of good cinematography. ",
"I had heard it was a good luck practice. I find it really distracting, though. Every time I hear it in a movie I get taken right out of it for just a moment. I'm suddenly reminded that this is all fake, and that the people who made it are idiots.",
"My suspension of disbelief is ruined everytime I hear it. It belongs in dumb comedies only. ",
"As a future sound engineer, I will make it my personal duty to eliminate the Wilhelm scream.",
"It's an in-joke, because unless you are in on it, it doesn't stick out that bad. Same with the same police radio loop that shows up from Blade Runner to Law and Order to Ghostbusters.\n\nThe thing is back when, there was no internet and these \"behind the scenes\" jokes stayed there, unless you were \"with it\" or a serious fan with insider info you never noticed.\n\nYou'll notice these days mostly comedies use the scream, dramas and action flicks know it breaks immersion and what's more it doesn't sound very realistic and is pretty corny.\n\nThe cop loop stays because its still subtle, is fairly realistic (though you'll notice it uses the old LAPD phonetics that go Adam, Baker, Charlie, David, not the NATO phonetics used today by police that goes Alpha/Alfa, Bravo, Charlie, Delta...) AND because of privacy and other legal concerns getting real police radio chatter is hard these days.",
"I see it as an achievement when they can fit it into a successful motion picture. It's a stupid joke that mainly video editors/producers know about. Being an editor myself, I hope one day I'll be able to do the same. ",
"I'm getting more pissed off by the overuse of the bass dropping action sound that started with transformers and got used about 40 times in the new terminator\n\nwooosshherrrrrrrrhhhhhh",
"Isn't there something similar for a door/gate creak noise? I always here this distinctive noise for an old door/gate opening.\n\nThis is the noise: _URL_0_",
"OMG there is a sound byte they use for cop radios all the time! Pisses me off. _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf8aBFTVNEU",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/PrivateWilhelmScream/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/7UTYDfc7fbQ",
"http://youtu.be/0wjt8n25VfM"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeahDDyFhWY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzI1RBdK2_g"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcLrmmLcKDA"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FxgVS7bylA"
]
] |
||
3tayyj | why do guitarists often make that 'emotional guitar face' when pulling off a bend? | You know what I'm talking about, that face guitarists like Steve Vai and B. B. King make that look like they are having an intense orgasm. Hell I play guitar and even I do this and I don't know why. Bends (especially with good vibrato) just 'hit that spot'. Why do bends sound so 'emotional' to us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tayyj/eli5_why_do_guitarists_often_make_that_emotional/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx4ldr0"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"As a personal experience I didn't think I did this \"overacting the bend\", and I considered Vai, Hendrix et al to be entitled to do whatever they wanted. However once when watching a video of me playing bass I found myself pulling a face in a bend and said \"WTF?\". \n\nReflecting on it, I think that if you concentrate and pay attention to the notes, like when tuning the guitar in, you don't need to express yourself, however when you are bending in the middle of a song you do not have the concentration to achieve the result you need, so you just commit your body to that note. It's like dancing or bobbing your head: technically you don't need to do it but it connects your entire body to the music you are performing and when bending you are no longer digital (note is either E or F, not both) but analogue and you can't look for that curve, you have to let the curve flow from your muscle memory, brain and other body parts we don't really know how they work. \n\nIn summary, your fingers are a part of body expression as a whole. For the same reason you don't just cry with your tear glands or laugh with your vocal chorts, you don't just bend with your fingers. The stronger the emotion the more body is involved. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
50bil2 | what is the structure of the entire internet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50bil2/eli5_what_is_the_structure_of_the_entire_internet/ | {
"a_id": [
"d72njz2"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The entire Internet is made of two things, endpoints and midpoints. Things like your computer and the reddit server are endpoints. Endpoints have an IP address assigned to them, and logically one connection to the network represented by that IP address.\n\nMidpoints have multiple connections to the network, and pass packets that come in out to other places. Some midpoints are stupid, like the hub under your desk, and simply pass whatever comes in on one connection out on all the other connections. Other midpoints are smarter, and look at the IP address of the destination and pass the packet along the connection that goes towards that IP address.\n\nThe routing paths are dynamically computed by software running in these smarter midpoints. Thus the structure is dynamic and fluidly changes all the time in response to traffic volumes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7z75uw | how does acid stay in a person’s stomach after death and not begin to immediately eat away at the body? | Not that your physical condition would be a concern at that point, but I wonder how the stomach doesn’t immediately loose the acid into its surroundings with everything shutting down. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7z75uw/eli5_how_does_acid_stay_in_a_persons_stomach/ | {
"a_id": [
"dulslh8",
"dult98f"
],
"score": [
7,
16
],
"text": [
"stomach lining is continually replenishing itself.\n\nand stomach acid is really not all that potent... Its super super diluted, when you throw up, you dont worry about dissolving your tongue, but you do get a little burning feeling in your throat.",
"Technically it does start eating away at the body when you die. It always does, which is why our stomach lining is constantly replenishing itself.\nHowever, stomach acid and bile aren't so potent that they'd burn a hole right through you, so our thick stomach walls get eaten away slowly in time with normal anaerobic decay and such."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3wn253 | why is a password managing program recommended for extra password security? doesn't that just give a hacker a single place to get all of my passwords at once if they get through? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wn253/eli5_why_is_a_password_managing_program/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxxfab5",
"cxxfanj",
"cxxfuh0",
"cxxgj3m",
"cxxiwwj",
"cxxixts",
"cxxkgcq",
"cxxkhfe",
"cxxko15",
"cxxkwhm",
"cxxlh15",
"cxxnlnn",
"cxxoahu",
"cxxon5x",
"cxxosou",
"cxxp00t",
"cxxp2we",
"cxxpn4s",
"cxxqnzi",
"cxxrmv4",
"cxxsqiv",
"cxxt0jw",
"cxxtqsw",
"cxxulci",
"cxxuo8c",
"cxxv26n",
"cxxvged",
"cxxxioz",
"cxxxt00",
"cxxy7ub",
"cxxym0o",
"cxxzp0k",
"cxy26t0",
"cxy2nel",
"cxy3wcb",
"cxy45p4",
"cxy46m2",
"cxy4apj",
"cxy5gw7",
"cxyb9wh",
"cxydj6m",
"cxydzyg",
"cxyfjqo"
],
"score": [
2326,
21,
2,
262,
74,
3,
13,
1288,
3,
2,
2,
92,
2,
6,
2,
2,
8,
2,
7,
3,
2,
3,
4,
2,
4,
4,
3,
2,
2,
20,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
6,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Password managers are useful because they can allow you to use much more secure passwords as opposed to passwords that are easier to remember and, probably, easier to guess. It means that when as password database gets stolen, it will take significantly longer for brute-force methods to get your password.\n\nIt's safer because when people are looking to break into accounts they generally don't care which accounts they get. They just run the whole list looking for people who did use easy passwords and then seeing what they can steal from the related accounts. They're not targeting you directly. Someone who is targeting you directly and get can get access to your computer (either physically or via the internet) with enough access to do something like steal your password manager file will probably be able to circumvent any passwords you chose anyway. \n\nEven if they do get the file, most password managers use *very* robust encryption. For example, 256-bit Twofish (like is used in Password Safe) is essentially impossible to break on any meaningful timeline even with massive computing resources.",
"The password manager stores your passwords on your computer, in an encrypted file. That password file is never sent over the internet so it cannot be intercepted, and the password to decrypt it need not be stored anywhere but in your head.\n\nIf one of your accounts gets compromised, that will not give the attackers the password file, only the password to that particular account. But if you use the same password on every website, then they do have the password to all your other accounts because it's the same one (and they often will try leaked passwords on other sites because password reuse is very common). If you would otherwise struggle to remember a different password for every account then a password manager can help with that.",
"Also auditability improves as there are consistent logs for all privileged accesses and in case of forensics are a great help. ",
"Short and simple: \n\nMost people lose their facebook/twitter/mail... account due to password guessing (like use their birthday as password). Password managing program solve this problem by making random passwords and remember them for you. \n\nIf a hacker already get inside you pc then he can plant a keylog and get your passwords anyway. ",
"To sum up and add a couple of things.\n\nPassword managers make it easy to use long difficult passwords because you don't have to remember them, just the one long difficult password for your password manager.\n\nThey have tools to generate long passwords with lots of odd characters, not the general replace A with @, e wtih 3 stuff we usually use.\n\nIn addition to this I use them to remember my answers to security questions. According to my bank, my mother's maiden name is not Smith it is #$dTs@[j48t.\n\nSecurity questions are easily discoverable and thus of very little security. My answers to what is my favorite book and where did I go to school are long strings just as complex as my passwords. And all I have to remember is one hard password for the password manager.",
"What's a good password managing program? \n\nThanks for the suggestions, guys",
"Besides what was already said (easier to have complex passwords), probably just as important is that with a password manager, it is extremely convenient to have unique passwords for all your accounts. Without a password manager, a human will tend to share passwords across sites/applications to make it easier to remember. This can be dangerous because if WebsiteA is compromised and passwords are stolen (whether in plain text or in hashes which are then eventually cracked), there's a good chance that the users for WebsiteA use the same username/email and password for WebsiteB. If you reuse passwords like that, you can be at risk. With a password manager, you no longer have to try to remember all the passwords for all your accounts. ",
"There was a [great talk from a hacker whose computer got stolen](_URL_0_) discussing his process of retrieving it. He managed to get as far as keylogging and screenshots, but was still having trouble as the guy has a password manager, so the keylogger and screenshots didn't reveal any of the passwords. \n \nIn that respect, it worked very well. ",
"I once heard this philosophy that made a lot of sense. This person was a white hat hacker, so they were kind of paranoid. But I thought it was good info. \n\n* Setup a password manager for the reasons listed in this thread. Many are free. I personally use LastPass, it's $10 a year.\n* Make your password manager master password an extra secure password that you can remember. If you can memorize numbers, letters, and symbols, awesome. You could also make your password a long phrase or sentence. This works well too.\n* Setup 2-factor authentication if possible. Any password manager worth its salt has 2-factor authentication. I use the Google Authenticator on my phone with LastPass.\n* Pick a handful of accounts that are REALLY important that you would need easy access to in an emergency (i.e. identify theft or you got hacked). E-mail, online banking, Facebook or other social media, Google account, Dropbox or other cloud services. These accounts never touch your password manager. The passwords stay in your head. (Edit: in case you ARE hacked, the hackers don't have access to your most important information.)\n* Create secure passwords that you will remember for these accounts. Different passwords for each account. Using the same slightly modified password is not secure. \n* Memorize these really important accounts. Just like you would memorize really important phone numbers (work, your SO, parents, best friend) and save the rest on your phone.\n* All other accounts, have your password manager create random passwords. It's OK if you lose your password to those accounts. You can always change your password since you memorized your e-mail password.",
"I use roboform anywhere. Does anyone know if this is still a good service to use? I heard they got taken over a while ago.",
"Yes, but that's not the point.\n\nThe point of using a password manager is so you can use long, randomly generated passwords for each account you have, making each user account much more secure.",
"For the same reason you use different keys on your keychain. \n\n\nIf you used the same key for everything, some guy who has easy access to one of the places you use your key could take apart the keyhole there and suddenly he has access to everything - your house, your car, etc - because they're all one key.\n\n\nIn contrast, by having a different key for everything, if/when one is broken into the other places are still secure.\n\n\n\nSure, now your keychain is now a single point of failure. But it's much better than having *every* place you use your keys be a potential attack vector for every other place, especially when you can't necessarily trust the people who own those places (say your landlord keeps a copy of your key for security reasons. Would you trust your landlord with your global key to everything?)\n\n\nThe idea is that it should be much harder for a person to get at your password manager (keychain) than it is for them to get at places where you use your keys. If they do ever get at your password manager (keychain), it means you have **much** bigger problems (someone has powerful access to your computer, or in the keychain example, you're being assaulted).",
"The biggest security boost password managers give you is they stop you from using the same (usually weak) passwords at multiple sites. A hacker usually wants your account for spamming at scale, along with several hundred other million accounts. They get your account very often from hacking major websites that don't store your password properly (see _URL_0_). They then use your login combo to login to your Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, etc. If you use a different password at every site, this hacker would have only gotten your Adobe login. \n\nI personally like password managers more for the convenience of not remembering what my username / password combo is for sites where somebody else beat me to my favorite username!\n\nSource: i ran the team that built account takeover prevention at Pinterest and thwarted hundreds of millions of takeovers.",
"Because even though having a good password for everything would be safer, it's very hard and most people won't do it. It's better to only have 1 very strong password protecting the other unremembered passwords instead of many weak passwords. Also a password manager is a 2-factor authentication method, which means you need two things to use it: a password, and the file containing your encrypted passwords.\n\nThink of it this way.\n\nFirst lets imagine passwords as keys. It makes sense to have different keys for different things, that way if you loose one the others would remain safe. But passwords are not like keys, you have to remember them.\n\nImagine that keys were like passwords, and that each time you had to make a new copy of the key, from memory, in order to be able to use it. We can see how complicated that would be (and is part of the reason why companies like Google and otherswant to find an [alternative to passwords](_URL_0_)) to remember each and every key. Even when without having to memorize how keys look, having to find the right key between 15-20 keys would be very hard.\n\nPeople would have to find a way to make keys easier to remember. One way is to have a lot of very simple, easy to remember keys. The problem is that each key would be easy to \"find out\" and the locks would be very easy to pick. Another solution is to have a few very very strong keys that are hard to pick, and reuse them; the problem is that if someone finds a way to get a copy of one of this very safe keys, they could use it on many different locks.\n\nSo instead we have a special box (password manager) that needs a key (which is very strong and complicated, but is the only key you really need to remember) and then you tell it what you want and it makes you the key for that one thing. Moreover you could add extra security, like needing your finger print, and doing voice recognition of you singing a certain song, etc. You'd still want to keep certain things, such as you email (which is very important nowadays), your bank account and such separate, but it shouldn't be more than 3-4 keys you'd need to remember so you could go all out on making it complex and hard.\n\nNow it's clear how having a strong key is safer than having a bunch of weak keys, but how is it safer than having a single strong key for everything? Well if you only had a single strong key, all you'd need to know is how to make that key to be able to open everything. Instead with the key-making box you need to know how to make the single strong key **and** *the box itself*.\n\nAnyone wanting to open anything belonging to you needs access to both the knowledge of your key and the box itself. If someone altered a lock so that it would copy the key you used to open it, it would copy a key that only works for that lock, it would not copy the lock for the box. If someone copied all the keys you used (the way you'd do this with a password is with a keylogger), they might get the key for your box, *but they wouldn't have the box to make the keys* they would have to find and get a copy of it too.",
"If you are using strong passwords for various places: it doesn't, and it's cargo-cultism when people recommend that you *always* use one.\n\nA password manager is good if you suck and making passwords, and then are able to make a good password for your password manager.",
"In addition to the excellent points already made here about password complexity, a password manager that tightly integrates with the browser will only fill the password on the correct website. This helps prevent phishing (you typing your credentials into the wrong website).\n\nE.g. you open a link to what you think is PayPal, and normally your password manager would autofill the password, but it doesnt, because it knows the site is not really PayPal. You are alerted and think twice before logging in and giving a bad actor your credentials.",
"This is a lot of new knowledge guys. Thanks. One follow up question: which password manager do you recommend?",
"Wouldn't changing passwords frequently be bad? Example being Enigma in WWII where the password was changed daily which which accelerated the code being broken",
"It's easier to guard one door than a hundred. Make your primary password very secure and memorize it. Don't record it anywhere.",
"ELI5 : Bank robber doesn't care to steal the money in your wallet, they try to robe bank with money of lot of people at same place. ",
"The way people usually get your password is to crack a unsecured site, get usernames and passwords and then use those as vectors to crack other sites. People often use the same passwords.\n\nA password manager allows you to use wildly different passwords on every side and you only have to trust one company who's sole focus is securing passwords. Not doing security as an afterthought.",
"I keep a list of my passwords without corresponding user ID or site info tacked to my wall, and they're all 15+ characters long, including symbols and numbers where applicable. \n\nIt's not that I have anything particularly sensitive to hide, I'm simply prone to forgetting my own name and don't trust computers.\n\nI have nothing pertinent to add, here.",
"Yeah but the point is they are so secure that getting through is almost impossible.\n\nI use KeePass. The Password database is heavily encrypted. Too heavily for anyone to realistically get through. To get in the old fashioned way they would need my Password (only available in my head or via Keylogger) and a special keyfile, which they won't know the location of.\n\nAs many people say, if it gets to the point where there is a keylogger, your system is basically no longer yours.\n\nI have had security compromises from several different accounts, but fortunately as I use different passwords for everything, they never gain access to any of my other accounts! I would never remember those passwords without KeePass.",
"Yes, if they were breaking into your computer. If they break into a server, they don't know all the other servers you have passwords for or what's on your computer. They want info on as many people as possible on that one server, not your computer or other servers.",
"There are two potential risks for having a password compromised:\n\n1. An insecure web site gets hacked, and their list of user IDs and passwords stolen. Hackers then try the list of user names/passwords on a ton of different sites.\n\n2. Your computer gets hacked with malware, keyloggers, etc. \n\nA password manager helps with 1, because it makes it easy to use a different password for every single site, and it also makes it easy to use a very complex password which is difficult for hackers to recover from an \"encrypted\" password list.\n\nA password manager does nothing to help with 2. In fact, it makes matters worse, because if your password manager's master password is compromised, then your hacker now has ALL your passwords to everything. \n\nI've noticed that a number of banks and other financial sites block the use of password managers on their sites. If you try and use a password manager to log in, the log in fails. This is because for the bank, who is potentially on the hook for fraud, the risk is not 1 (they know they have excellent IT security, because they have been doing it for decades) - for the bank the risk is 2, and password managers make that risk worse.",
"You need passwords for so many things that you can't possibly keep track of them all, unless you write them down, which, let's face it, no one actually does. Most people just reuse passwords. \n\nSo let's say the hackers attack reddit and steal a list of all the passwords of some reddit users. Now, if you're reusing your password, your reddit password might be the same as your email or your online banking, so the hackers can try putting that password in to see if they can gain access to those websites. But, if you have a password manager, that's not an issue. You might lose your reddit account, but nothing else is in danger. \n\ntl;dr Password reuse is dangerous. \n\nalternate tl;dr [This comic](_URL_0_) from xkcd.",
"There are two sides to this: \n\n1) Yes, if someone gains access to your password manager, you are at risk. However, you can prevent this with a strong, unique password and maybe implement multi-factor authentication -- so it is harder to gain access to.\n\n2) Having a password manager allows you to use longer and more complex password because you do not have to worry about remembering it. Having different passwords for different websites allows your accounts to be safer. If one website is hacked, only that account if compromised, but if you use the same password for everything, all the accounts are compromised. ",
"Password managers solve a particular set of problems and might introduce some risks, let's look at the problems it solves first. You have passwords for a ton of websites that you have to remember and even if you can remember a bunch of different passwords keeping track of which passwords go with which sites is hard. The password manager lets you use a different password for each site. This means that if someone hacks one website and steals passwords it doesn't compromise your accounts on other sites. It also lets you use completely random strings of gibberish. This makes it harder for people who steal encrypted password files to figure out what your password was. \n\nSo what is the risk? The risk is if your password manager password is stolen that all your passwords are compromised. The mitigating factor is that this is harder to steal than the passwords on websites. If you have 100 online accounts I only have to hack one of those 100 to compromise the password you use there. One of them is bound to have poor security. To get your password manager password I have to hack your particular computer or get you to tell me the password. If either of those happens then I can get all your online passwords anyway so this doesn't actually reduce your security. ",
"Can anyone recommend a password manger for using multiple computers?",
"One more thing. Your password manager won't be fooled by websites pretending to be what they are not. Imagine some bad guy tricked you into going to _URL_0_ to steal your password. When you ask your password manager to fill in the username and password it won't work, because it only knows about _URL_1_, not the evil _URL_0_",
"Overall it is more secure, based on a balance of risk on your account security.\nYou are right that if someone does have access to your password database and is able to decrypt it, they will have access to all your accounts, however to do this it is a lot of work for very little reward (unless you are someone important). Hackers will have to access your machine, find out you are using a password manager, find your password database, download it and then decrypt it.\nHowever the password manager allows you to use more complex passwords on your accounts, these accounts are accessible from anywhere in the world on any computer. Week passwords are easy(er) to hack, so an easier route to your account is to attach the site rather than your computer.\nAnother problem with weak passwords is that if hackers get the servers password database, all the passwords should be encrypted, although hackers can't read encrypted passwords if to many people use common or the same password, then the encrypted values will be the same, they can use this to help decrypt the passwords.\nSo password managers do have one slight weakness, but will overall strengthen your security.",
"Yes. But getting through is much, much harder, because:\n\n- They are free to use state of the art encryption that's virtually impossible to brute force\n- You can enable two-factor authentication\n- You can keep the store offline if you wish, reducing opportunities to intercept it\n\nThat said, yes, keeping all your eggs in one basket reduces security, as does having them on the computer at all. Password managers are said to \"increase security\" because they generally outweigh those downsides by eliminating or reducing common habits like weak passwords and less robust storage techniques. But yes, if you current\n\nRelated: I'm not sure about today, but as of a few years ago I can tell you how the US government did logins for accounts that can access top-secret information, which I would take as a good example of top-notch security without an emphasis on convenience. The password changed every hour based on a deterministic algorithm seeded off an initial key, and the employees were then given a little keychain device capable of generating and displaying these passwords. So, in this system, the thing with the power we commonly give to passwords is the initial key + algorithm applied to it, and neither this nor anything that can be used to derive it is ever on the computer or transmitted. (I'm not certain, but this may have been used in combination with other security measures, like a memorized password.)",
"How to steal password.\n\n1. Date person\n2. Sex them\n3. Convince them to share netflix password\n4. Profit\n5. Change netflix password\n6. Enslave them",
"I read through some of the responses earlier, but wanted to illustrate some background on this issue that I hadn't seen covered (so apologies if I'm duplicating anyone here).\n\nThere's an old saying by a bank robber when asked why he robbed banks where he explained that he robbed banks because that's where the money was. Likewise, when thieves want account information, they go where the accounts are. Very few attacks are focused on an individual target (known as spear-phishing) trying to break into their accounts. The biggest cyberheists happen on the other side of the transaction fence - with the vendors.\n\nIf I want to steal the money you have in your bank, attacking your bank directly would take a lot of time and effort. Banks don't always do technology very well, but they take direct attacks pretty seriously and work to keep people out of their networks. So instead of attacking the bank, I'd attack [another large retailer who handles financial transactions.](_URL_0_) From there I could harvest personal details including login information, and that's where the weak spot is - people frequently use the same login information across multiple sites.\n\nSo once I hack some company and steal their databases, I have a lot of information that needs sorted. The usernames are probably in clear text, which means I've got one of the two keys needed to unlock your account. Then I grab the password database and look at it. If the company doesn't do security well, the passwords will be in clear text as well because it saves computing power and storage space to do it that way. I then try that account pairing against multiple services, such as banks and e-mail providers, to see if that username and password combo get me in to any sites.\n\nIf the company takes their security even modestly seriously, though, they'll encrypt their passwords. What this means is that when you type in your password, it runs it through an algorithm such as an [MD5](_URL_1_) hashing process that converts your password to a jumble of letters, numbers, and characters. This is (currently) a one-way process - you can't unhash information after it's been hashed to get the original input. Then when you log in again in the future, the site hashes your password and compares the newly hashed password against what it has stored - if it matches, you're in. If you type in the hash, the login server will hash that and give you a whole new sequence of letters and numbers, so having the hash doesn't just let you log into a site.\n\nWhat cybercriminals have done is create indexes of hash codes to their input values. If I set my password to \"password\" and they get the hash, they'll compare the hash to this index and say, \"Aha! The corresponding password for the hash l;j34rjnacjuioh49j is 'password'!\" and then try that information against all sorts of other sites.\n\nWhat password managers do is create extremely rare and complex passwords that aren't in the dictionary, and create a lot of them. When every site has its own unique password, getting a password from one site that only works on that site makes it very unlikely to be worth spending the time to brute force/reverse engineer on its own, so the cybercriminals move on to other easier targets.",
"Because it's still a lot more secure than the standard single point of failure of using a single password for most of the online services you use. If you can reliably memorise a strong, unique password for every service you use, great, that's even more secure.",
"in my case, it allows me to have a super long (sometimes up to 40 characters) completely random password for every account I have, which makes it much harder for a hacker and I don't have to remember them at all. Its usually people who have the same password for every account that get in big trouble because the hacker can gain access to everything. In addition, the tool allows me that I don't ever have to type my passwords. I copy/paste them from the tool to the field, so nobody can keylog it. (Although I suspect there's also ways to check clipboard data, but it's harder to figure out what \"XIS$NFmem24fsfa\" means on the clipboard than watching me type it into a website.) I also have access to my passwords on every device because I use an online service. \n\nThe service I use has an encrypted system, which requires me to enter a long password which is called a salt key anytime I want to access my account. I've made it up myself and never write down anywhere. Everything on the server is kept scrambled and unreadable and can only be unscrambled if I put in my key. This means that even if the hacker were to get access to the password services database, everything is scrambled unless they know my salt key, at which point, I'm the one that's screwed up.\n\nEdited for clarity.",
"As long as the root password is never compromised, you are safer. Try as we might, the task of remembering 50 different passwords to 50 different websites usually results in similarities between them all. A skilled hacker could guess at other services you use based upon similarities in email addresses and passwords. ",
"would this be better, or carrying around a piece of paper with my passwords on it. like ive been doing ",
"In answer to OP...depends on who's server it's on and how well it is encrypted. As far as I know Blackberries servers have never been hacked and Password Keeper is encrypted. Seems like every website and App wants a user to \"register\" . Obviously 1 password for everything is a no no, but other than a paper list in a vault...Password keeper is the next best thing. Unless of course your very good at memorizing hundreds of different passwords for Apps and websites.\n\n",
"Some general questions:\n\nrecommendation for a good password managing program for PC?\nif you use such a program, what do you do when you want to login to an account on your phone?",
"1. One really secure password is generally better than a dozen moderately-to-low strength passwords.\n2. If a breach occurs in a website, unless they were storing the passwords in plaintext, presumably you're still okay because the password manager allows you to use incredibly complex passwords(usually auto-generated).\n3. They feature in-memory protections against things hijacking your passwords on the fly(such as keyloggers).\n4. Somehow hijacking your password for a site usually compromises only one site, because not having to remember passwords means you use a different one for each site.\n5. Somehow hijacking your master password does your attacker no good without the password database file.\n6. Even if they get that, many of these programs allow additional access restrictions such as having a keyfile or tying the database to your windows login(such that it can be opened only on a specific machine, or only if you have your key).\n\n***\nAnd before you think *\"but what if...\"*, realize that all of these are simply additional layers to help you maintain security in an easy way, but if you simply do not follow good security practices no amount of technology is going to help you. All that tech is there to assist you, not remove all responsibility from you.",
"because a password manager is better at password security than you are and you are currently the single point of failure ",
"Generally password manages like OnePass and LastPass have **very** good security. Even they if the CEO was tortured by the CIA could not give them your passwords. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4oB28ksiIo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://xkcd.com/1286/"
],
[
"http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/0612/Google-and-others-try-to-get-rid-of-the-password.-But-why"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://xkcd.com/792/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"paypol.com",
"paypal.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_PlayStation_Network_outage",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fwlrhf | gravitational braking. how can we use gravity to slow a spacecraft, when gravity is also used to increase the speed? | I was watching a show about the solar system, and they were talking about using Venus to slow a probe down. I thought planets were used only to increase velocity, so how can they ALSO be used to slow a craft down? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fwlrhf/eli5_gravitational_braking_how_can_we_use_gravity/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmp0uis",
"fmp123c",
"fmpbwr8"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Gravity assists work the same in both directions, you use the gravity of the planet to change the trajectory of the spacecraft.\n\nThe spacecraft always enters and leaves the planet's sphere of influence with the same velocity(unless it fires its engines when close to the planet), but just because it has the same energy relative to the planet doesn't mean it has the same energy relative to the sun\n\n[This GIF shows the traditional gravity boost](_URL_0_) where the probe approaches the planet at an angle and then gets boosted in the direction of the planet's orbit which gives it extra speed and therefore a larger orbit.\n\nYou can also flip it around and do it the other way. What if you have the probe approach the right side of the planet and get flung up and to the left? Well then it'll lose speed (and therefore energy) relative to the sun and will drop into a lower orbit around the sun.\n\nThe impact of the gravity assist can be adjusted just by modifying the approach and departure angles, and they can be used to launch the spacecraft from an encounter with one planet to an encounter with another to get repeated boosts as was done with the Voyagers",
"Okay, so the key is whether you go behind the planet or in front of the planet. If a planet isn't moving, you will gain speed when you approach and lose speed when you leave, so your net gain (or loss) is zero. But you can gain or lose speed if you pass in front of or behind a moving planet. Think of the planet and the spacecraft as being held together by a rubber band (the rubber band is gravity). If a planet is moving to the left, and you pass it on the right, as you pass the planet, the planet is moving away from you... this is stretching the rubber band... and this stretching of the rubber band gives you energy and \"slingshots\" you, increasing your speed. If a planet is moving to the left and you pass it on the left, as you pass the planet, the planet is moving towards you. This is like putting more slack in the rubber band, and you get a much smaller \"slingshot\" effect, which decreases your speed.",
"Ok, so imagine throwing a ping pong ball at a wall. In an ideal situation, the ball hits the wall and bounces off with the same speed it hit, just in a different direction. \n\nNow imagine instead of a wall, the ball hits the front of a truck that's driving past. The ball will now bounce off with the speed it was originally thrown, plus an added boost due to the speed of the truck. This is like a normal gravity assist. \n\nBut now imagine you throw the ball at the _back_ of a truck. The ball is going to bounce off, but now it's bouncing off with a speed that is _decreased_ because of the speed of the truck. Just like a truck gives a boost to balls that hit it from the front because it smacks into them, it takes away speed from balls that hit it from the back because it is moving away from them during impact. This is like slowing a probe with a gravity assist. \n\nIf you want a gut-level understanding of it, I'd recommend playing Kerbal Space Program"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/GravAssis.gif"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1imyme | why do websites care how secure my password is? | If my account gets hacked how does that affect them?? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1imyme/eli5_why_do_websites_care_how_secure_my_password/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb60h5a",
"cb60hf6",
"cb60kw8",
"cb60r3u",
"cb61tpc"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The main reason is because it's extremely bad publicity. If you have two website that provide the same service, one gets hacked a lot, and the other doesn't, which site will you use?",
"Because there are a LOT of people who get their account hacked, then bitch and whine to the company about it despite having a shitty password.\n\nBasically, it's about support costs.",
"If a bunch of accounts have the same password, it's easier to hack all of them. So it's important to ensure people have good passwords, both to minimize that possibility and for their own safety. (IIRC, something like 10% of users use \"password\" as their password on systems that allow it.)",
"To further it, it's not so much about your account as it is their website, domain and databases.\n\nI'm just getting in to hacking but from what (little) I understand, once access is gained, dirty code can be inserted in to databases wreaking havoc on their site. Access to other members' personal information can also be obtained. Depending on the type of site, the severity of this will fluctuate.",
"Many good responses are here, and as of this post, they're basically all correct in part.\n\nTo contribute, there is another part. An account is hacked because someone wants to exploit our resources for illegal gains. Usually spam, but it can me MUCH WORSE. The most dreaded phone call is one from a 3 letter agency with a warrant and a gag letter.\n\nLiability is a concern."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2vg985 | how to defrost a windshield properly. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vg985/eli5how_to_defrost_a_windshield_properly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cohcplz",
"cohcqcp",
"cohhc6o",
"cohlt9g"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on if theres a think layer of ice or just a bit of frost.\nI scrape the bulk of the ice off then pour luke warm water over my window with the wipers on to stop the water freezing. Do not pour hot water or your window may crack. It only needs to be room temp or slightly higher. All the time while doing this I have the blowers on full. ",
"NOT with hot water! Scrape as much ice of the windows as you can and let the defrost do the rest.",
"Noone for the ol' boiled brine trick?",
"Arizonan here. Its 70 degrees today pretty chilly. I usually throw on the defrosters for 5 seconds"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
145coq | why is government debt a good thing? | Can someone explain to me why having a surplus is potentially dangerous? I think I've read that lack of debt means no one will buy Treasury bonds, but I'm not sure I understand. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/145coq/why_is_government_debt_a_good_thing/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7a13dm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's not that having a surplus is *inherently* dangerous. It's that having a deficit isn't that bad, and all of the easy ways to get a surplus might be.\n\nA lack of debt means that no one *can* buy Treasury bonds, because the government won't offer them. When you buy a Treasury bond, you're buying government debt."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1gwhnl | what's making the moon bigger tomorrow then it is every other day? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gwhnl/eli5_whats_making_the_moon_bigger_tomorrow_then/ | {
"a_id": [
"caoif2b",
"caoifon"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"A combination of it being a full moon and it being as close to the Earth as possible in its cycle.\n\nThe moon isn't expanding or anything like that, it's just closer so it appears to be larger.",
"The moon will be at it's closest point to the earth all year (called perigee). It will also be full, so the combination of these 2 things results in the moon appearing bigger."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1mzv9w | why does some fat go "straight to my thighs" or elsewhere? | Just wondering, I'm 17, healthy and athletic, and never really had an explanation. I've always heard it but never asked what they meant. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mzv9w/eli5_why_does_some_fat_go_straight_to_my_thighs/ | {
"a_id": [
"cce5kv7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, your body wants to store fat in certain places more than others.\nYour thighs don't really do much to effect movement, so they're preferred reserves. Same with the breast.\nYour neck, however, does a lot of moving and doesn't store fat.\n\nNo food makes it go one place or the other. But for skinny people, it'll show up on your thighs before it shows up anywhere else. Hence the term."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1zr4a9 | how does the us terror alert system work? | Current terror level: [here](_URL_0_)
How can the US government make a wild guess as to when terrorist attacks are more likely to occur? Does this have something to do with the NSA spying? Is it something like: "742 search results for 'let's do a terror attack on the US today!'". I can't imagine they would send any warning. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zr4a9/eli5_how_does_the_us_terror_alert_system_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfwh5bc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is good empirical evidence suggesting the \"threat level\" is likely to be raised when the White House is getting bad press. Tail wagging the dog. I don't think anybody pays any attention to it anymore.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.terror-alert.com/"
] | [
[
"http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=356251"
]
] |
|
5riltr | how come almost every car manufacturer is owned by a bigger car company, for example ferrari and lamborghini are owned by fiat? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5riltr/eli5_how_come_almost_every_car_manufacturer_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd7lt83"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Cars are incredibly expensive to develop and ramp up production, and by acquiring other car makers it creates economies of scale by being able to share R & D, production facilities, etc. across more vehicles. Honda spends $X to develop a platform for their Accord, and expect to sell Y cars. But if they also have upscale brand Acura with a similar vehicle, they can sell Z more cars and spread out the development costs among more cars. Or Ferrari can develop top of the line technology, and then the costs can be recouped by using it in higher volume Maseratis and Alfa Romeos.\n\nAnd in general, having different brands let's car makers target different demographics, different income levels, different vehicle types, etc. Appeal to more customers today, and also have the ability to grow with customers... today's VW Jetta or Fiat 500 buyer might be tomorrow's Audi Q5 or Alfa Romeo Giulia buyer, when they've married, had kids and career is further along. And maybe when their company takes off they become a Ferrari or Lamborghini buyer (VW owns Lamborghini, not Fiat)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2ah7sm | do kids who are born blind know they are missing a sense as they develop? or do they think it is normal because they know nothing else? | How do parents go about explaining that they are missing the sense of sight? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ah7sm/eli5_do_kids_who_are_born_blind_know_they_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"civ3d3g",
"civ9cmt"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I can't speak for the blind, but there are documented cases of Deaf children, being born into Deaf families, that aren't aware of sound until they are introduced more broadly to the outside world.\n\nIn a book called Deaf In America: Voices From a Culture, a few Deaf people described their experiences as children and not knowing that there was such a thing as sound. One child didn't understand why his friend could communicate with her mother by opening and closing her mouth. Her mother would mimic the behavior, and then somehow they understood one another! His Deaf mother had to explain to him that people who could hear make noises with their mouths and that's how they communicated.",
"I have several friends who are totally blind - some from birth, some from later.\n\nThose who were born blind do feel like it's normal, in a way. Since it's all they've ever known, they don't know what they're missing and have a lifetime or practice getting around as a blind person. It helps a lot if they have training as a child, for example:\n\n* learning to walk with a cane and/or with a guide dog\n* learning to read braille\n* learning to use a computer with a screen reader\n* learning how to listen for traffic and know when it's safe to cross the street\n\nWhen you learn that kind of thing as a child, it comes naturally.\n\nPeople who go blind later in life struggle with these things. Many of them never want to walk anywhere alone because they never learned to navigate using their other senses.\n\nTo answer your main question, though, they know early on they're missing a sense. They might not know exactly what it is, but they know that everyone else can walk around without bumping into things, can read print books, and cares about things like whether the light switch is up or down. As they get older, they end up learning a lot about sight even though they can't experience it directly.\n\nSome blind people learn a lot about colors, enough that they can pick coordinated outfits, put on makeup, etc. - others never really learn because it doesn't interest them.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2nlpg3 | in box, why isnt the weighting on the same day that the fight so fighters dont go through the whole dehydratation thing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nlpg3/eli5_in_box_why_isnt_the_weighting_on_the_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmepb0f"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The idea is to have the best fight possible.\n\nYou have a weigh in, to ensure both fighters are evenly matches.\n\nYou give them a few days to recover, so you don't have two dehydrated sluggards stinking up the ring.\n\nWithout the recovery time, a fighter might try to keep a few extra pounds of muscle and fight dehydrated. Taking that choice away from them ensures everyone is in top form, even if it means playing stupid weight cutting games."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1jxci4 | why do homegrown tomatoes taste better? | I know this is a stupid question, because we all know they taste better, but why? More citric acid? Help? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jxci4/why_do_homegrown_tomatoes_taste_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbj7405",
"cbj7af4",
"cbj7k8c",
"cbj82tb",
"cbj8aix",
"cbj8q5a",
"cbjb1fb"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
5,
4,
4,
32,
3
],
"text": [
"Here's an upvote to help this question get answered. I'm wondering why they taste better also.",
"Most tomatoes in the supermarket are bred to have a **lot** of water. Tomatoes sell by the pound, not by the quality, so the more water the growers can get into a tomato, the more they can charge for the tomato. \n\nThe high quantity of water comes at the expense of flavour.",
"As has been mentioned it's mostly genetics. Backyard growers are interested in taste not yield/pest resistance so garden stores stock seeds and plants which taste the best. A secondary issue is the ripening process. Grocery stores (or sometimes the warehouse immediately preceding them) receive unripened green tomatoes which they bath in ethlyne gas which quickly turns them red. This practice reduces spoilage at the expense of taste.",
"The tomatoes you see in the store have been bred to have long shelf lives, be strong enough to survive transport, look good, grow quickly & have high yield.\n\nNotice that \"taste amazing\" isn't on that list.",
"To get the most shelf life, store bought tomatoes are usually picked while still green and ripen by the time they hit the shelves. Vine ripened tomatoes taste much better than tomatoes that have been picked green and then ripened. Most people that grow their own tomatoes allow them to ripen on the vine and therefore taste better than store bought.",
"Farmer here, I'll do my best to answer. \n\nThere are many varieties of tomatoes. Some make great sauce, some make great sandwiches. Some look ugly as sin and taste great. Some look great and lack flavor. Some pack and ship really well. \n\nThe ones that pack and ship well generally have less flavor. Your local grocery store wants to throw away as little produce as possible. They choose tomatoes that look good, and have a decent shelf life. (remember these tomatoes are coming from California and Arizona during the colder months, they will have been picked for a week or so by the time the grocer gets it) Flavor is sacrificed for looks, shelf life and packability/durability.\n\nGarden tomatoes on the other hand have been bred for one thing. Flavor. They don't need to be packable, they are going in the house, not a box. They don't need to be durable, they are going to be handled by you and your family, not several dozen people and forklifts. You are picking them when they super ripe, rather than a couple of weeks early. (Try putting a grocery store tomato on a sunny windowsill for a week or two sometime, you'd be surprised by the flavor improvement) \n\nNow if you're looking for specific flavor compounds, that's a question for someone else. ",
"The tomatoes you buy at a store are varieties that are bred to last through cross country transport. These will look good but not necessarily taste good. The varieties that taste good are generally much more fragile and have little to no shelf life (especially when packed in boxes). These tomatoes also can't typically be stacked more than a few high without bruising. When one gets a bad spot or molds it will also spread to those around it and can destroy the whole box if left for long. \n\nSource: I grow and sell tomatoes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5hgly2 | how do know how to pronounce writings on the ancient clay tablets like kushim tablet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hgly2/eli5_how_do_know_how_to_pronounce_writings_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"db01ocs",
"db01smf",
"db02gx7"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, we work backwards from what we know. We use languages that are based on the languages from these tablets and nearby regional languages. It's the same way we uncover new languages like Proto Indo-European. \n\nLanguages evolve pretty slowly (up until recently, at least), and are generally tied to regions. So for a language like ancient Egyptian, we can examine more recent languages from nearby. Writing structures change pretty slowly as well, so it's pretty easy to compare and contrast one character to another. ",
"Plus it's a lot of hoping to be right. Olde English doesn't sound like you think it does because the accent you are hearing it in on stage and even in your head is wrong. It is easier to read and translate but speaking.....much harder",
"Mostly by studying the evolution of subsequent languages and comparing similar languages, and by looking at things like the Rosetta stone where a known language is written alongside an unknown language.\n\nSo say you're looking at a very old language that's extinct like Latin, but it has several offshoot languages that are not extinct (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, etc.). You can't just compare Latin to Italian, because it won't be the same - if it were, it wouldn't be Italian, it would just be Latin! Instead, you compare all of the Romance languages that evolved from Latin and see what they have in common. If most of them pronounce a letter the same way, you know Latin probably pronounced it very similar to that, and that one language that pronounces it differently evolved away from it. So languages 1, 2, and 4 might pronounce \"T\" one way, and language 3 a different way, so you know the parent probably pronounced \"T\" like 1, 2, and 4. And languages 2, 3, and 4 pronounce \"B\" the same way, but 1 is different, so you know the parent probably pronounced B like 2, 3, and 4. Do that enough, comparing enough languages, and you can get a really good idea.\n\nThen you compare it to the evolution of words the same way, where several languages use the same word for the same thing (even if they pronounce it differently), you can guess that the parent language also had that word. Combine that with your pronunciation guide you built from comparing the languages' sounds, and you can get a very good idea of what the vocabulary was like.\n\nYou can also compare it to loan words written out in different languages. So when the Romans interacted with the Greeks, maybe the Greeks borrowed a Latin word and wrote it down in Greek. If you know how Greek was pronounced, you can sound it out according to those letters, and then do some tweaking to fit what you know about how Latin was pronounced. Here's a great example: if I tell you that the English word \"[bistro](_URL_0_)\" is a loan word from Russian (by way of Italian), I can then give you the Russian version, \"бистро\" and you can work out what sounds those Russian characters make. I can give you a few more, like \"vodka\" (водка) and \"pogrom\" (погром). I can then give you a Russian word like \"Спасибо\" and you can dissect the letters from the earlier examples to figure out how to pronounce the word you don't know. See if you can figure it out first, but the answer is: \"Spah-see-boh\" (which I would put in spoiler tags if I knew how).\n\nSome languages make it *extremely difficult*, though. Ancient Hebrew, for example, didn't bother with writing down the vowels. It was assumed that anyone reading it would know from context what the word was. Fr xmpl, f y tr hrd ngh y cn prbbl rd ths sntnc. We can *guess* what it sounded like based on modern Hebrew, buuuut the reality is that we don't know. At the end of the day, that's what it is: guessing. Intelligent, informed guessing, of course! But guessing nonetheless. For very ancient languages like the Sumerian written on the Kushim tablet, linguists are making a lot of assumptions, and they're probably wrong in a few places. Unfortunately, we'll never know, but it's still very useful to try to get as close as we can.\n\nEDIT: You should assign some flair!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://img.property-krakow.com/photos/3/34feee44fe7f65e01584d507044fc08d.jpg"
]
] |
||
ecxh2a | what are the effects of weightlessness, as when in space, on the human body? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ecxh2a/eli5_what_are_the_effects_of_weightlessness_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"fbectce"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I’m no expert but I do know that for the first week or so you get really congested because your heart is still used to working against gravity to get blood to your head, so your head gets filled with lots of blood and other fluids until your body adapts"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
d3flpf | how are new types of universal technology like usb/usb-c created and who makes them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d3flpf/eli5_how_are_new_types_of_universal_technology/ | {
"a_id": [
"f02da7c",
"f02e8pk",
"f02goqi",
"f034q4i",
"f03fwbb",
"f03gf5c",
"f03i2q7",
"f03keey",
"f03lwhw",
"f03t9z2",
"f03xbo0",
"f04c4tz"
],
"score": [
4658,
62,
1010,
47,
15,
17,
6,
4,
3,
2,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Since 1996, the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) has been developing the USB standards. It's an industry group, where companies work together to improve the standardization of their products. New inventions are considered and discussed for inclusion in future versions of the standards.\n\nWiFi is handled by the IEEE-802.11 working group, and many other groups standardize other technologies.",
"USB connections were developed by several companies together. Check Wikipedia for the list. Looks like all the companies were related to PC platforms and had a common problem: Connecting peripheral devices.\n\nAs for their design process I don't know what they did, but it works good enough. Right?\n\nSometimes industrial standards just happen. Someone develops a great idea like the seatbelt and governments say everbody's got to have it. Some standards are created by organizations that literally create standards. Like ISO, ANSI, NEMA, UL, TUV, etc. If you pick up most electronics you will see a list of logos or acronyms of the standards that they meet on the label.",
"First, you'll start with a need. I manufacture computers, and hard disks. I need to get data from my computer to my external hard disk. I'll invent a way to do this, and call it \"FastCable\" because it uses cable, and moves data fast.\n\nMy competitors have the same problem, and invented their own solution called \"SpeedyCable\". Unfortunately for you the consumer, SpeedyCable and FastCable are only similar in functionality. The cables are different, the connectors are different, the protocols are different... everything is different. \n\nSome of y'all consumers start getting annoyed by this, as they want to buy my computer, but they have a couple hundred SpeedyDisk external hard drives, so they can't afford to switch. I'm out customers!\n\nTalking to my competitors at a convention, I learn that they are losing business to me the same way. Folks want to change, but can't due to the investment. This sucks for everyone! So my competitors and I decide to form a \"team\" to come up with a way to move data from BOTH brands of laptops to BOTH types of hard disks. I'll send a few engineers, the competition sends a few engineers, and some smart people from the Internet join the team too. \n\nA year into the project, the team releases UniCable. I've committed to no longer building FastCable devices, switching to UniCable. My competition has done the same. When you dig deep into the code, you learn that UniCable is really just updated/rewritten SpeedyCable, because theirs made for a better \"starting point.\"\n\n\n\nYou can take this same method and apply it to just about any industry standards.",
"In general, there is usually a consortium of companies or a standard setting organization that sees a need to have a standardized technology in a certain area. For example, 3GPP is a standard setting body in the mobile communications space and sets standards for LTE and features like speech codecs. Sometimes, a standard is created by a bunch of companies submitting ideas and contributions for combination. Other times, a stand setting body might run a competition of sorts to find the best technology, with the winner's submission being adopted as the standard.\n\nThe standard setting bodies protect against monopolies and unfair competition through FRAND obligations. I might win a competition for a new standardized music codec, but as part of that, I agree to license my technology to the market on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.",
"MP3 was made by the Fraunhofer institution. It's a research facility in germany funded by the gouvernement. Source: I work there :D\nI guess most countries have such research facilities/companies.",
"Standards bodies which are generally just self-organized forums run by what is intended to be a representative democracy for the industry. Companies want to work together and not duplicate effort, and cross-compatibility is seen as a benefit to consumers, so they make their R & D a community effort.\n\nLet's look at how it normally would play out. So let's say you have USB Micro B (the previous major port standard). Lots of companies need USB ports on their devices so they have thoughts about how it should behave and what can be done with it. Over time, they come up with ideas and improvements on the existing tech.\n\nFor example, some company (or group of companies) sat down and tackled the directionality problem with micro b. They came up with a new design that made it so you could plug it in either way. They take this new design back to the standards body, and then other companies in the community weigh in. We want this small tweak for our own purposes, says one company. Another company says this feature you added here makes it tough for us to do what we're doing with it, so can we abandon it or find a compromise.\n\nSo there's some back and forth, and then eventually they agree on a common approach. They each (or the representatives) go out and implement the concept, and if it works out for everybody, they publish the standard.\n\nThere are other ways standards happen. A company might come up with a design that they couldn't get everybody else to agree on, so they just spin it off as their own proprietary variant. Then if others follow suit, it gains traction, eventually it may become a standard that way.",
"I know a patent attorney who works for Nokia, they have teams of researchers trying to invent new platform technologies like Bluetooth, in the hopes that it becomes industry-standard and everyone has to licence it from them.",
"“Standards bodies” make these, and typically it’s a group of all the major manufacturers in an industry who recognize they gain more by doing some things the same way than by inventing their own standards for how to do things.\n\nThey typically just send a few people from each company to meet at regular intervals, discuss the goals for the project, and discuss the topic until everyone agrees on a proposal.\n\nWhen it works it solves a lot of problems. Typically it’s just in everyone’s best interest to standardize. Not only does it bring down costs (third-parties can manufacture things in bulk), but it reduces problems for everyone.\n\nOne example is the problems with some usb-c chargers breaking the Nintendo switch. If everyone builds their stuff to work exactly the same way, no one has to deal with repairing broken things. But if some people make their chargers work just a bit differently, people end up paying somehow (either in customer support or warranty repairs).\n\nELI5: My classmates all agreed to turn out the lights, be quiet, and take a nap at noon, because if we didn’t all work together, no one would be able to take a nap.",
"Why do chargers for new phones with USB type C don't have 2 type C connectors? Instead of 1 old in the charger itself and 1 on the other end.",
"If Apple would have been the inventor of the usb it would most likely not be compatible with other usb’s without a special adapter.",
"Basically, this comic? :) [_URL_0_](_URL_1_)",
"I both love and hate USB-C. They were too liberal with the standard so the entire thing is just a mess.\n\n- USB-C should never be used for USB2.0 only. They should have made 3.0 the cutoff. It can be backward compatible with 2.0 but every USC-C cable should be capable of USB3 minimum. USB 3 is over 10 years old now. USB 2 is like 18 years old now. There is no reason anything should still be using USB2, just like there was no reason to use USB1.1 for anything once USB2.0 existed. Yet USB 2.0 won't die because the industry won't let it.\n\n- USB-C is capable of 'full power delivery' at like 87W/20v/5amp. But not every cable supports full PD. And there are no standardized lower tiers, it's just w/e the manufacturer decides to support.\n\n- [Alternate modes...](_URL_0_) what a confusing mess that is. Because it can't support all at once we get something like this.\n\n- There are no standardized and enforced labeling/symbols on the cables to differentiate. Right now I label them like USB3.1,FullPD,bidirectional (yup some USBC cables only work in one direction) just so I know what cable is which."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/927:\\_Standards",
"https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/927:_Standards"
],
[
"https://imgur.com/a/qrwrBXd"
]
] |
||
8fa1en | what is the defense for second amendment of usa's constitution in context of other countries' much lower gun shooting rate. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8fa1en/eli5_what_is_the_defense_for_second_amendment_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dy1tf82",
"dy1tkjb",
"dy1tqir"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Some Americans believe that having an armed populace is crucial to defending against tyranny. Imagine someone wanted to take over the country from inside, creating a dictatorship and removing citizens' freedom. This would be harder to do if the people have guns.",
"Often comparisons are made to other nations where gun ownership is extremely high also (often eastern european), highlighting how their gun violence rates are extremely low. Thus suggesting that the gun violence crisis in america is not caused by the rate of gun ownership. ",
"The main argument is that criminals don't follow laws- so passing tougher gun laws is not going to deter people who never followed the law in the first place and accessed guns illegally, it would only hurt the people trying to buy guns legally for self defense. Some people, especially those living in rural areas with limited access to emergency services (some people live hours away from the closest police station) feel they should have the right to defend themselves if they're confronted by a criminal with a gun. \n\nMany perpetrators of mass shootings obtained their guns legally. So do we change our laws to reflect those of other countries with stricter gun laws? We could, but there are 310 million guns in the US. We can't turn back the hands of time, the guns are here. Other countries simply don't have the fanatic intense gun culture that America has. So if we suddenly made guns illegal for citizen use, what would happen? All the guns in the US won't just disappear, and people won't voluntarily give them away, especially those who obtained them illegally in the first place.\n \nGun violence in the US is a really troubling and complicated problem because we're having to grapple with our founders' initial intentions and the needs of the modern state. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2hes5v | why does it feel so nice to sleep when it's raining | Title | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hes5v/eli5_why_does_it_feel_so_nice_to_sleep_when_its/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckrzs3q",
"ckrzsu0",
"cks09y7",
"cks0bpd",
"cks0ltg",
"cks1z4r",
"cks2ywd"
],
"score": [
3,
28,
4,
7,
6,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Some people find the sound of pattering of rain on the windows calming.",
"Several reasons. Plus a bonus to play in the background while reading my post: _URL_0_\n\nAt least in summer, usually when it's raining there's more dampness and coolness in the air, and that makes for a more comfortable sleeping experience, much like surf at a sea or lake shore.\n\nThe rain itself generates a very soothing white noise which can help us sleep as well. The pitter-patter and quiet rustling sound of gently falling raindrops hitting the surfaces around us is very relaxing to us. \n\nAnd it gives us an excuse to nap. I can't go outside and do stuff without getting all wet, so I'll stay here and snooze. Yeah... that sounds great. I think I'll just close my eyes and not worry ab-zzzzzzzzzzzzz......",
"Some good answers here. I myself always feel a subtle sentiment like primal pride or something at having conquered the rain's natural ability to wreak havoc. I can rest while my enemy screams at the gates.",
"Because you know outside it's cold and wet and you are there, all cozy and warm and dry.\n\nBecause the rain's noise is very effective in covering other noises that would disturb you. And when I say \"very effective\" I mean it's very similar to white noise (see _URL_0_ and hear the sample in there) that is actually \"random\" noise, therefore very effective in canceling other noises",
"Also, there's generally less light coming in through the windows. Darkness makes us sleepy.",
"First, it's a white noise which many people find comforting because it's a noise that you can focus on to clear your mind.\n\nSecondly, the thought that you're inside, dry, safe and warm from the elements is very comforting and being comfortable allows for easy sleep.",
"Evolutionarily speaking it would make sense for our instincts to compel us to seek warmth and shelter if it's bad weather outside. So the nice feeling of relaxation is almost a reward or incentive to avoid potentially harmful weather conditions. Also wanting to relax and sleep is an efficient use of energy - you might not be successful in hunting and gathering while there's a typhoon outside so the body slows everything down to conserve the energy for when it's nicer out there. Wait, isn't that hibernation?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.rainymood.com/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
27d1xh | how do i "see" my thoughts? | I've always wondered this because for us to see things, we need our eyes. But if that's the case, how can we "see" thoughts of places, people, etc.? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27d1xh/eli5_how_do_i_see_my_thoughts/ | {
"a_id": [
"chzn5iv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Mental images come from the brain's visuospatial sketchpad, which is itself a part of working memory. You're not literally seeing the imagined image, but you are recalling it from memory.\n\nHere's some interesting reading:\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe funny thing is, it doesn't use the visual centers of the brain, so....there's that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9184484",
"http://www.simplypsychology.org/working%20memory.html",
"http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Visuospatial_sketchpad"
]
] |
|
40ot31 | why won't opec reduce their output and solve this whole crisis? | Uh, yeah, exactly as the title says... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40ot31/eli5_why_wont_opec_reduce_their_output_and_solve/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyvvra8",
"cyvvuz1"
],
"score": [
2,
12
],
"text": [
"They'd end up giving up their total peace of the pie if they did. Plus currently they're putting small producers out of business therefore increasing their share at the same time. ",
"The two theories that I believe have some truth to them are as follows:\n\nTheory 1: Saudis want to keep the oil price low to destroy the US fracing industry. The problem with this theory is the technology and know-how do not go away because a company folds.\n\nTheory 2: Saudis believe that oil has about 20 years left before technology all but advances it out of most uses. So they are going to pump as much out of the ground and get as much money from it as they can, because they cannot transition like Dubai into a tourist economy due to hard liners within the country. \n\nI am just an operator at a Maritime Oil Company, but I deal and talk with traders on a daily basis."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
58j0r5 | how do people get addicted to things like sex, eating and shopping? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58j0r5/eli5_how_do_people_get_addicted_to_things_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"d90v8oo",
"d9146i2",
"d914smo"
],
"score": [
26,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Any plesant stimulation can become an addiction.\n\nThere are (vaguely) two types of addiction that overlap strongly. \n\nThere's \"chemical dependency\", where you put things into your body and your body decides that it _must_ _have_ that something to function correctly.\n\nThere is also \"psychological dependency\" where you come to _believe_ that you must have something in order to \"feel right\".\n\nThese two overlap strongly because \"feeling\" is ultimately a biochemical process. Good things happen and your body excretes chemical signals in response. Bad things happen and your body excretes different chemicals in response. And you become addicted to chemicals, both internally and externally produced, because of what those chemicals do to your brain.\n\nSo, for example, the \"Adrenaline Junkie\" becomes addicted to the feeling they get from taking risks. The first chemical is the adrenaline, experienced from that first big risk like jumping a bike or falling out of a tree, or facing down a bully. But soon you get used to whatever you were doing. It looses it's \"edge\" so you have to jump from higher and stand up to bulls instead of bullies.\n\nWell sex, eating, and shopping all have positive sensations and resultant feelings. Spending money you don't have is a risk. Spending more money than anybody you know is a high from the success of doing the thing.\n\nSo literally doing anything that makes you \"feel better\" can become an addiction. It doesn't matter if you are \"feeling better than your normal crappy existence\" or if you are \"feeling better than your normally happy state.\" It just has to be \"better\".\n\nIndeed rich people may get the shopping addiction worse than a poor person because they are otherwise content.\n\nNow we _all_ do this all the time. It's not really something we should look down on. One of the things I say is \"I've got a terrible oxygen habit, I can barely go five seconds without taking a hit!\".\n\nThat overstates it a little, but only by a very little indeed. Anybody who drinks coffee or beer had to _convince_ _themselves_ that such bitter and gross tasting stuff \"tastes good\" when we all know that it tasted like crap till they got used to it. Nobody loved their first sip of coffee or beer. And yet, there it all is.\n\nWhat makes something an addiction in the classical sense is the moment it becomes \"a problem\". When you start shorting other parts of your life to engage in the behavior or substance of choice, it's gone from a desire or predilection into addiction.\n\nAddiction, in general, is the moment when you switch from \"this makes me feel better\" to \"I feel worse if I don't do this.\" It's a subtle turning point, but very real.\n\nAsk a heroin addict and they'll tell you that they don't really enjoy the high any more, they _must_ use in order to feel normal.\n\nTheir body has adapted to the \"good thing\" by turning down the sensitivity to good things in general because they were getting \"too much of a good thing\" so their body changed.\n\nSo shopping is fun. But when you find nothing is fun any more because you had so much fun that your body decided that had to be the new average... you've become addicted. Now when you don't shop, and haven't shopped recently, you feel worse than normal ever felt.\n\nThe optional high has become mandatory, the one-off has become every-day. The thing has stopped being the special thing and become the normal thing, so now not doing it is abnormal and sub-normal.\n\nAnd you crave the thing to reattain normal.\n\nIt doesn't matter what the noun or verb is. It wasn't there, then you added it, then it became normal, then it became _necessary_... and you are now an addict.\n",
"You do things that make you feel good.\nChemically your brain has a trigger for these actions, and certain actions are also supported/purported socially as well as internally. \nI.E. bang lots of ladies and brag about it, now you're alpha male! \nI.E. buy new line of hot fashions and now you're trendy and envied! \nI.E. eat food, feel full and satisfied. yeah you get fat but the ads will get you to associate eating with happiness. wont get into that. \n\nFrom there you need a certain something extra, let's call it a lack of discipline or previous experience. You seek the pleasure you always got even when-and-if it isn't as good as it used to be. You make sacrifices, procrastinate on responsibilities and exhibit antisocial tendencies that are unrelated or opposed to your happiness trigger.\nSometimes this decends into a depression cycle, we've all likely seen some examples with this and overeating. \n\nToo much of anything can make you an addict, that's what I say. If you force yourself to earn your joys by spacing them out not only will you appreciate them so much more but you'll find yourself a well rounded person almost by accident.",
"You can get addicted to just about anything. However, if that addiction isn't harmful, society isn't going to care that you're constantly doing it, and it will go ignored."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
dlelr7 | there are a lot of oil fields around the world but why are oil fields in the arabic countries considered the best? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dlelr7/eli5_there_are_a_lot_of_oil_fields_around_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4pi37d",
"f4pij8f",
"f4pt28r"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"There is actually different qualities of crude oil based on sulur content and such but the Arabic oil fields are not considered the highest quality. However they are the biggest. This is because in the carboniserous period when most oil, gas and coal fields formed the area which is now Arabia was a giant gulf where most of the worlds sediments settled. This created lots of massive oil fields in the area that is unmatched anywhere else in the world. Earlier sandstone formations do not contain as much oil as there were not much life around then and later formations also contains less oil as there were lots of bacteria and carnivores recycling the carbon of the dead animals.",
"They are not the \"best\" but they are the most easily accessible, with huge amounts of oil that can be reached on land as opposed to deep-sea drilling.\n\nConsidered tbe most practical would be a better description.",
"The crude oil from Saudi Arabia is fairly low quality for refining purposes. But it’s very, very close to the surface and costs around $6.00 to pull out a barrel of crude oil. US oil costs around $25 a barrel to get to the surface and while North Sea oil is very high quality, it’s $40 a barrel to pull out the ground\n\nSo, Saudi oil is low cost , not the best"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2nwlko | why is sitting for hours during a road trip so uncomfortable, but sitting at my home or even work for the same time period isn't noticeably uncomfortable? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nwlko/eli5_why_is_sitting_for_hours_during_a_road_trip/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmhl2h4",
"cmhl7j2",
"cmhptbf",
"cmhqy5r",
"cmhqywo",
"cmhs4x3",
"cmht34m",
"cmi33aq"
],
"score": [
85,
18,
5,
10,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You don't have anything to distract you during the road trip and must actively look ahead at all times while maintaining appropriate pressure on the gas. \n\nWhen you are sitting at home or at work, you don't need to focus dead-ahead and can probably distract yourself with various things, including Reddit. In most situations you can even get up and walk around if you wanted to. \n\nYou obviously shouldn't do anything of these things while driving a car. ",
"I'm going to take a stab at this and say whatever you happen to be sitting on at home is more comfortable than a car seat. The seat is also adjusted by the driver so they can control the pedals and the wheel. Also, you must have interrupted vision forward and into all the mirrors.\n\nI'd also guess you squirm or move around a bit when you sit at home for long periods of time. You're distracted doing whatever you're doing. When driving, you have to have absolute focus on the task at hand, which can be taxing on the entire body. For example, leaning up a bit in reduced visibility will wear your back and shoulders out rather quickly.",
"You can adjust your positioning (e.g. lean forward) and relax your upper body (shoulders mostly) and arms. \n\nIn a car you cannot do any of these things, so your muscles get uncomfortable/tired quicker.",
"There are quite a few reasons why and they vary from car to car.\n\n1. Noise. Tire noise, engine noise, wind noise, any other sound going at the time. It will wear you down with time.\n\n2. The seat. Most cars have awful seats with poor back support and you have to elevate your legs into an unnatural and uncomfortable position. This will wear you down with time.\n\n3. Movement. Everything from getting pushed around in the corners to getting bumped over every imperfection in the road. This will also wear you down over time.\n\nThis list is far from exhaustive, but I think it brings up the most important factors. Car trip exhaustion is probably the best reason for a non-car person to get a nice car. Nice cars reduce the noise, have better seats, and soften up the bumps for you so you will feel less stress on a long car trip.",
"Among other factors here, it also takes a tremendous amount of energy just to hold yourself upright when you make small corrections, or when you go around corners. \n\nEven keeping your eyes focused on something takes much more work than normal because **everything** is moving, so your eye muscles get tired as well. \n\nDriving or riding in a car is a very energy intensive thing to do compared to sitting on your sofa. ",
"I dunno, I kind of have the opposite thing happen to me. Being in a car all day doesnt kill my neck and knees like sitting at home all day does.",
"Get a car with good seats, like a Volvo or a SAAB. In one of those I can drive an entire day without getting tired or sore. Unfortunately, I don't own a car from either one of them at the moment.",
"If I remember correctly a large portion of it also has todo with eye fatigue. When you're in a car your brain has to take in a lot more information than when you're sitting down at home. You have to interpret the images coming in much faster as you're moving faster than you could without the car. While we don't actively recognize the strain the ride is taking on our eyes, by the end of a trip it has taken it's toll. We just aren't exactly built to be moving at the speeds we do in a car. Our brains simply aren't built to discern each and every tree in front of you as you're moving along a mile a minute. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2xiqjo | why is professional wrestling popular with audiences when it is pre-arranged, scripted 'acting'? | Impressive feats of strength admittedly, but the acting is lame at best with results pre-determined. Do some of the audience actually think it is real fighting? Or does it appeal to some visceral human instinct I lack? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xiqjo/eli5_why_is_professional_wrestling_popular_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp0fwhz",
"cp0fxwy",
"cp0ga0t",
"cp0getg"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes, some people think it is real. Some people know it is fake but are able to pretend it is real anyway. \n\nMost people like it because it's a soap opera.",
"When you go to the movies, you suspend disbelief in order to believe that Groot and Rocket are on a grande adventure.\n\nWhen folks watch Wrestling, they suspend disbelief in order to believe that those are superhuman wrestling champions.\n\nIt's entertainment of the beat-em-up-take-em-down type.",
"Suspension of disbelief. Most of our entertainments are \"fake\" in the sense that the events are depictions. Wrestling in particular allows people to vent their primal instincts like rage, violence and aggression in a manner which (usually) doesn't do anyone lasting harm.",
"I don't know what the actual % is, but I'm sure that the majority of wrestling fans are children who think that it's real, and then I'm sure that there's some teens & adults who must also think that it's real.\n\nI didn't realize, and fully accept, that wrestling was fake until I was maybe 11 or 12 years old when I first saw UFC on VHS tapes at my local video store and started training in martial arts. Then I still casually watched it for a number of years afterwards because I grew up in the WWF (that's right, WW**F**) Attitude Era and also when ECW was the indie ultra-violent powerhouse, and WCW was also there I guess.\n\nI would watch wrestling back then because you had wrestler in ECW who would set themselves on fire and jump through plates of glass & wrap themselves in barbed wire. Meanwhile one of the main WWF's wrestling clique had \"Suck it\", followed by a chopping motion to the thrusting pelvis, as the main selling point of their brand. You had characters that were part of Satanic cults that kidnapped Vince McMahon's daughter and some were apparently vampires and you had wrestler that were pretending to be literally insane and spoke to a sock, it was way over-the-top and hilarious and even they tried to amp up the violence. Matches like The Rock vs Mankind are legendary.\n\nUFC is great and all, but most of the time it ends up two guys hugging each other up against the cage for 3 rounds until they win by split decision. No one's going to backflip off the ceiling or bust through the mat and send their opponent flying into a casket.\n\nThat being said, I tried watching modern wrestling over the last decade and it is just so white and safe and bland and boring and none of the wrestlers have any real personality to them. It's almost gone back to the level unaware ridiculousness where you had literal clowns on stage literally fighting racist & xenophobic stereotypes. Even the level of violence and action has been toned down to what it was in the 80s if not even milder."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fiuy8x | how do medial professionals decide treatment for a comatose person w/o family? | Say someone (in the U.S.) without any family at all winds up at a hospital and goes comatose, needing to be on life support. Would they be on life support indefinitely or would anyone have the authority to ‘pull the plug’ so to speak? Sorry it’s kind of a dark question but these are the kinds of things keeping me up at night haha. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fiuy8x/eli5_how_do_medial_professionals_decide_treatment/ | {
"a_id": [
"fkjdopn",
"fkjldif",
"fkjps6z",
"fkjq999",
"fkjqb15",
"fkk77vi"
],
"score": [
164,
19,
12,
5,
10,
5
],
"text": [
"Hospitals have a medical ethics committee that would come in and make that decision. Pulling the plug, essentially removing the patient from a mechanical ventilator, is often seen as essentially allowing someone to pass away. Going a bit further, oftentimes it also means removal of life sustaining drugs for supporting adequate blood pressure and/or basic bodily functions (i.e., nutrition, electrolytes, blood products). I’ve seen patients die almost immediately, and I’ve seen patients linger for days once the ventilator is pulled. It’s always a weird situation for all bedside attendees, but the medical ethics committee essentially steps in when there is 0.00 quality or chance of life once care is removed.",
"There is something called Two Doc, which can force a consent if a patient is unable to consent and has no available family. Think stroke or major accident where the patient is not physically or cognitively able to give consent. The physicians must be acting in the best interest of the patient and go with standard or best practice treatment.",
"As a member of my facility’s ethics committee, I can say that we will perform an exhaustive search for family. After that of money are found, we look for someone who knows the person and would have their best interests at heart. If we can find absolutely nobody, then, at least in the stat of California, we as a committee are able to decide for the patient what a reasonably prudent person would decide in that situation, keeping in mind the ethical principles of beneficence and non-malefiscence which are to “do good” and to “do no harm”. In my experience of patients in a comatose condition in full life support, we will be consulted after about a week and a half in order to determine the goals of care and code status.",
"Curious also what happens if there’s no money to pay for care? Does the hospital foot the bill indefinitely?",
"In the UK the consultant in charge of the patient will make the decisions re care and can decide to stop treatment if they think it is in the patients best interest. \n\nIn fact we can over rule families if we think that the family are causing the patient harm and not acting in their interest although this very rarely happens.",
"In the UK, emergency decisions are a \"best interests decision\" and the medical professionals use their judgement. Once you are past the emergency phase, you then look to whether the patient has a legally appointed power of attorney or an advanced care plan.\n\nIf they do, you treat as per their instructions (within your own clinical judgement). If they don't, then depending on the decision and whether everyone is is agreement (doctors, next of kin etc) and how life changing the decision is, you may either offer treatment or seek the courts to appoint a best interests advocate. You can also seek advice from ethics committees, however they cannot make decisions for you, only tell you if certain actions are ethical. \n\nIn a worst case scenario, where the family disagrees with the legal advocate, doctors and best interests decision and you worry about legal repercussions you can seek a legal ruling from a judge who will say whether a proposed plan of treatment is legal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
14500s | what those black lines on the road are. | EDIT: Sorry about the confusion, I meant these black lines. _URL_0_
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14500s/eli5_what_those_black_lines_on_the_road_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"c79wukm",
"c79yhi8",
"c7a07ie",
"c7a0g5t"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Can you be more specific? Where do you normally see these black lines? How long are they? Are they in any sort of pattern?",
"[*These*](_URL_0_) black lines?",
"It's what's used to repair cracks on the road. The cracks could be from natural wear and tear of the road, or they're from installing [induction loops](_URL_0_), which sense the presence of a car.",
"Those look like the patching that is applied over old lines on the road when new ones are painted, to prevent confusion from two sets of lines. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tCiY3quJAto/TCUFOkykxoI/AAAAAAAACaA/S_c1sqSlRuI/s1600/dbl_dcokeroadkill250610a.jpg"
] | [
[],
[
"http://www.californiastreets.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/arroyo_seco_parkway_from_marmion_way.jpg?w=300"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_loop"
],
[]
] |
|
16t8uw | death by decompression/depressurization | more importantly: explosive decompression | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16t8uw/eli5_death_by_decompressiondepressurization/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7z4t77"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If you open a bottle of carbonated beverage, then you see bubble of gas \"magically\" appear. Those bubbles are gas which was dissolved under pressure in the liquid.\n\nThe same thing happens with the blood of divers: Under water the pressure rises with increasing depth, so gasses dissolve in the blood of the diver. If he resurfaces quickly (=rapid fall in pressure) then bubbles form which can damage the body and hinder the blood flow."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1m6hu5 | why does cigarette smell cling to your clothes when you smoke, but poop smell doesn't when you poop? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m6hu5/eli5_why_does_cigarette_smell_cling_to_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc67mpg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because smoke particles are very small. Try burning a turd in your closet."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
k902o | the major differences between german, italian, japanese, american, ... cars. | I've been shopping around for a car, and it seems like every car review I've read assumes some prior knowledge about them - understandable. Which means many reviews include something like, "handles like a German car with the something whatever of an Italian car." This means nothing to me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k902o/eli5_the_major_differences_between_german_italian/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2ie8vo",
"c2iefo6",
"c2igjce",
"c2ie8vo",
"c2iefo6",
"c2igjce"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
12,
2,
4,
12
],
"text": [
"I've wondered the same thing before. I'm 20 and male, and I frequently feel like I'm the only person that doesn't know what car brands mean what, and what a car being \"German\" means (other than it being manufactured in Germany).",
"What your encountering is the manufacturers reputation. Mercedes is know for it's high level of luxury, BMW for it's advanced engineering. Both are German manufacturers so when you combine the two you give the German's a very favorable view. Italian vehicles generally have a background in racing so the approach to designing and engineering a production vehicle relies heavily on what was learned at the track. (Ferrari, Maserati) American manufacturers have been around for almost a century and at peak were considered the finest in the world. The vehicles produced in the 80's were so bad that they actually destroyed decades of reputation. The Japanese and Korean manufacturers are riding a wave of reliability and high customer satisfaction moving them up on a buyers consideration list. ",
"German - Precise. Perfectly made. Engineered to perfection. Lots of computing power, not a lot of 'soul' behind the vehicle.\n_URL_0_\n\nItalian - Loud, racing inspired, fun, well crafted, lots of 'soul'. Very racing inspired, as in what is learned on the track, is put into the car. Not practical for every day life, but beautiful to look at and fun to drive.\n_URL_3_\n\nJapanese - Computerized, and bleeding edge. It's all about efficiency and reliability. Bent on being practical and a day-to-day car. High mpg, low fun. What every one probably should buy, but no one really wants. (totally not my opinion...)\n_URL_2_\n\nAmerican - Big, burly, loud, large. The only thing keeping the v8 alive these days. Engines that never seem to die, while un-reliable, they keep going. Big front ends, big engine, big straight line speed. Not much sophistication.\n_URL_1_\n\n\n",
"I've wondered the same thing before. I'm 20 and male, and I frequently feel like I'm the only person that doesn't know what car brands mean what, and what a car being \"German\" means (other than it being manufactured in Germany).",
"What your encountering is the manufacturers reputation. Mercedes is know for it's high level of luxury, BMW for it's advanced engineering. Both are German manufacturers so when you combine the two you give the German's a very favorable view. Italian vehicles generally have a background in racing so the approach to designing and engineering a production vehicle relies heavily on what was learned at the track. (Ferrari, Maserati) American manufacturers have been around for almost a century and at peak were considered the finest in the world. The vehicles produced in the 80's were so bad that they actually destroyed decades of reputation. The Japanese and Korean manufacturers are riding a wave of reliability and high customer satisfaction moving them up on a buyers consideration list. ",
"German - Precise. Perfectly made. Engineered to perfection. Lots of computing power, not a lot of 'soul' behind the vehicle.\n_URL_0_\n\nItalian - Loud, racing inspired, fun, well crafted, lots of 'soul'. Very racing inspired, as in what is learned on the track, is put into the car. Not practical for every day life, but beautiful to look at and fun to drive.\n_URL_3_\n\nJapanese - Computerized, and bleeding edge. It's all about efficiency and reliability. Bent on being practical and a day-to-day car. High mpg, low fun. What every one probably should buy, but no one really wants. (totally not my opinion...)\n_URL_2_\n\nAmerican - Big, burly, loud, large. The only thing keeping the v8 alive these days. Engines that never seem to die, while un-reliable, they keep going. Big front ends, big engine, big straight line speed. Not much sophistication.\n_URL_1_\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z08jcWoM7ak",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZseBpPufLI",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biv09yyM7tQ",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8xDia5RNY"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z08jcWoM7ak",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZseBpPufLI",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biv09yyM7tQ",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8xDia5RNY"
]
] |
|
46cj5q | why hasn't the middle-east grown in the same direction and the same speed as europe and north-america? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46cj5q/eli5_why_hasnt_the_middleeast_grown_in_the_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"d041bum"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well, the Ottoman Empire collapsed at the end of World War I, which was right at the start of the technological advancement. Following the war, the area was divided up among allied nations that administered them differently. During that time, some areas were ethnically mixed and basically were artificial nations that didn't have an identity on their own. \n\nWhen the countries became independent, dictators seized power in many of them and used brutal tactics to gain loyalty. In doing so, they created nations that were dependent on them and didn't have a natural middle class.\n\nAlso, Islam has different ways to do things that often run counter to Western ideas. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7vkvwj | how does money lose its value/worth over time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vkvwj/eli5_how_does_money_lose_its_valueworth_over_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtt43py"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That's singularly due to the Federal Reserve whose actually destroyed [98%](_URL_0_) of the value of the currency. When the supply of a product goes up, the price of the product will go down. If you and I both have a piece of candy and then all of the sudden someone prints 5,000,000 more pieces of candy, the two pieces of candy that you and I originally had aren't as valuable because now, there's a lot more candy. This general idea (supply and demand) applies to money as well. We're used to thinking about supply and demand on a Price-Quantity set of axises because the value of a good is determined by individuals' subjective evaluation of that good in terms of a monetary unit. However, money isn't valued subjectively in terms of money. Money is valued based on the amount of stuff you can buy with it i.e. a money is valued because of its purchasing power. We can apply the same supply and demand principles to the monetary unit by using a Purchasing Power of Money-Quantity set of axises (picture at the bottom). I'll also post a link to a free book at the bottom if you're interested in learning more. The decline in the purchasing power of money is exclusively due to the Federal Reserve arbitrarily creating new currency units\n\n\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2010/nov/24/virginia-tea-party-patriots/virginia-tea-party-says-dollar-has-lost-98-percent/",
"https://mises.org/system/tdf/Mystery%20of%20Banking_2.pdf?file=1&type=document",
"https://imgur.com/a/SjUQM"
]
] |
||
1xkry3 | why aren't woman downhill skiers as fast as men? | Why aren't woman downhill skiers as fast or faster than men? I would think they'd go faster because they are smaller but the men more than double their speeds going downhill. Is there more to going downhill than just sliding down it really fast? Does it require a lot of strength? I don't know a lot about downhill skiing either (obviously)
Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xkry3/eli5_why_arent_woman_downhill_skiers_as_fast_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfc8rni"
],
"score": [
28
],
"text": [
"If you watch at the beginning of a run, you'll see that the skier always skates a bit out of the gate. A few really aggressive pushes against the snow to get up to speed. That speed will be faster if the racer is stronger, which is typically true of men as compared to women. A huge amount of time can be cut off a run simply by having a quick start. Furthermore when you are going 30-40 mph around a turn it takes a lot of strength to push back against the centripetal force, so a racer can maintain a higher speed if they are stronger. Being heavier helps men maintain higher speeds as well. When you watch the racers make turns you will see that in order to take the tightest line around a turn, a racer will often run into the gates. If the racer is heavier they will have more momentum and therefore hitting these gates will slow them down less."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
kyki2 | the politics in the star wars prequels | Just what the bloody hell are they talking about? The republic, the senate, the council, trade federation etc what the hell is going on exactly? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kyki2/eli5_the_politics_in_the_star_wars_prequels/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2obokk",
"c2ocbqg",
"c2ocfuk",
"c2ock2i",
"c2ocvwc",
"c2obokk",
"c2ocbqg",
"c2ocfuk",
"c2ock2i",
"c2ocvwc"
],
"score": [
3,
19,
4,
376,
4,
3,
19,
4,
376,
4
],
"text": [
"The true answer is that no one knows. However feel free to watch the [Plinkett reviews](_URL_0_) which I found more entertaining than the movies themselves. He will explain many of the inconsistency that will keep you confused while watching!",
"Naboo is a planet with valuable resources, and the Trade Federation want a piece of that. The Trade Federation are kind of like the mafia, and they say \"You'll join us or things might not get so safe for you.\" Naboo refused to join them, so things got not-very-safe. The Queen of Naboo- who is politically elected, rather than part of a royal family- Amidala fled from the planet with the help of the Jedi Qui-Gon Jin and Obi-Wan Kenobi so she could make a plea to the galactic senate. The problem with the galactic senate is that the galaxy is so incredibly large that they can never really get anything done- Naboo desperately needs help, but the voting process could take months.\n\nSenator Palpatine inspires a vote of no confidence to suggest that the current speaker for the house was corrupt, and that it was his fault everything was so slow. Palpatine is popular, so he gets through and becomes the leader. As things keep getting worse and worse politically, Palpatine eventually insists to the Senate that voting on everything is altogether too slow, and it would be better for the galaxy to become an empire because an Emperor can make choices far faster than a Senate.\n\nAll along, the Jedi Council tries and fails to have relevance. Many people on the Senate do not trust the Jedi, and possibly for good reason- the Force requires balance, both good and evil. So many years the Jedi were in power, it became unbalanced towards good, and they lost much of their strength. Jedi were once very important to the Senate because their precognitive powers allowed them to address problems before they occurred. The Jedi largely lost this ability because of the imbalance, which led to them not being able to predict accurately, which made the Senate think the who Jedi order was a big fraud.\n\nThat's the short of it. It's not terribly hard to understand, contrary to Plinkett's humorous but critically bankrupt reviews.",
"To simplify a lot:\n\nThe prequel trilogy shows the transition of the government of the galaxy from republic to empire, all thanks to Palpatine/Darth Sidious. The republic is initially governed by a senate, and Palpatine is just one senator. \n\nBut he wants more and he has a plan. As Darth Sidious, he's manipulating the Trade Federation (those guys with the army of idiotic robots) so that they threaten peace and order in the republic. This scares the senate and pushes them to elect Palpatine supreme chancelor, and give him more and more special powers, supposedly as a temporary measure to resolve the crisis. He'll never give these powers back, and will instead turn the republic into an empire.\n\nIn short Palpatine created a disturbance with the Trade Federation, then crushed that disturbance in the name of the republic, whose senate granted him extra powers that will eventually make him emperor.\n\nThat's the crux of it. Politically, everything else is accessory to that.\n\nFor example the council (I suppose you mean the Jedi high council) felt it coming but failed to prevent anything. As defenders of the republic, they were in Palpatine's way to power, so he destroyed the Jedi order.\n",
"*My moment to SHINE*\n\nEpisode 1:\n\nWe're dropped in on the scene where there are two main parties, the Trade Federation and the Republic, are at odds over taxation of trade routes. The Federation was a very prosperous guild of systems WITHIN the Republic, and because the Republic itself was strained, decided to tax the trade routes in order to put a check on the Federation from getting too powerful along with gaining money.\n\nThe Trade Federation felt insulted, so under the aid of Darth Sidious, orchestrated a blockade on Naboo in a gesture of revenge.\n\nSidious (Senator Palpatine of Naboo) knew that the attack on Naboo would not be swiftly dealt with in the Senate of the Republic because of red tape crisscrossing every which way. Because of the time-consuming process, Sidious/Palpatine persuades Queen Amidala(gal with crazy outfits) to start a vote to remove the head of the Senate, the Chancellor, and replace him with someone that can get things done. Because of the pity vote for the blockade of Naboo, Sidious/Palpatine is elected to become the new Chancellor for the Senate.\n\nEpisode 2:\n\nBecause of the heavy taxation, a separatist movement starts to form, conveniently called the Separatist Movement, where many guilds, such as the Banking Clan, the Trade Federation, and the Techno Union, seceded from the Republic and came together to form the \"Confederacy of Independent Systems\" (CIS)\n\nThere was a lot of tension between the two that spilled out into war during the Battle of Geonosis (where all the Jedi descended on the stadium with the insect-like creatures)\n\nEpisode 3:\n\nIn times of war, the general trend for any nation/state is to create a strong centralized government, and the Republic is no exception. Sidious/Chancellor Palapatine gets more and more \"emergency powers\" where he can basically do whatever the damn well he pleases, and this has the Jedi concerned. The Jedi Order of the Republic, organized to be the protectors of the Republic and Senate, become distrustful of this one figurehead who is slowly becoming a dictator. The Jedi Council, which is a group of master Jedi that serve as the head of the Order, send in one of their own (Anakin) to \"keep watch\" over the Chancellor.\n\nDuring the final days of the war with the Republic winning, the Jedi uncover that Darth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine was the mastermind of everything AND was an evil little Sith, Mace Windu (the badass black man with the purple lightsaber) and two other Jedi confront him to arrest him, but fail.\n\nDarth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine, after successfully killing off the 3 jedi with help from Anakin, goes in front of the Senate. He says there that the Jedi, an integral part of the Republic's government, had betrayed it, therefore ordering a reshuffle of government. Just like that, Chancellor Palpatine becomes Emperor Palpatine and orders the death of all Jedi.",
"I know this isn't a direct answer to your question but I would **highly** recommend watching the [Star Wars Ep I review by Plinkett ](_URL_0_) from Redletter Media. The review is long, but hilariously awesome. \n\nIt explains the story, or lack there of, and all of the horrible directing decisions made by Lucas. Sure the story sort of makes sense, but when compared to the original trilogy, he changes the very nature of how the characters should behave which steers the series in the complete wrong direction. Lucas failed on some of the most basic directing 101 stuff which is a large part of why the prequels are pieces of shit.",
"The true answer is that no one knows. However feel free to watch the [Plinkett reviews](_URL_0_) which I found more entertaining than the movies themselves. He will explain many of the inconsistency that will keep you confused while watching!",
"Naboo is a planet with valuable resources, and the Trade Federation want a piece of that. The Trade Federation are kind of like the mafia, and they say \"You'll join us or things might not get so safe for you.\" Naboo refused to join them, so things got not-very-safe. The Queen of Naboo- who is politically elected, rather than part of a royal family- Amidala fled from the planet with the help of the Jedi Qui-Gon Jin and Obi-Wan Kenobi so she could make a plea to the galactic senate. The problem with the galactic senate is that the galaxy is so incredibly large that they can never really get anything done- Naboo desperately needs help, but the voting process could take months.\n\nSenator Palpatine inspires a vote of no confidence to suggest that the current speaker for the house was corrupt, and that it was his fault everything was so slow. Palpatine is popular, so he gets through and becomes the leader. As things keep getting worse and worse politically, Palpatine eventually insists to the Senate that voting on everything is altogether too slow, and it would be better for the galaxy to become an empire because an Emperor can make choices far faster than a Senate.\n\nAll along, the Jedi Council tries and fails to have relevance. Many people on the Senate do not trust the Jedi, and possibly for good reason- the Force requires balance, both good and evil. So many years the Jedi were in power, it became unbalanced towards good, and they lost much of their strength. Jedi were once very important to the Senate because their precognitive powers allowed them to address problems before they occurred. The Jedi largely lost this ability because of the imbalance, which led to them not being able to predict accurately, which made the Senate think the who Jedi order was a big fraud.\n\nThat's the short of it. It's not terribly hard to understand, contrary to Plinkett's humorous but critically bankrupt reviews.",
"To simplify a lot:\n\nThe prequel trilogy shows the transition of the government of the galaxy from republic to empire, all thanks to Palpatine/Darth Sidious. The republic is initially governed by a senate, and Palpatine is just one senator. \n\nBut he wants more and he has a plan. As Darth Sidious, he's manipulating the Trade Federation (those guys with the army of idiotic robots) so that they threaten peace and order in the republic. This scares the senate and pushes them to elect Palpatine supreme chancelor, and give him more and more special powers, supposedly as a temporary measure to resolve the crisis. He'll never give these powers back, and will instead turn the republic into an empire.\n\nIn short Palpatine created a disturbance with the Trade Federation, then crushed that disturbance in the name of the republic, whose senate granted him extra powers that will eventually make him emperor.\n\nThat's the crux of it. Politically, everything else is accessory to that.\n\nFor example the council (I suppose you mean the Jedi high council) felt it coming but failed to prevent anything. As defenders of the republic, they were in Palpatine's way to power, so he destroyed the Jedi order.\n",
"*My moment to SHINE*\n\nEpisode 1:\n\nWe're dropped in on the scene where there are two main parties, the Trade Federation and the Republic, are at odds over taxation of trade routes. The Federation was a very prosperous guild of systems WITHIN the Republic, and because the Republic itself was strained, decided to tax the trade routes in order to put a check on the Federation from getting too powerful along with gaining money.\n\nThe Trade Federation felt insulted, so under the aid of Darth Sidious, orchestrated a blockade on Naboo in a gesture of revenge.\n\nSidious (Senator Palpatine of Naboo) knew that the attack on Naboo would not be swiftly dealt with in the Senate of the Republic because of red tape crisscrossing every which way. Because of the time-consuming process, Sidious/Palpatine persuades Queen Amidala(gal with crazy outfits) to start a vote to remove the head of the Senate, the Chancellor, and replace him with someone that can get things done. Because of the pity vote for the blockade of Naboo, Sidious/Palpatine is elected to become the new Chancellor for the Senate.\n\nEpisode 2:\n\nBecause of the heavy taxation, a separatist movement starts to form, conveniently called the Separatist Movement, where many guilds, such as the Banking Clan, the Trade Federation, and the Techno Union, seceded from the Republic and came together to form the \"Confederacy of Independent Systems\" (CIS)\n\nThere was a lot of tension between the two that spilled out into war during the Battle of Geonosis (where all the Jedi descended on the stadium with the insect-like creatures)\n\nEpisode 3:\n\nIn times of war, the general trend for any nation/state is to create a strong centralized government, and the Republic is no exception. Sidious/Chancellor Palapatine gets more and more \"emergency powers\" where he can basically do whatever the damn well he pleases, and this has the Jedi concerned. The Jedi Order of the Republic, organized to be the protectors of the Republic and Senate, become distrustful of this one figurehead who is slowly becoming a dictator. The Jedi Council, which is a group of master Jedi that serve as the head of the Order, send in one of their own (Anakin) to \"keep watch\" over the Chancellor.\n\nDuring the final days of the war with the Republic winning, the Jedi uncover that Darth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine was the mastermind of everything AND was an evil little Sith, Mace Windu (the badass black man with the purple lightsaber) and two other Jedi confront him to arrest him, but fail.\n\nDarth Sidious/Chancellor Palpatine, after successfully killing off the 3 jedi with help from Anakin, goes in front of the Senate. He says there that the Jedi, an integral part of the Republic's government, had betrayed it, therefore ordering a reshuffle of government. Just like that, Chancellor Palpatine becomes Emperor Palpatine and orders the death of all Jedi.",
"I know this isn't a direct answer to your question but I would **highly** recommend watching the [Star Wars Ep I review by Plinkett ](_URL_0_) from Redletter Media. The review is long, but hilariously awesome. \n\nIt explains the story, or lack there of, and all of the horrible directing decisions made by Lucas. Sure the story sort of makes sense, but when compared to the original trilogy, he changes the very nature of how the characters should behave which steers the series in the complete wrong direction. Lucas failed on some of the most basic directing 101 stuff which is a large part of why the prequels are pieces of shit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/"
],
[
"http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/"
]
] |
|
4jhtrx | what caused humans to outsmart other primates? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jhtrx/eli5_what_caused_humans_to_outsmart_other_primates/ | {
"a_id": [
"d36oufs",
"d36s1u6",
"d36u7gl"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Well, humans developed symbolic thought- or the ability to attach meaning to symbols (sounds, gestures, pictures) and communicate complex ideas using those symbols. They used this to develop language, and with language they could speak of the future, and of the past, allowing them to learn from each others mistakes instead of just their own. They could also pass on information directly, allowing one person to discover that, say, those mushrooms over there are poisonous, and then save everyone else from the same mistake. \n\nAdditionally, language allows highly refined degrees of organization and strategy, allowing these humans to out-think and out-organize any enemy they happened to meet. \n\nFinally, transcending the needs of the present and being able to conceptualize the future, humans were able to develop tools they might need, as well as to see the possible ways they might use a stick or rock, even if that use was not in their immediate environment. And so invention began, giving humans an ever-increasing storehouse of tools. \n\nOne of the most powerful advantages we have is that our knowledge and experience do not die at our death. We can teach our children our own tricks, teach them how to build tools and make fire, etc. And then they can spend their lives making further improvements on those ideas without devoting the time it took to come up with them to begin with. ",
"Human brain evolution's a very long and complicated story. I assume your asking for the hypotheses behind brain expansion (encephalisation) in hominins?\n\nSo the *cooking hypothesis* suggests that the controlled use of fire to cook food (likely from *Homo erectus*) acted as a form of 'pre-digestion'. This made foods in essence \"higher quality\" as they required less energy to digest and contained more calories per gram. Now, brains are very metabolically expensive to maintain, and so encephalisation likely involved some form of energetic trade-off with other expensive systems, like the digestive system (*the expensive tissue hypothesis*). So cooking foods, likely enabled a reduction in the gut, releasing constraints on brain size, whilst still satisfying these metabolic demands. Following (or preceding) this transition to a more easily digestible diet was a mutation in the myosin gene that reduced the jaw, and therefore loads on the cranium during chewing, which allowed brain size to increase. \n\nSo that partly explains how constraints on brain size were relaxed, but there must also be selective pressures that favoured increased brain size. The *social brain hypothesis* suggests that as social groups increased in size, we needed larger brains to process a greater number and complexity of social relationships. The *cognitive buffer hypothesis* suggests that having a larger brain facilitates the formation of novel behaviours in response to environmental problems, so as hominins evolved in settings of increasing environmental variability, there would be a significant evolutionary advantage in being able to *buffer* these changes behaviourally. \n\nIndeed, in primates, smaller digestive systems/higher quality diets correlate with increased brain size. Social group size correlates with brain size. And, primates that live in more unpredictable settings tend to have larger brains.\n\nThat's only a *very* brief summary but I hope it explains it somewhat. ",
"The true answer is that we don't know. There are many theories but in my opinion the best one is that it's our migratory nature. We were able to move around which changed our circumstances. So like moving into the north we moved far more into fishing and agriculture. \n\nThe more northern living conditions resulting in adaptations as well as mutations is what changed circumstances and resulted in greater communication and this is what results in humans being 'smarter' but that's not necessarily doing physics smart. It brought the communities together to do things bigger and more organized. \n\nDivision of labour being what makes humans so dominant. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
agom6o | the gillette commercial controversy. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/agom6o/eli5_the_gillette_commercial_controversy/ | {
"a_id": [
"ee7rh15"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The real controversy should be that people still buy Gillette products even though they offer a poor quality shave at a ridiculously high price. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
55sd7d | please explain how cruise ships are able to stay upright and not tip over in high winds, when many other smaller boats experience great sway. | keeping center of gravity low is important to shipbuilding so how do these super cruise ships stay upright in high winds when they are 5+ stories tall above the water? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55sd7d/eli5please_explain_how_cruise_ships_are_able_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8d9ugn",
"d8d9vl2",
"d8dde42",
"d8de67a",
"d8deean",
"d8e5w8z",
"d8ecn15"
],
"score": [
26,
15,
13,
5,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Tons of weight concentrated in the lower portion. The upper decks consist of far more empty space than the lower ones. To tip the ship, wind would need to lift that weight upward, which would take an enormous amount of force. ",
"Well, they're big but also heavy, and the engines, fuel tanks, etc. are all down below - relative to their size, their center of gravity is probably much lower than a pleasure boat.\n\nHowever, big ferries/cruise ships also have stabilizers - large flat surfaces that can be extended under water to resist sideways motion from wind/waves.",
"Unless a boat has sails, it cannot capsize from wind alone. It can only capsize if it takes a breaking wave sideways whose height exceeds the beam (width) of the boat.\n\nNow, the skippers will do everything in their power to avoid inclement weather, and they are trained to maneuver the boat safely through rough seas. But, if the ship were to encounter such a wave, the keel (ballast) prevents the boat from truly capsizing; it will only suffer what, in sailing, we call a 'knockdown'--the boat has tipped almost 90 degrees, but the massive weight of the keel prevents it from going any further. ",
"Do you remember Weeble Woobles? \"Weebles Wooble but they don't fall down!\" If something is heavy on the bottom and the top is light and the bottom is rounded then you can't knock it over.",
"Modern cruise ships also often have dynamic stabilisers. These are large underwater wings, similar to on a submarine that use computer control and hydraulics to keep the vessel in the most stable possible position (however these would do very little to stop the vessel capsizing)",
" these ships carry thousands of passengers so they are now designed and tested as models to withstand and survive even hurricane force winds and \"rogue\" waves of over 100 feet in height plus have very strong water tight compartments. in addition in very bad weather that cannot be avoided they have built in stability tanks that can be flooded quickly to lower the ships balance point (\"center of gravity\") to allow it to become even more stable. lastly even selected fuel tanks in an emergency can also be flooded with sea water to help make the ship more stable and/ or correct a list (leaning) if some compartments are flooded due to damage to the hull. other than hitting an iceberg or running aground at high speed, being caught sideways (broadside) by a tsunami (\"tidal wave\") or being damaged by modern weapons these ships are very hard to sink...",
"Go into a field full of ankle-high grass with two steel balls, one about the size of your fist and one the size of your torso.\n\nPretend you're the wind;\n\nPush the small ball. Easy right?\n\nNow push the big one.\n\nI hope my shitty analogy helps."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1yw3ft | what gives mass energy and charge to subatomic particles? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yw3ft/what_gives_mass_energy_and_charge_to_subatomic/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfoaqh3",
"cfoggmh"
],
"score": [
67,
2
],
"text": [
"Energy is the easiest to explain. Energy isn't something inherent to a particle: it depends on the state that the particle is in. Stuff like its mass, how fast it's going, what forces it's subject to.\n\nTo a particle physicist, energy is just \"something\" that stays the same as time goes on. Something called Noether's theorem demonstrated, in a rough sense, that if you assume that the laws of physics will be the same a second from now, then the energy of the system will be the same. In more familiar terms, that's conservation of energy: it cannot be created or destroyed.\n\nCharge is trickier. Charge is, for a loose definition, how strongly a particle is affected by electromagnetic forces. So, in a sense, it's the electromagnetic force that \"gives\" charge to particles.\n\nWhat that definition doesn't do is explain why the electromagnetic force affects, say, an electron differently than a neutron. The fact is that we frankly aren't at a level in our understanding of physics where we can do more than simply write down what the charges are, and then run from there. There may not even be a reason other than \"electrons are charged\": there is ultimately some point in physics where stuff has to just be what it is because that's the way it is.\n\nWe can demonstrate using something called \"gauge invariance\" that charge is a conserved quantity like energy. That's about it, though.\n\nMass is even trickier. First off, there are two reasons things have mass: the Higgs, and E = mc^(2).\n\nUsually we think of E=mc^(2) as describing the energy that something with mass has. However, it goes both ways: if there's energy \"trapped\" inside a system, it looks like mass from the outside.\n\nHadrons are particles that are composed of smaller particles called quarks. The most familiar hadrons are protons and neutrons. In order to hold the quarks together into a hadron, it takes lots and lots of energy.\n\nSo, we have energy \"trapped\" inside a system, and like I said before, energy \"trapped\" in a system looks like mass from the outside. Hence, the reason that protons and neutrons have most of their mass (about 99% of it) is actually just the energy that's holding the quarks together. The quarks themselves have very little mass compared to the proton or neutron.\n\nThe rest of the mass comes from the Higgs mechanism. We could try to just \"write down\" particle masses and say that they're inherent like we did with charge, and it works fine in theory, but disagrees strongly with experimental results.\n\nThe Higgs mechanism is a solution to that problem. It basically says that mass is caused by another particle (or field) \"coupling\" to the particle. In a very rough sense, you can think of it like particles with mass have to \"drag\" through the Higgs field, which traps some of their energy. Trapped energy, as we outlined before, \"looks like\" mass from the outside.\n\nWe still don't know why certain particles have certain masses, we just know that the Higgs mechanism explains why they have mass at all.\n\nSo, to sum it all up, we can explain what causes the phenomena of charge and mass: it's the strength of \"coupling\" to the electromagnetic and Higgs fields, respectively. We cannot yet explain why different particles \"couple\" more strongly than others.",
"There is a good lecture by Professor Frank Close attempting to explain the Higgs mechanism amongst other things. He won the Michael Faraday prize this year which is an award for excellence in science communication.\n_URL_0_\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://royalsociety.org/events/2014/asymmetric-Universe/"
]
] |
||
12404v | why can politicians talk about religion? | If there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in the United States, why can politicians still talk about religion and enforce rules set forth by said religions? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12404v/why_can_politicians_talk_about_religion/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6rybtp",
"c6rz7tv"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"The seperation of church and state is a nice idea but what is really said in the constitution is no laws will be made to promote or hinder any religion. This means legally the state cannot sponsor or restrict any religion but it in no way means politicians can't talk about it. Faith is very important to a lot of people and it's an effective way to connect with the voters. \n\nAs for the laws they aren't technically set forth by a religion but rather their basis is drawn from religious beliefs. So say your religion forbids gay marriage you can try to ban it and that would be legal as the law isn't making any mention of your religion, it's just focused on gay marriage. ",
"Just because we have a separation doesn't mean government has to exist in a vacuum. A lot of things taught in the bible ARE very important for societies. Do not kill, do not steal. Pay your taxes (\"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's\"). Just because an idea has a religious foundation doesn't mean it should be disqualified.\n\nCurrently we use what is called the **Lemon Test** to approach these issues. The Lemon Test states that in order for something to be Constitutional...\n\n* The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;\n* The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;\n* The government's action must not result in an \"excessive government entanglement\" with religion.\n(Wiki)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4r9tgs | what are the people involved in "cs:go gambling" betting on? | It seems some are gambling on skins for items? Can someone explain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4r9tgs/eli5_what_are_the_people_involved_in_csgo/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4ze698",
"d4ze6yd",
"d4zf86d"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
5
],
"text": [
"So Counterstrike: Global Offensive is a FPS. However, it is extremely competitive. It is similar to LoL, they have national competitions with prize pools around 1 million dollars. 10 million people or more play the game. Not too long ago, they added skins for weapons. Each skin varies in rarity and quality (Factory New skins, Minimal Wear skins, Field Tested skins, Well Worn skins, and the worst, Battle Scarred skins.) \n\nThis is what people bet on. People like to bet because you can put in low amounts of money on cheap skins to start, and there is a chance to win large amounts of expensive skins.\n\n(For example, a Factory New Crimson Web Stattrack Bayonet went for 30,000 dollars once...)\n\nBetting is just like betting irl, except its legal since Valve says \"There is no monetary value in skins.\"\n\n\nSource: I'm a Legendary Eagle (3 ranks away from the highest rank) on CSGO and have played for awhile :)\n\nEdit: Forgot to mention. It's blowing up right now because it appears that some professional csgo players have owned gambling sites, told their subs to go gamble there, but never said they owned it. It is also thought that some of them gamble on their own sites (Which they privately own, but publicly disown) to win skins and to use that as a trap for their subs on twitch to waste money there.",
"In csgo, skins are obtained from random drops after games or through unboxing a crate. The crates take 1 key each, purchasable for $2.50. Many websites will allow one to bet a skin from in game. These skins have a dollar value determined by the steam community market place. There are calculated odds for bets placed on matches, and other types of odds for the more pure gambling sites. So the skins function as chips in a casino, place holders for real dollar value. ",
"CS:GO - Counter Strike: Global Offensive. It's a FPS PC game developed by Valve. In the game, you can get cosmetics for your guns. These cosmetics are called skins. They don't change how the gun works. Just makes them look pretty. To obtain skins you either get them from random drop from when you play, or open cases which gives you a random skin out of a pool of possible skins. Each case costs around 2.5 USD to open. \n\n\nSkins values are based on community supply/demand. Common skins are super cheap (think 3-5 cents). More rare ones are much more expensive (upwards to 1k or so). \n\nNow for the gambling bit. So there's several different CS:GO gambling sites. Some are random chance. CSGOLotto is one of them. You put a bunch of skins into a pool with other players and one of you is picked the winner. Some are based on coin flips. Pretty much any type of gambling people can do there's probably a site for it. There's also sites like csgolounge where you can place bets on professional CS:GO games. \n\nThe sites make money from either taking in all of the loser's items, or taking a percentage off the top from your winnings when you retrieve what you win. \n\nIf you've got more questions feel free to ask. Ill try to answer them. \n\nSource: Been playing cs:go for a while and casually betting on games. I've stayed away from the random chance sites cause RNG hates me. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cfge6q | do artificial sweeteners work on insects? could i use diet soda to kill off an ants’ nest? | Wondering if providing an ample supply of a low-energy food source could fool the insects into thinking they were harvesting sugar-rich food, eventually starving the population. Would they either not fall for it at all, recognizing the different chemical structure, or would they work it out and learn to avoid it to find other food sources? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cfge6q/eli5_do_artificial_sweeteners_work_on_insects/ | {
"a_id": [
"euabn03"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I mix up about a teaspoon each bicarbonate of soda and icing sugar with a little water and leave it near where I see ants most. They can't separate the sugar from the bicarb so take it back to the queen anyway, which kills them all.\n\nApparently, ants can't fart and bicarb causes gasses inside the stomach. So the ants explode, I've read somewhere."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7ttfi9 | how do actors get paid? do they continue earning money even after movie release? let's say, every time the movie is on tv or the like? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ttfi9/eli5_how_do_actors_get_paid_do_they_continue/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtf0y5r",
"dtf190k",
"dtf81en",
"dtf922q",
"dtfag7t",
"dtfbegl",
"dtfw2uz"
],
"score": [
115,
71,
5,
30,
10,
22,
7
],
"text": [
"It depends on their contract. Most films & TV shows do pay residuals, where each actor gets a percentage for each airing & DVD Sales.\n\nOthers only get paid for the one performance, and never see anything afterwards.",
"This varies contractually.\n\nPay may be lump sum, hourly, royalty (i.e. Per use), financial target based, or any combination of the above.\n\nThe contractual details will vary considerably between actors even in the same show/movie and generally aren't publicly available.\n\nBut yes, some actors keep getting paid every time an episode airs. Not much usually, but $1 per rerun over decades adds up if the show has serious legs.",
"Actors have these people called agents who negotiate the acting contract for their client. The better positioned an actor is, the more likely an agent can negotiate for residuals of the show or movie so that the actor gets paid a risidual fee every time the program airs, whether on tv or through digital platforms like Netflix. For example, the cast of FRIENDS are still getting decent sized residuals for their show that ran 25 years ago. \n\nSome actors do better. Robert Downey negotiated his role as Stark with I believe some extra risiduals for the sales of merchandise on top of his cut of box office and residuals. ",
"Yay one I can answer. Producer here-a lot of depends on if the actor is union (SAG AFTRA). If so, there are basic residuals that everyone is entitled too. Sometimes they’re small. I know an actress who was a dancer in Tombstone and still gets about $100 a year from it playing on tv. There are also minimums for a day rate (called scale). Again it depends on the size and scope of the project. Scale for most tv is about $800/day +/-\n\nContracts in the 80s/90s were heavily skewed in the actors favor. They were getting ridiculously amazing residuals for re-runs. \n\nActors in tv shows today get paid by the week or the episode (usually one in the same as tends to be one week per episode unless it’s GoT. Those rates are negotiated by the agent. Jim Parsons gets $1m/episode for 22 episodes so $22m/season plus some sort of residual deal for when the show runs in syndication in TBS and any future runs. ",
"For actors who get royalties/residuals, how do they know they are getting paid for each airing? Is there some company that listens to all the broadcasts and provides audits?",
"I have a friend who was one of the kids who sung the themesong for Spongebob Squarepants.\n\nHe still gets checks from it. Nothing big. Like a dollar here, dollar fifty there, rarely two dollars. \n\nWhen we were younger he saved up like a massive stack of them and bought us both Nintendo 64s",
"Little thing. Robert Downey Jr refused a lumo sun pay off for iron man. Being the first major marvel film it was unsure of the success and wanted to pay him a low few. But he asked for a small percentage if the profit (so any DVD sales cinema sales etc) and the film was a huge hit making him millions. Many times more than most of the other marvel film actors who are on a lump sum for 5 films... so it's spread they are contracted. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
686apn | how does your body decide where it takes fat from when you're burning fat? | I feel like this is a dumb question. When you're exercising and burning fat and all that, does your body take energy from around the areas being worked or is it taken evenly from all over your body? A really simple way of stating it I guess is if I work out 1 leg and only 1 leg will I have 1 skinny leg or will it take it burn fat evenly throughout my body.
Edit: for those conversations below, I misspoke. My goal isn't to lose weight. It's simply to get stronger. Thank you all for your well thought out responses and advice! Pour out some liquor for my inbox.
Edit: ignoring everyone who can't shut up about how much I can't leg press. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/686apn/eli5_how_does_your_body_decide_where_it_takes_fat/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgw1b4w",
"dgw4hvz",
"dgw4vg3",
"dgw5i90",
"dgw609g",
"dgw61yn",
"dgw63jx",
"dgw6pnd",
"dgw6u1x",
"dgw7ge0",
"dgw7nit",
"dgw851k",
"dgw8nui",
"dgw8phl",
"dgw8xow",
"dgwav0s",
"dgwd0fg",
"dgwd4fe",
"dgwfu8k",
"dgwfzyc",
"dgwglal",
"dgwhbnl",
"dgwhc44",
"dgwkckt",
"dgwlq14",
"dgwlwnw",
"dgwxmfl",
"dgwzn1c",
"dgx7c2p",
"dgxa0xt"
],
"score": [
5596,
6,
2,
113,
15,
14,
9,
19,
5,
683,
16,
47,
138,
5,
186,
6,
16,
128,
2,
135,
4,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"To answer the question in the body of your post:\n > When you're exercising and burning fat and all that, does your body take energy from around the areas being worked or is it taken evenly from all over your body? \n\nSignificant spot reduction of fat isn't a thing.\n\nThere was a 2007 study by University of Connecticut that had people exercise one arm for 12 weeks and measured the fat on both arms before and after the 12 weeks, and showed the fat loss was general over the body. There was also a 1971 study that looked at tennis players (who use one arm a lot more than the other) that found both arms had similar thicknesses of fat.\n\nThere has been another study from 2007 that suggest a slight link between heavier exercise and minimal spot reduction, but I haven't read that paper or seen it reported in a scientific magazine so I don't have much confidence in that study as evidence spot reduction works.\n\nEdit: for those asking for sources, [here you go](_URL_0_)",
"Is there any correlation between muscle gain location and fat loss location?\n\nTo explain what I mean:\n\nTommy is losing weight. He wants to lose fat from his butt, but the rest of his body is too thin now and his butt is still too fat.\n\nIf Tommy adds muscle to his butt will that possibly influence his body into removing fat from his butt? Sort of like \"maybe his body wants to store fat there, but maybe his body just wants to store mass there\". Or is there zero correlation?",
"It's taken evenly from all over the body for the most part. You cannot target specific areas for fat loss the way you can for muscle gains.",
"Blood circulates everywhere all at once, only definitely passing through the heart and lungs in a particular order (edit: and the gut to the liver). Different areas of fat can have different quantities of receptors for different hormones. Some cells are more sensitive to testosterone or estrogen or cortisol or insulin or adrenalin or whatnot than others. This is why your ass gets fat but your forehead doesn't. Which receptors go where is determined by both genetics and environment/lifestyle.\n\nHow fat you get is determined by how many excess calories you eat. How many excess calories you eat is determined by your hunger. Your hunger is determined by a lot of things, but the hormones leptin and ghrelin, which turn off and on hunger, respectively, are the big two. Leptin sensitivity seems to be closely related to insulin sensitivity. Insulin sensitivity seems to be closely related to viceral fat, particularly liver fat. Liver fat is mostly a function of fructose and polyunsaturated fats, but alcohol contributes, too. The fructose and alcohol because they're processed there, the fat because unsaturated fats are unstable and oxidize readily and the liver holds on to those rancid fats until it can decontaminate them, which it's not that great at.\n\nIt gets more complicated from there.",
"[..and of course, when u burn that fat - where does it go?](_URL_0_)\n\nweight is lost in the kitchen. You cannot outrun your fork.",
"You lose fat evenly over the whole body. That is why if you want smaller hips, never do side bends. Bench press builds chest size. Side bends build waist muscles and as such waist size.",
"My understanding is that it's last in, first out. So, the last place where fat was deposited is the first place from where fat is retrieved.",
"Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but you lose fat from \"everywhere\". Generally in the opposite order you gain it. So, for example, if you gain weight in your belly first, then legs, then chest and arms, when you lose weight, it goes in the opposite order with your belly fat going away last. \n\nAs best I know, you can't target specific areas for fat loss.\n\nIf you only worked out one leg, that leg would be bigger than the other, but that's because it would have more muscle, not less fat. ",
"Think of fat as water in a cup. You can't go after specific points. When you burn fat, the overall fat levels in your body will be lowered not the specific spot you worked out.",
"You are either in anabolic state or catabolic state. That is to say, your body is absorbing and or storing what you just ate OR you are catabolic and your body is taking from its stores.\n\nThese two states are regulated by little messengers in your body called hormones. Certain ones tell fat cells to release energy, others tell them to store. \n\nThing is, those hormones are released in the blood stream and travel all over the body. You can't really pick and choose where they go.\n\nWhen you are anabolic, those hormones tell fat cells \"hey bro, we have more energy floating around than we need, store this up for later.\"\n\nWhen you are catabolic, those hormones say \"hey we need more energy, hook us up fat cells.\"\n\n\nThis is also why it's hard to gain lean muscle but not fat. You have to be anabolic, your muscle cells need to be all like \"we are swole bro, we need protein.\"\n\nSo your anabolic hormones will be running around storing up anything, proteins in muscle cells AND energy in fat cells. \n\nIt becomes a tricky but not impossible line to walk.\n\nHope that helps!",
"When your blood doesn't have enough simple energy (sugars) in it, *fatty bits* get released into your blood. Cells that need energy catch the *fat bits* and move them into the **powerhouse of the cell**. The *fat bits* are basically released randomly into the blood, so it ends up being uniform. Your body is basically eating itself. \n\nWeight lifting doesn't really use up enough of the simple energy to directly impact fat loss. Having more muscle mass as well as some of the energy required in repairing damage increases the amount of energy needed which could result in your body snacking on your belly.\n\nedited: fat cells to fatty bits. ",
"So I understand all your answers, fat burns down equally throughout the body, spot exercises are a waste of time unless you're specifically trying to build muscle in one area.\n\nSo why doesn't fat build up equally?",
"Keep in mind that while targeted fat reduction isn't really a thing, targeted muscle toning (building) is, which gives the perception of targeted fat reduction. \n\nEdit: Clarification ()",
"It annoys me when I see people with big tummies going crazy on their abs. If anything it'll make you look bigger.",
"Slightly off-topic, but keep in mind that mass takes time (if you aren't a mesomorph/genetic freak).\n\nMore often than not, a 30-year old is bigger than a 20-year old because they've been lifting longer. Simple as that. Even working as a certified personal trainer for years it took me a loooong time to be patient with my results. Stay consistent and think in terms of months, not weeks or days when it comes to your results. In pure strength AND in the mirror.\n\n",
"What fuel you use depends on the intensity and duration of your workout, as well as your recent caloric intake. Your body has roughly an hour of glycogen (stored glucose in muscle) before it will start to use other sources, but if your blood glucose concentration is high ie. after eating, then your body will keep using glucose as its primary energy source.\n\nOnce glucose becomes more scarce, your body will begin to metabolize fat in order to meet the energy requirements in your muscles. This can happen during longer endurance trainings or during periods of low blood glucose, like after not eating for several hours/after you wake up.\n\nHowever, which energy source you use does not determine your weight loss. That's dependent on your net caloric intake \n\nLiterally just learned this stuff today in my exercise bio class.",
"Basic theory from my lecturer who is an MD: Targeted fat loss isn't real, we can't influence that yet. However, you can apply some intuition to where your body will add / lose fat. If you were to gain 10 lbs of fat and then lose it, its more than likely that your body shape would return to how it was before. Its less likely that you would gain fat in the legs, and then lose it from your abdomen to return to your previous weight. Whatever signalling your body uses to distribute fat, you can (somewhat) guess that it will be consistent for your own body. If recent weight you gained is in the butt, I would guess that the next weight you lose would be from the butt. Of course just speculation, but the best theory I've heard.",
"A lot of good answers, but you're asking for an explanation a kid would understand. Here is my attempt. \n\nWell Bobby, picture a frying pan filled half way up with oil (fat). You can't just heat up one section of the pan/oil no matter how hard you try because eventually the heat will spread evenly throughout the pan/oil. When you turn the heat on (work out) the entire pan gets hot and the amount of oil will slowly go down. Now if you keep the heat on eventually there will be no more oil left in the pan. How long you need to keep the heat on depends on the amount of oil of course. Always remember having a bit of oil is a good thing or else your pan will burn. ",
"There are a bunch of great answers in this thread, but a lot of them are a bit more advanced than I'd throw at a 5 year old... Time for an analogy!\n\nSo fat is basically stored energy, right? And obviously your body has to keep it somewhere. \n\nThink about it this way: You're standing around and I ask you to hold on to some energy-marbles for me. At first you put the marbles in sensible places, like your pockets, but as I hand you more and more marbles you have to try to hold onto them in more and more awkward ways - in your hands, in your lap, in your armpits maybe, whatever you can make work. \n\nThat's kinda how \"getting fat\" works - our body is really happy with a certain amount, not so happy but okay with a certain amount more than that, and then it starts looking for anywhere it can possibly go.\n\nNow, back to the energy-marbles! When I tell you that you can give me back the marbles, you're not going to start out by giving me the marbles you put in your pockets are you? Of course not - first you're going to give me back the marbles in your hands, then the marbles that you had to put in odd spots, and so on.\n\nThat's kinda how losing fat works.",
"A lot of really good answers and this will probably end up buried, but for the couple of redditors that do read this. \n \n \nThe geist of everything that's been written is, don't bother with spot reduction, your body loses fast all around at the same time. This is a good enough ELI5.\n \n \nBringing the explanation up a notch.\n \n \nWhen fat it's first stored, it will go to specific parts of your body first. This will depend on 2 things: Your DNA and your Sex Hormones at that moment.\n \nThis makes it possible, for example, if a man gains fat at a period when his estrogen is high ( puberty, environmental factor, medication, disease, etc ) he can put fat in places where woman usually put on fat, on the hips, ass and breast areas. \n \nA general tendency it's that male sex Hormones creates a tendency towards belly fat and female sex Hormones creates a tendency towards hips, ass and breast. Low on both gives more tendency for evenly distributed fat all around including arms and chin.\n \n \nNow knowing that there is an order in which your body puts on fat, there is also an order in which the body metabolises the fat. This is the reverse of when you put on.\n \n \nSo here's a practical example.\n \n \nLet's imagine a man put on some fat when he is 13 years old and got fat is his breast area, because his estrogen was high during puberty. Then at 22 he put on more fat on his belly. \n \nAt 25 he wants to lose the fat is his breast because he is self conscious about it. Doing chest exercise will not help. For him to lose the fat in his breast he will have to first lose the fat in his belly and only then he will lose it in his breast.\n \n \nThe order is Last fat In First fat Out ( LIFO ).\n \n \nOf course keep in mind that rarely does the body put on fat in just one spot, usually it puts on in one place more than all the rest, but we are keeping it simple for the sake of the explanation.\n \n \nAs far as we know right now, there is no way to change the order in which we lose fat. We also don't know how the body identifies which fat cells put on fat last.",
"Just like everything in life, your body will reorganize its energy storage (i.e., fats) evenly as you go throughout your day because this is the most efficient way to function. \n\nImagine you have 2 cases of bottled waters (24 pack each, one fore each arm) to carry for a 5 miles by walking. Let's say at the 1 mile mark you got very thirsty, so you drank 10 bottles from one of the cases. Would you start walking for the rest of the journey with uneven weight? Of course not, so you will distribute the weight to make it even for both your arms because it's more efficient to walk when you're balanced. In the same way, Your body is smart enough to do this too. ",
"Do yourself a favor and ignore the majority of people that are looking to tell you what you \"should\" do. If you're short on money and you need advice, I suggest finding someone with credentials who can help you from an outside standpoint, since obviously personal training would be too expensive. \nYour height and weight is NOT enough for someone to give you an entire weight lifting regiment and diet. \nEvery body is different and they all have different factors that play into what your personal goals are. Online health coaches are a cheap, effective way to get advice and support. ",
"Some of these answers suck, anyone can quote a scientific abstract and pretend they are smart. 20 years of bodybuilding, 10 years working at a high level in the fitness industry and a degree specific to coaching and fitness have taught me one thing. The best way to get in shape is eat a high protein diet, cut calories if necessary. Lift heavy ass weights (heavy is relative to your own strength), keep pushing to lift even heavier weights. Do cardio, as hard as you can and for as long as you can. And most if all be consistent. \n\nThe reason I'm so blunt and simple is this; science is good, but it's most commonly done in sedentary people or elite athletes, and should be under as controlled conditions as possible. Real life is chaotic and random and regular gym rats are neither elite nor sedentary. At best use science as a rough guide and not gospel. \n\nNow on to cardio as it's controversial. Hiit sucks for gym rats, it's good for building up fitness in unfit people and helping athletes increase their pace for a specific distance. The thing is, why do a short 30 minute session varying your intensity if you can hit the same high intensity for the full session? The same goes for long duration cardio, why train at 110bpm for an hour if you can go at 130bpm for the same length of time. \n\nCardio is simple, start out pushing until you hit about 70% of your max heart rate, now keep it there as long as possible, if you drop 5bpm below pick up the pace, if you go 5bpm over slow down. It's worked for every single person I've worked with and that ranges from housewives to professional rugby players. \n\nAnd remember all of this is bollocks unless you are consistent. ",
"You can not target weight loss in one particular place.\n\nThis is exactly the reason all those \"lose belly fat\" programs are complete B.S.\n",
"Quick Answer: from all over, but most people will first notice it from your face. That's the tell-tale sign...your cheeks usually start to hollow first . Unfortunately for most folks the belly fat is the last to go. :/",
"It's prob already been stated in here somewhere, but please bare in mind that there is a zone your body needs to enter in order to burn fat quickly. Formula I used to follow: I was 23, weighed 89kg. Wanted to get to 77. I am 173cm tall or 5ft 8\". I have German heritage so am a heavier woman all round and 77 is an excellent weight for me. \n\n5 out of 7 days I would work out with cardio for 45min - 1h a day. I would also do some light weights on the circuit as I dislike too much muscle tone on women. If I was to be successful in losing weight I would need to get my HR to 145+bpm and keep it around there for 30mins. Also increasing my protein and cutting carbs and non naturally occurring sugar was extremely important here. But I got there. In 6-8m I got to my goal weight. It was hard. But I got there! ",
"I'm seeing a lot of the right answers, just wanted to add something. Fat distribution is different for gender and body type. There's a big difference between men and women for where they store fat! Women tend to store it more around their hips (gynoid or pear shaped) and men tend to store fat more around their gut (android or apple shaped). \n\nEarlier someone said, hormones have a big effect on burning and storing fat. They actually do effect where fat is burnt from a bit, with women having a harder time losing fat in the lower part of their body than men. The name of the hormone is eluding me at the moment though.\n\nAnyways, roundabout way of adding to the answers even though it's not exactly what you're asking, but a neat fun fact!",
"Your body doesn't *know* where it's removing fat from. It just secretes stuff that breaks fat down and the fat comes off wherever the breakdown happens to occur.",
"No, your body won't target/spot reduce certain areas if you isolate them with exercise. It'll use the burned calories through isolation exercise to generalize fat loss throughout your body. However, because people are different some people might lose fat in some areas quicker than other people. \n\nIsolating your leg, for example, will mainly work the muscle and cause that one leg to be bigger than the other. It won't have any effect on burning the fat.\n\nHere's an article you can look at for reference:\n\n[Yale Scientific Magazine](_URL_1_)\n\nI actually made a website about weight loss after learning how to code a little bit to add to my portfolio if anyone wants to check it out. It's still a work in progress:\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"It is based on your Genes. There is no way to Target fat loss in any particular part of your body."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/686apn/eli5_how_does_your_body_decide_where_it_takes_fat/dgw7qt1/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"www.slimquick.org",
"http://www.yalescientific.org/2011/04/targeted-fat-loss-myth-or-reality/"
],
[]
] |
|
p8o87 | the shower water is sometimes too hot and sometimes never hot enough. i don't share a hot water heater. why is the temperature inconsistent? | I understand if the hot water heater has been recently used by the washer or dishwasher that I will have less hot water in the shower. But, even if I've not run any hot water, from one day to the next the shower will either be never hot enough, or way too hot.
Is it something in my body temperature or is the hot water heater on the fritz? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p8o87/eli5_the_shower_water_is_sometimes_too_hot_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3nfzbx",
"c3ng0ft",
"c3nhjtf",
"c3nin61",
"c3o3fby"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"if you're only using one handle to dial in the temp you may just have variations due to pressure. in my experience, the higher the water pressure, the more the cold water. since both cold water and hot water are combining in the shower head, the cold might be displacing the hot. if you reduce the pressure (don't put it on \"full blast\") you may get more hot water /at least, that's been the case for me.",
"I had this problem with my previous water heater. If I didn't use much hot water the day before, my morning shower would not be nearly hot enough for me. But if my kids are here and took baths before bed or something, or really anything using hot water, I'd have plenty of hot water the next morning. It was like there was a timer on my water heater that would only allow it to stay heated to the set temperature for 18 hours or something until water was used. I'm sure that's not the case, but that's exactly how it behaved.",
"I used to have this problem too. In my case, I get my hot water from a heat exchanger that is powered by \"stadsverwarming\" (central heating provided by an electric power plant) so there's no issue about the abundance of hot water or its temperature.\n\nThe problem was in the tap. It was old and calcified, and the handles could not be adjusted with any sort of precision. I used to spend several minutes each morning getting the mix of hot and cold water right before I would start the actual abluations.\n\nAbout a year ago, I had my bathroom redone and the tap was replaced by a model that uses ceramic disks to regulate the temperature of the output.\n\nI must say, that was the best 180 Euro that I ever spent. I now have two controls on the tap: one for the amount of water, and another for the temperature of it. It works perfectly, the temperature is consistently good from one day to another.",
"My guess is it has more to do with your body temperature. A secondary reason may be that the cold water is different temperatures on different days, thus the combined temperature is different.",
"First, it may be there is a problem with the way your hot water heater measures the temperature of the water it's holding (I'm assuming for simplicity that it's a tank water holder, and probably a fairly old one at that). If, say, you had a thermometer in the middle of the tank, and the flame of the pilot light is on the middle of the tank, then the middle water is going to be hotter than the rest of the water. The thermometer heats up faster than the water on the edges, and shuts off the gas-flow earlier than it otherwise would, resulting in water which isn't as hot as you'd like it.\n\nWhy would it get too hot? Perhaps you've used a lot of hot water (here's where it becomes counter-intuitive :3) and you're getting the only water the tank has, which has JUST been hit by the flame. The thermometer is largely useless in this case, because the water is flowing right out, and it's constantly getting bombarded with cold water.\n\nThe other thought I had was that maybe your thermometer is floating around, so sometimes you get the scenario I posited above, and sometimes it does the opposite.\n\nSecond, it may be you, rather than your water heater/shower. Try making this a little more rigorous, by keeping a journal of your hot water usage overall, and your perception of the temperature of your water. My implication here has to do with [Confirmation Bias](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"
]
] |
|
7xs93x | what is the difference between gun laws in other countries and the usa? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7xs93x/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_gun_laws_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"duapff1",
"duapisa",
"duapk2n",
"duaqayw"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I’m in the UK.\n\nHere (as I understand it) you need to have a hunting license to carry a gun, and that’s only for specific, regulated guns that have to be locked up when not in use. All other guns are banned. \n\nIn the US anyone can buy a gun, anytime. For most states anyway.",
"That's way to broad a question as different countries have different laws, from Israel's forced military service and call ups in time of trouble, which keeps weapons in just about all homes. I believe Norway is kind of the same, but not mandated, just most do own guns. Other end of the spectrum are places like England with outlawed gun ownership, with the US falling in the middle with it's absolute RIGHT to own guns, but no mandate to. The bigger issues with guns is not the availability but the violent culture, and access to mental health resources. Don't blame violent games, because other countries have the same games. Don't blame the access to guns because even in countries with strict bans, guns are used in crimes. It comes down to the culture of violence in the places where the crimes are committed, and don't let the news fool you, a tragedy like the shooting in Florida sucks. It's evil and it's horrible, but it's no more or less evil than a teenager in inner city Chicago gunning down another teen, and an innocent bystander over drug turf. It's just that those shootings don't get coverage. ",
"There are two main differences. The first is that the ownership of weapons is a basic right for Americans. The second is Amendment 10 of the Constitution that makes it near impossible for cohesive legislation on *anything* to be enacted in the entire country.",
"That is a very broad question. [This] (_URL_0_) is a good site if you want a really in-depth look at the gun laws and related information. But as a quick sum up (for my country as that is the one I know about): \n\nFor the Netherlands, gun ownership is very restricted. You can only own a gun if you are A, in law enforcement, B, a hunter (but hunting is also very restricted, requiring a year-long training course, being able to prove you have access to hunting grounds and you are required to regularly attend target classes) or C, target shooting (but you cannot apply for a gun until you've been part of a shooting club for over a year; to own multiple guns, you need to be a member for at least two years). Guns are expected to be kept in a safe and are inspected yearly by police. Guns can only be transported between certain locations, (between home and the gun club, to the gun smith, to the police or to a shooting event), are expected to be transported in a case, and must be transported along the shortest route. You cannot own a gun if you have a criminal record, mental illnesses or a drug addiction. The types of guns you can own are restricted (no fully automatic weapons) and you can only own five guns at any given time. \n\nWhile guns can be used for self-defence (but only in equal situations aka where the other party also has a gun), you cannot own a gun just for the reason of self-defence. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/"
]
] |
||
23avic | what is the psychology behind businesses that have their employees twirl signs outside? | Are sign twirlers really that big of a draw for customers? Are they only there to get annoying employees out of the way? Have you ever gone into a business because of the person twirling the sign outside? What percentage of people do? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23avic/eli5_what_is_the_psychology_behind_businesses/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgv6vbt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It is a way to gather attention, and get potential customers. If people don't know a place is there, and suddenly see a spinning sign, it catches in their brain, and they remember it, so then later when they are thinking of getting their taxes done, or getting pizza, they remember the spinning sign guy, like a tv commercial."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2w3vsp | how does egypt know the exact number of isis members they've killed after they dropped the bomb? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w3vsp/eli5_how_does_egypt_know_the_exact_number_of_isis/ | {
"a_id": [
"conc6s2"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Unless they have boots on the ground to count the bodies, they don't. They are estimates.\n\nThere are ways to use infrared cameras to estimate the number of people in a building or location before/after the destruction, but they are still only estimates, rather than accurate numbers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
66vhqk | how do smartphones convert electric energy into sound energy when music is played using it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66vhqk/eli5how_do_smartphones_convert_electric_energy/ | {
"a_id": [
"dglkwiw",
"dglliy0"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Sound energy is just a vibration of the speaker in your phone, so it works as any other speaker. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nHere's a wiki about speakers that would probably cover it better than me. ",
"The electric energy is formed in a complex pattern which flows through a coil. This coil creates a magnetic field that is capable of moving a small piece of metal on a membrane in fast movements back and forth. This pushes the air making high and low pressure zones, which then move through the air in a wave-like pattern. These waves are the sound we hear. Hope this helps!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudspeaker"
],
[]
] |
||
bh5iqb | why do customers only get a dime for returning empty glass bottles at liquor stores? is glass actually that cheap? | I look at the bottles and some seem like a work of art because I can reuse them for a long time. But when I bring them back for recycling, I only get ten cents back. Is that what they are actually worth, because glass is cheap? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bh5iqb/eli5_why_do_customers_only_get_a_dime_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"elq6a4z",
"elq6g5b",
"elq6zyj",
"elqklmj"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The bottles are washed, sterilized, and reused. You actually pay the $0.10 when you buy the full bottle, that's why it's called a deposit. You get it back when you return it",
"I once worked at a glass plant. Yes, glass is cheap to manufacture by the batch and easier to recycle than plastic (broken bottles or glass bottles that are reused too much are called cullet and are reheated to liquid to form new bottles). Glass is mainly made from silica which is basically sand. Plastics come in different forms and differently-structured polymers which have different shelf-lives, etc. Basically glass is easier to produce, cheaper, and easier to recycle as well.",
"Not only are they cheap, but you are being paid well above their value. As an effort to support recycling, you are charged maybe 15 or 20 cents more for the product, and get 10¢ back with the bottle.\n\nIt is unlikely that the bottles will be reused, more likely that they will be crushed and recycled. If it does not contain any contaminants, like coloured glass or ceramics, glass is easily recycled. Contamination, however, is a serious problem. Collecting the bottles in this way is a good way to get a source of lots if identical bottles, with identical glass, which can make recycling possible.",
"They are actually probably cheaper than that. The 10 cents is not a market rate, it is mandated by law, in an effort to encourage people to bring them back rather than throw them out the car window. Or that was the original motivation, now they also like to promote recycling, or at least go through the motions."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ww248 | is "high mileage" or "synthetic" motor oil actually worth it? or is it just bs | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ww248/eli5_is_high_mileage_or_synthetic_motor_oil/ | {
"a_id": [
"coum7nk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sure, if you happen to have the needs that the oil is designed to address. High Mileage oil is designed to deal with seals and bearing clearances that are generally wider than originally designed. Synthetic oil is a lubricant that was formulated not simply by purifying crude oil, but by a chemist selectively building the molecules they want through various processes. With lubricating oil made from purified petroleum, you can only make it into a more refined version of what's already there, while with synthetic oil, you can make molecules that weren't there to begin with. Often, synthetic oil is made from petroleum oil. \n\nIs it worth buying either of these? That all depends on your particular application. I put synthetic oil in my cars that I drive hard, but I don't put it in my lawnmower. In my old jeep that leaks oil, I don't bother because it's just an old Jeep engine. In my Mustang GT, I do run synthetic. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
33cb2m | why is google trying to force me to visit "mobile friendly" sites? | I've always used Google as a tool to show me everything that is out there, not everything that is out there in a specific format. Why does Google care if a site is mobile friendly or not? Isn't this new algorithm actually detrimental to my ability to find the best information? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33cb2m/eli5_why_is_google_trying_to_force_me_to_visit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqji51o",
"cqjiof0"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"They still show you everything thats out there they just prioritise sites that you can actually decently use a bit more",
" > Why does Google care if a site is mobile friendly or not?\n\nOfficially, Google (the search engine) thinks this is a feature that users will want, and will attract mobile users to Google as opposed to other search engines.\n\nUnofficially, mobile-optimised sites are better for Google (the advertising company). It's easy to push banner ads from a pc-optimised site off the screen on a mobile device; Google would much prefer if people actually saw all of the advertising."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2p8k3e | why do gasoline prices at the pump come as a suprise? aren't they set in the futures market? | I had thought that most barrels of gasoline are sold in the futures market. (Around 6 months ahead of the current prices). Even after small changes with processing and transportation it still feels like like gas prices should be predictable within a few cents baring a large refinery going down for emergency maintaince. Eli5 why isn't it that simple please | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p8k3e/eli5_why_do_gasoline_prices_at_the_pump_come_as_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmuck7u"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The futures market has zero bearing on the real price of the commodity, and operates completely independently of it \n\nA great example of this occurred when the US government capped the price of plywood in the 1970's, and futures traders proceeded to put sell orders at that price. Although this worked for some time, eventually the plywood futures price exceeded the government capped plywood price. The only thing keeping the futures price under the legal limit was the sell orders."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3i73cl | what just happened to the australian and chinese stock market | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i73cl/eli5_what_just_happened_to_the_australian_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cudub9u",
"cudx2wt",
"cudx35t"
],
"score": [
50,
43,
7
],
"text": [
"What goes up, must come down.\n\nThe Chinese economy has been slowing recently, but political reforms have also been encouraging greater transparency, and earlier this year, the Chinese central banks were making it easy for people to invest. \n\nSo we had the odd situation that the Chinese stock market roughly doubled in a year or so, even though the underlying economy was getting weaker.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nNow, the clock is striking midnight, or someone is noticing that the emperor has no clothes, or (insert favorite metaphor here.) And it's a race to the exits.\n\nWhen China sneezes, Australia catches pneumonia.",
"China shit was too inflated. Australia relies on China because all we do is dig shit up and send it to them. We should be fine-ish. Or in the wise words of my mum \"cunts fucked\". ",
"The Chinese economy has been massively overvalued for some time, with a lot of help from the government encouraging people to buy stocks. This pushed the stock prices higher than what they were actually worth. Now, the rest of the world is catching on, and the Chinese are devaluing the yuan to make their exports cheaper. Couple this with a strengthening dollar and people getting nervous over the Federal Reserve potentially raising the interest rate and the market is spooked."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/15/investing/china-stock-market-bubble/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
83gcjb | the financial fraud martin shkreli committed to get sentenced to 7 years in jail. how heinous an act was it, who were the victims and how badly were the affected, and did he expect to get away with it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83gcjb/eli5_the_financial_fraud_martin_shkreli_committed/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvhky1t"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"He set up a company where people gave him money and he promised to invest their money and return them even more money. This is not illegal, but he ended up losing their money. He lied and did not tell them. That is illegal. He started a new company with the same idea. He also lost their money. He lied and did not tell these people or the first group of people. That is illegal. He set up a pharmaceutical company, where he made a lot of money by increasing the cost of medication to the highest amount where insurance companies would still pay for it. That is not illegal. He made enough money so that he was able to pay back the investors from the first two companies, without explaining how he made his money. That’s illegal. TLDR: he actually pulled off a Ponzi scheme so that everyone wins in the end, but it’s still a Ponzi scheme, and that’s illegal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3i5rtt | why is it that immunosuppressant drugs are needed for internal organs while it is not for skin grafts or for blood transfusions? | I've had a nagging question and from what I've tried to read up, immunosupporessant drugs are mentioned for internal organs like heart, kidney, lung, etc. Why is it that immunosuppressant drugs are needed for internal organs while it is not for skin grafts? Isn't skin also an organ? The same question goes for blood. I've donated blood before. How come a receiver does not have to take immunosuppressants? It's not part of their body so why doesn't it reject? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i5rtt/eli5why_is_it_that_immunosuppressant_drugs_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"cudkpfr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Skin grafts can be rejected. Often you take skin from one part of your body and move it to another, so it's not foreign tissue. Otherwise you do the best you can with family members, who have a greater chance of being similar to you than strangers. Blood cells don't have MHC proteins, which are the proteins that your body reacts to when it rejects an organ. Instead the have surface antigens that are much less variable than MHC. There are A antigens, B antigens, and something called an Rh factor. You either have Rh or you don't, so you are + or -. You can have the A antigen, the B antigen, both, or neither, for the blood types A, B, AB, or O respectively. As long as you don't get blood without a foreign antigen your body will accept it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4ebki3 | why is the fizzy drink called root beer? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ebki3/eli5_why_is_the_fizzy_drink_called_root_beer/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1ymt5n",
"d1ymus0"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"sassafras root is one of the ingredients (unless they're using sarsaparilla).\n\nIt was originally going to be called root tea.",
"Originally it was made from the sassafras root. Most are artificial flavoring now. Fun fact: You typically won't find root beer in Europe. It's an American deal. I have had several European friends from different countries visit and try root beer and nearly vomit. I guess there is a liquid medicine given to children in Europe (especially Germany) that has a similar taste."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6wny8u | how does fema remove all the flood water after a hurricane? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6wny8u/eli5_how_does_fema_remove_all_the_flood_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"dm9ghnh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They wait.\n\nThe key FEMA function is to provide assistance to the displaced people while everybody waits for the water to drain away so they can begin restoration."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8aoutq | these 2 questions. how does/did dial up internet work? why and how did making a phone call affect the internet connection? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8aoutq/eli5_these_2_questions_how_doesdid_dial_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"dx0ck5t",
"dx0cnsw",
"dx0crmr",
"dx0csmx",
"dx0i7xy"
],
"score": [
7,
19,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In the days of dial up there was no pre existing data infrastructure. That means that the only lines run to a house that were capable of transmitting and receiving data were the telephone lines. The dial up modem (modulator/demodulator) would place a specially created call to a service provider and create a session to the web. The session would require the service provider and the local modem to constantly \"talk\" to one another... If the session/call was interrupted for too long, the modem would drop the connection. If you had a second phone line only for the dial up this could be avoided. Any other questions? Happy to answer.",
"It was literally like making a phone call. One computer to another.\n\nThe sender would convert 1’s and 0’s into ‘analogue noise’ as if talking and the computer at the other end would covert them back into 1’s and 0’s again.\n\nYou can only make one phone call at a time.\n\nIf you picked up the phone while an internet call was in place. The background noise from the phone mic added to conversation. Therefore this would confuse a computer when listening as it failed to understand the extra noise. So it would freak out and disconnect.\n\nHistory: the first modems; you had to place a phone handset onto a ‘mic and speaker’ and manually dial a phone number on the phone for the computer.",
" > How does/did dial up internet work? \n\nYou would use a device called a *modem* to connect your computer to the phone line. The computer would then use the modem to dial a number the ISP (internet service provider) gave you; at the ISP another modem would answer that call and your computer would then be able to talk to your ISP (i.e. you could access the internet).\n\nTo give more details: your computer would talk to your modem which would translate the data into sounds (it would *modulate* them), the modem at the ISP end then would translate the sound back into data (this is called *demodulation*). This two tasks (**mod**ulation and **dem**odulation) give modems their name! Since phone lines don't have good sound quality the speed would be really slow.\n\n > Why and how did making a phone call affect the internet connection?\n\nA phone line can only be used for one call at once, so this means that while anybody talks on the phone nobody can go on the internet and vice versa. To be able to talk on the phone and be online you would have to have two phone lines.",
"The data is ones and zeros. Simplifying things let’s say, dunno, Middle C note is a 0, and an A above is a 1. Cool, but slow. Now let’s say the C is 00, E is 01, A is 10, and D is 11. Cool now we’re twice as fast. We can split even more. \n\nBut now any noise will mess with recognizing those notes. That’s why your phone call would mess things. You’ve got a chip “listening” to notes and “writing” ones and zeros. Any noise gets in tr way of the listening chip. ",
"Since the second question is answered, I'd like to post one of my [all-time favorite graphs](_URL_0_) here. Height is the frequency of sound in Hz and width is a length of time.\n\nIt's a step-by-step, layman-level explanation of how a modem calls another modem, decides on a protocol to send data with, and figures out how reliable the connection is. You can hear the audio and read a longer explanation [here](_URL_1_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://oona.windytan.com/posters/dialup-final.png",
"http://www.windytan.com/2012/11/the-sound-of-dialup-pictured.html"
]
] |
||
3imjam | why does the dmv not accept cash or credit cards | It's 2015 I feel like the government would accept more easily accessible methods of payments then a money order. This is how it is in PA at least. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3imjam/eli5_why_does_the_dmv_not_accept_cash_or_credit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuhpg8q",
"cuhplz8",
"cuhr93e",
"cuhsywq"
],
"score": [
15,
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Cash is very easily stolen by people and credit cards cost fees to accept (often up to 3% of the purchase price).\n\nBusinesses accept both because they want to be as convenient as possible for their customers to spend money with. The DMV doesn't care about that - you have to spend money with them regardless so they go with the least risky, cheapest way to take your money.",
"Your secretary of state sucks at their job. Its up to that person to improve the system and keep up with current technologies. In Illinois you can use cash, credit, money order, whatever. You can even do a lot of things online. You should vote for someone better.",
"In florida afaik, you can use anything. Just paid for a title transfer with cash a little bit ago.",
"You'd think so.\n\nCalifornia has been doing things like registration renewal online for years-instead of hiring more people, the computer reduces the amount of people in line.\n\nCheaper than hiring more people. In fact, from what I've heard they have reduced hiring."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1uppq5 | why does reddit advertise itself on reddit? | lately there are a lot of reddit programming adverts. I understand that Advertising works like this: you spend Money to gain Money. in this case, where does the money go? To who does the advertiser give Money? and how do they gain Money by letting a flow of redditors in their subreddit? or are they not even giving Money to anyone? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uppq5/eli5why_does_reddit_advertise_itself_on_reddit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cekgbhd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are two types of advertisements for Reddit on Reddit.\n\n1) Advertisements just put up by the company itself. These don't cost them (or earn them) any money at all, but they encourage people to explore new parts of the site, and therefore *to stay on the site*.\n\nThese are much like adverts on TV saying \"Next on channel 17 is Monster Hunters Deluxe\". They're not advertising Reddit as a whole, but rather one aspect thereof.\n\n2) Advertisements for individual subreddits paid for by the creator. \n\nWhen someone creates a new community, they want people to visit it. By advertising their subreddit on reddit, they're getting very good targeted marketing. In that case, the person running the new subreddit will be paying for their own advertising."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3168f8 | why are ukip anticipating only a small handful of seats at the upcoming election? | I know the electoral process: people vote for someone to become the MP of their constituency - their representative in the House of Commons. The party with the majority (or a coalition if necessary) then form a government.
I'm aware that in May, it is widely accepted that either Miliband or Cameron will be PM - no other parties have the slightest chance of a majority. This is confusing, as everywhere I go I see incredibly vocal support for UKIP. We all know how confident and assertive Nigel Farage is, so why has he himself predicted no more than a few seats?
I know the idea of someone who was virtually unknown to the common man before the 2010 election becoming PM five years later is completely ludicrous - not to mention that UKIP didn't even have any MPs until a few months ago. But surely, with the large amount of support for UKIP throughout the whole country, we can't just discount the possibility of a very significant number of UKIP seats, with even the possibility of an overall majority? Why are UKIP themselves predicting no more than about 5?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3168f8/eli5_why_are_ukip_anticipating_only_a_small/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpypqft"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Thats First Past The Post for you. UKIP are taking support from all major parties and classes, but that is also depriving them of the kind of concentrated regional power base needed to actually win a FPTP election.\n\nThe other thing is that General Elections tend to concentrate the mind and force people to be (small c) conservative with their voting choices, and so far UKIP have been pretty much a protest vote (the Lib Dems old job)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
33yznt | how can my phone with a 5 inch screen be 1080p, but my tv which has a 55 inch screen hot be 11 times the resolution? if that makes sense. | Can't they make a screen with the same size pixels (I guess) as my phone, but bigger and with more of them? Sorry for the shit wording, I'm not really sure how to ask this. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33yznt/eli5_how_can_my_phone_with_a_5_inch_screen_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqpoj34",
"cqpoq68",
"cqpor8t",
"cqpoyii",
"cqpq77i"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They could, but it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially due to the fact that you need a speedy computer to process data on all those pixels. \n\nThere is a reason why your phone and your TV cost about the same amount of money. ",
"Pixel density. Your phone is made to be views close up, so the pixels need to be small, else you would see them. But a TV is made to be viewed from across the room, so it can have much bigger pixels.\n\nIf you walk up to your TV you will see the individual pixels.\n\nThere are TV screen with higher number of pixels, for example the 4K resolution which has 4 tiles the number of pixels as 1080p. Which means if the screen is the same size, each pixel will be 1/4 the size. This of course gives better image quality. But it also requires more processing power to run and the movies will take up more space.\n\nAnd there also is a point where more pixels doesn't really matter, because your eyes aren't good enough to be able to see the difference. For example, if you have a smallish TV at a reasonable distance, you wont be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4K. But if you have a massive TV or you like to sit closer, you will see the difference.\n\nBut it's pointless to make a TV with the same pixel density as a phone, as it would have a resolution of 40K or something ridiculous like that. And what is the point of that?",
"They could. They do, in fact -- you can get 4K screens (which are 4x the resolution of 1080p) for as low as $500 now, and 8K screens -- 16 times the resolution of 1080p, 96 times the resolution of DVD -- exist as well, though they're not widely available yet. \n\nThey're just more expensive to produce, and there's a very small amount of TV content available at those resolutions. TVs generally display either video or videogames. High-res video is very demanding bandwidth/storage-wise so there's not a lot of it out there, and console videogames are struggling to release at 1080p, let alone 4x or 16x that. So most TVs are still only 1080p.\n\nPhones, tablets, and computer screens are much higher in resolution because most of the content available for them can be rendered at any arbitrary resolution -- it doesn't take significantly more effort or space to render websites, application UIs, etc at high resolutions, and still photo cameras have been shooting at 8-16 times 1080p resolution for years and years (1080p is only 2 megapixels, even an iPhone camera is 4x that, a $200 point-and-shoot camera is 16x that). When it comes to videogames, PC hardware is much more powerful than console hardware, so 1440p, 4K, and hgiher resolutions are practical. Phones also benefit because the LCDs are very small, you get a lower failure rate when producing them. The larger the screen, the higher the failure rate in production, which means the more expensive and difficult the process of production becomes.",
"Well there are 8K (7680 x 4320) tvs being made which is quite a bit higher 1080p 16 times to be exact. Of course these tv's costs thousands of dollars though and there's basically 0 actual 8k content out there so there's the issue of practicality as well. Add in that 8k is really only useful for really large screens like 100 inch because otherwise it's a case of diminishing returns. Most people cant afford those tv's some people cant even fit such a tv in their place of residence. Long story short though there's no reason to have a 55in tv be 8k you literally won't see a difference because the pixel density will already be so much that you cant tell and the tv will be exponentially more expensive.\n\nPhone are actually reaching the point of diminishing returns as well. 2k - 4k resolution at 5in is pretty much the max that people can discern any difference and we won't benefit from any higher unless we go even bigger which is unlikely for smartphones.",
"First off, one of the major issues you'd run into is processing power and memory bandwidth (and the storage use of the videos themselves). \n\nLet's say we're talking about a 1920x1080 (~2.07 million total pixels) 5\" screen, which would be 440 pixels-per-inch. To keep the same pixel density on a 50\" (to keep math simpler) screen, the resolution would need to be 19200x10800, or ~207 million pixels. It wouldn't be ten times the resolution, it would be 100 times the resolution. \nThis isn't quite how the math actually works, but you would need roughly 100x the processing power, 100x the bandwidth, and 100x the storage space for each video. It doesn't make sense to sell movies on 1 TB hard drives, and then force users to use supercomputers to watch them.\n\nThe other big issue is manufacturing. If my understanding is correct, screens themselves are made up as several different layers of sheets of electronics. When the sheets are made, they're made as very large rolls, and then smaller functional sections are cut out and assembles into the displays. There's always a chance that a certain part of the large sheet is either damaged or nonfunctional, so those parts have to just be thrown out.. The smaller the screen is, the lower the chance is of having bad sections. When you make 5\" screens, all you need is a fully functional 5\" section of the sheet.\n\nIf you wanted to make a 50\" screen, you'd now be forced to find fully functional continuous 50\" sections of the sheet. Ultimately, the chance of you successfully manufacturing a continuous 50\" section that doesn't have any dead zones is so low that it just isn't practical to do. Your chance of having all 207 million pixels be functional is just too low."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
b1xy2n | why do models that predict rising sea levels affect the east coast of places more than the west coast? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b1xy2n/eli5_why_do_models_that_predict_rising_sea_levels/ | {
"a_id": [
"eipbkwd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sea level rise will cause more damage on coastlines with very flat land that slopes gradually to the sea: there, rising water will cover more area. In the US, the East Coast has lots of flat land, while the west coast is mostly steep shorelines except in places like San Francisco Bay. South America is also steep on the west coast, flat on the east.\n\nIn other parts of the world, it doesn't work that way. In Africa, the flattest shorelines are near the Nile and Congo river mouths on the north and west sides respectively. In Europe, the North Sea coast is at greater risk then the southern Mediterranean shore.... there's no general pattern."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
16x9uz | why do they close the american schools due to snow? | As a Swedish person it seems odd to me.
**Edit**: Thank you for your answers! I suppose it makes sense not to be overly prepared for snowfall if it only snows for a couple of days/weeks every year! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16x9uz/eli5_why_do_they_close_the_american_schools_due/ | {
"a_id": [
"c807a6v",
"c8094nb",
"c809ahz",
"c80aj4i",
"c80bezp"
],
"score": [
9,
10,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They do it here in the UK too. Simply put, we don't have enough snow (and particularly the ice that comes when the snow freezes) to make it worth having the contingency plans to more easily deal with it the way that more northern countries do. Not many people have winter tyres or snow chains for their cars, for example. Dealing with the snow just isn't a normal part of everyday life here.\n\nWith that in mind, schools close because the roads become dangerous (so staying at home is safer) and also because the teachers might not even be able to get there if they're snowed in, leaving lots of unsupervised kids or crammed pointless classes.",
"You should understand that, ironically, the places in the United States the get the most snow are also often least likely to get snow days. Snow days are usually declared for the sake of safety. Remember, the United States is a very big place with essentially every imaginable climate type, and these climate types occasionally intermingle. \n\nIf you live in a State where it RARELY snows, it's not worth equipping your vehicle with winter tires, paying for plows to uncover the roads, or salting the roads to keep them from freezing over. These states end up getting snow days a few times a year because of rogue storms. Further north states known for their colder climates, by comparison, will only get snow days under serious, dangerous blizzard conditions.",
"In the us, I'm in Ohio so we get really really bad lake effect snow. We usually never have snow days to the plans and equipment we have, BUT, when it snows 2 feet over the course of an hour when the buses are warming up, the snow plows (city owned) simply can't keep up. Resulting in unsafe conditions. ",
"I live in the northern us, in a city. We rarely got snowdays. An hour or so to the north however, had them on a bi-weekly basis during bad winters. The difference was population density. The us is fucking enormous. We could fit most of your country in our state if we squished it. My city has a small army of snowplows, and generally not very far to go to get to schools. The towns to the north however, will have one snow plow for a huge expanse of land. If the snow is too high just to get out of the driveway without a plow, it might be 15 hours before the towns plow comes along. They're also could be 30-45 minutes away from school on a good day. You can't walk that, and the school bus isn't going to be running if it can't even get on the road. ",
"I lived in Norway for a short while, and was amazed at the amount of snow and ice that accumulated on the roads and sidewalks during winter. In America, that would be considered highly unsafe, and anyone who fell and got hurt due to ice build-up on someone else's sidewalk would be likely to be sued for negligence. Which is ridiculous, but is just how our system works. That mindset makes the concept of \"snow days\" easier to grasp.\n\nI believe that legal liability is the biggest factor in \"snow days.\" Keep in mind, there are two kinds of snow days- those where school is called off for huge amounts of snow making the roads unsafe for travel, and those called for extreme cold.\n\nI live in the northern Midwest USA, a land of small communities scattered between large areas of farmland. Most kids either walk to school (if less than 1 mile) or take the school bus to school to school. Many kids travel 25+ miles on the bus each way, which means they can be on the bus over 1.5 hours a day. The chance of a bus getting into an accident on these small farm roads in rural communities is too big a legal risk for most school districts to mess with holding class on slippery-road days. \n\nAlso, since we start school at age 5 here (and many states have 4-year-old kindergarten, too), we have tiny little kids either walking to school or standing around waiting for the bus by themselves (since parents are at work). Often times, in northern farming states, the wind-chill is so low that it is dangerous for kids to be outside for more that 20 minutes or so without risking frostbite, so school is called off to avoid that risk. Since parents are legally required to make sure their kids attend school, schools could legally be held responsible for \"forcing\" kids to be outside in extremely cold weather. Which, again, is a bit ridiculous, since proper clothing would make it safe for kids to be outside, but the high rate of poverty in the US means that lots of kids don't have proper snow gear. And a lot of parents are stupid.\n\nAnd truly, it doesn't happen THAT often. While kids are in school nine months of the year, 5 days a week, usually from 8 am to 3 pm, most districts have only a handful of \"snow days\" a year- in Northern Minnesota where I went to school, we usually only had 2-3 a school year (though once or twice we had up to 10, in which case \"extra\" school days would be added on to the school calendar in June to \"make up\" for missed days during he winter).\n\n TL/DR- the legal risk of the school getting sued is too high."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4bd6gy | how exactly would one get into an escort service, man or woman? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bd6gy/eli5_how_exactly_would_one_get_into_an_escort/ | {
"a_id": [
"d182co2",
"d182g8q"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In one way or another we all perform some kind of personal service except me. I was just an obstructionist.\n\nThink of it as a play put on by one person to fulfill the fantasies of another.",
"Knowing a few people who've been working in and out of services...they just call. Usually it's word of mouth from a source, sometimes if you're in the industry someone akin to a manager might notice you and try to hire you.\nI'm in a major city and the newspaper has ads looking for people. With hiring men they usually have to swing both ways...not always but it's easier to get work.\n\nOnce you contact the manager they want details....full body pics, measurements etc. If you fit the spot then there's a face to face interview etc.\n\nThe better agencies have a booking system where the workers don't really manage that aspect. They have a driver take them to the appointment and wait. The agency & driver/guard gets a % the worker gets the rest."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1kprhm | how casino card dealers win so much. | The cards are all brand new decks and shuffled, correct? So how are their wins so much higher than player wins. It's supposed to be completely random. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kprhm/eli5_how_casino_card_dealers_win_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbrdbvk",
"cbrdr7c",
"cbrea8o"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"It's a combination of odds and poor strategy.\n\nMost games in a casino are designed in a way that the odds vs. potential payouts ultimately monetarily favor the dealer. \n\nAlso, most people suck at playing casino games, and they're just there for fun. People who actually know proper strategy fare far better.",
"Dealer automatically wins ties. That right there does a lot.",
"1. The dealer can't quit or pass in most games, so they're immune to \"nerve\" or guess work. The house either wins or loses. \n\n2. The dealer automatically wins ties, which is a massive advantage in a card game. \n\n3. Only the player can play until he's broke. The sheer mathematics of the situation favour the dealer by a gazillion times over. Even if a highly skilled player wrecks the dealer, the house will make their money back on the other 5 or 6 players at the table. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2zv0x9 | how is "to catch a predator" legally allowed to expose the predators on national television before they are convicted of their crimes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zv0x9/eli5_how_is_to_catch_a_predator_legally_allowed/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpmj2v4",
"cpmjfdz",
"cpmn7be",
"cpmnu0u",
"cpmqy34",
"cpmrtud",
"cpmtdea",
"cpmtojo",
"cpmu39k",
"cpmunip",
"cpmwn3n",
"cpmypte",
"cpn058y",
"cpn1qm6",
"cpnbnw1",
"cpndzx9"
],
"score": [
757,
101,
32,
46,
11,
5,
22,
10,
68,
4,
7,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is journalism. Disclaimers indicate to viewers that the predators caught are not convicted of crimes. What the program shows is the process of baiting predators, who are always given the opportunity to explain their presence at the sting house. The journalistic fact that the program uncovers, most of the time, is that these dudes are trolling for jail bait.",
"Follow up question: how is it not entrapment? ",
"They are simply showing video that they recorded. First, it's video someone posing as a minor. Then, it's video of a guy showing up at a house and having a conversation with Chris Hansen. It has nothing to do with legal guilt or legal innocence or convictions or punishment. They're just showing video that they recorded.",
"\"Innocent until proven guilty\" doesn't apply to the court of public opinion.",
"What if the shows are aired after the conviction?\n\nDoes anyone know?",
"What I've been told by family that worked on the show Cops, they get people to sign releases and the producers will even tell people to sign the release and they'll go easy on them and other lies. There are many tricks to get a release signed at the incident. \n\nI would guess Predator also uses similar tactics to get a release signed. Imagine the cops just pounced on you and the producer interrupts with \"wait, don't cuff him, maybe he can just sign a release.\"",
"One of the reasons it's not on anymore is because they got sued by the family of a guy who killed himself after they busted him on the show. So It may be legal to show but some jury's may find the show liable in a lawsuit. It's just too much of a risk and bad press to keep doing it.",
"Has anyone of legal age every showed up to the sting house? Could imagine that'd be an awkward little chat.",
"I reprise t3d one of the guys they caught in the Murphy TX episode. One of the interesting things is some of the tactics used are questionable at best. On my gy the girl in the chat says she is 15, however when you clicked on her profile it said she was 21 and the photo looked like a 25 year old. After it was all over the DA refused to file any of the cases because of the questionable tactics and the fact NBC refused to cooperate with law enforcement at all after the filming. All the statements made by the men after they entered the homes would be thrown out per Miranda, and law enforcement could never prove who exactly was on the computer doing the talking. It was all screwed up mess for the benefit of TV only.",
"ARREST records are PUBLIC!!\n\nMost people acquitted or exonerated have no means to clear their arrest record!!",
"They are simply reading out loud what the person typed and asking why they are there.\n\nHow would that NOT be legal? \n\nThat's kinda what journalists do- report on facts and ask questions.",
"I likes ya and I wants ya. Now we can do this the easy way or the hard way. The choice is yours.",
"I've read the producers of Cops often collude with the police and prosecutors to reduce the sentence or drop charges if the people being arrested sign a release. However, \"To Catch A Predator\" isn't an official police investigation, and thereby the evidence collected isn't sufficient to hold up a case. Bearing this in mind, any time you see somebody's face depicted on television, they signed a legal release to be featured. \n \n This is purely speculation, but the only weight the program throws around is to, \"name and shame\" pedophiles. I imagine the producers approach them with the release after the encounter, saying something like, \"sign this release and we won't use your real name.\" Either that or the program is purely fictionalized and the pedophiles you see are people who weren't very discriminating when it came to which jobs they auditioned. \n \nNobody's going to jail over this program. However, it may have had an immense effect on the ability of pedophiles to stalk children online, by effectively portraying the internet as a mine-field for child molesters. ",
"Why would they not be allowed to show footage of someone doing something?",
"How awesome would it be if an actual Predator showed up and just murdered the shit out of everyone on the hidden camera?",
"There is absolutely nothing illegal about reporting someone as being a suspect. In fact it is protected part of journalism. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3x0997 | why do bodyguards always wear sunglasses? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x0997/eli5_why_do_bodyguards_always_wear_sunglasses/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy0d110",
"cy0d4l4"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"In addition to hiding the wearer's eyes, thus obscuring the fact that they may be intensely looking at something, they are also frequently made of safety materials, so explosions, particulate matter from firearms rounds going off, debris, etc. also won't damage the eye. They are also frequently made of materials that can enhance the image the wearer sees, improving contrast and separation of targets and background, etc.",
"Usually to cut down on glare when outside so they don't have anything obstructing their vision -such as light reflecting off buildings or cars- & endangering their client.\n\n\nAlso, when indoors, it's part of an image projected by the media & also helps intimidation because people don't know where they're looking.\n\nWorked as a bodyguard for several years but never used sunglasses because of my face shape & naturally intimidating gaze."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4lny58 | how do tv shows and movies make up new languages like klingon, tolkein, and dothraki? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lny58/eli5_how_do_tv_shows_and_movies_make_up_new/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3otxrm"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Klingon was originally just made up to sound alien. The actor who played Scotty, James Doohan, made up the basic sound and a few words for the first Star Trek movie. Marc Okrand fleshed out the language based on Doohan's performance, creating a lexicon and grammar rules. Okrand used some features of Native American and Southeast Asian languages, avoiding patterns that are common in English, deliberately choosing features that occur relatively infrequently in human languages. [For more](_URL_0_)...\n\nTolkien (the author) made up Elven (the language) and other constructed languages over a period of years. He was a philologist (the study of language) and made a hobby of Glossopoeia (the construction of languages). He started with building blocks of language and developed them for over 50 years. [More on J.R.R. Tolkien's creation of language](_URL_1_).\n\nDothraki was created by linguist David Peterson for the TV show based on Dothraki words and phrases in George R.R. Martin's novels. Peterson drew words from Turkish, Russian, Estonian, Inuktitut, and Swahili, taking inspiration from Martin's description of the language. The language is intended to be easy to learn and pronounce, since it is intended for actors to easily memorize and perform. [To read more](_URL_2_)...\n\nYou can also read about [Constructed languages here](_URL_4_), and [Fictional languages here](_URL_3_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_language",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_constructed_by_J._R._R._Tolkien",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dothraki_language",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_language",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language"
]
] |
||
7piwrz | why can't we have something to measure chemical levels and then make them what they should be in cases of mental illness? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7piwrz/eli5why_cant_we_have_something_to_measure/ | {
"a_id": [
"dshlbqi",
"dshllah",
"dshlpaf",
"dshm057"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because mental illness is quite subjective and differences in chemical levels of one person may not/May do more to another person ",
"The only reason we say that mental illnesses come from chemical imbalances in the brain is because, if you really think about it, everything that we are and think is some sort of physical matter reacting to other physical matter. There isn't any sort of non-physical \"you\" yet proven by science, so it all has to be some kind of chemical. \n\nThis is *very different* from actually knowing what all of these compounds are, and knowing what the normal, healthy range is. With things like blood tests, it's possible to have a slightly unusual result, but still be totally healthy. ",
"We do! For example, schizophrenia is measured by levels of dopamine and serotonin in the brain. However, correcting this is not always as simple as \"adding/removing\" neurotransmitters. ",
"Your brain is shielded from the rest of your bloodstream through a special layer called the blood-brain barrier. It is an extra filter that screens out all but a very small number of specific chemicals (like oxygen and glucose) needed by the brain. It also keeps those chemicals made and used in the brain (like the ones you mention) from leaking back into your bloodstream.\n\nThis is also the main reason that brain cancers are so hard to treat. The vast majority of anti-cancer drugs can't make it into your brain. Similarly, there is no easy way for us to do a direct blood test from your arm to figure out what your dopamine, norepinephrine, seratonin, etc. levels in your brain actually are. The only way to measure would be to go straight into your brain and somehow puncture the barrier, which is a really terrible idea.\n\nThe transmitters we're talking about also don't just swim around in there like a soup. They are released in very sporadic, tight bursts, between individual brain cells. They're there, they bridge the channel, they get absorbed in an instant. So it would be really hard to actually measure an \"average\" background level through a single sample.\n\nWorse, as someone above mentioned, there is no perfect optimal level of these transmitters that are equal across everyone. Genetics, upbringing, environment, etc. all play a role in determining what the ideal \"balance\" actually is for a given individual. Your numeric, ideal levels, would not be the same as mine. And if you haven't gotten a baseline of what is \"normal\" for me, how do you really know if I'm high or low when I come in later?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
36adgc | why aren't windshield wipers designed to clean the whole windshield? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36adgc/eli5_why_arent_windshield_wipers_designed_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"crc65jj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because the increased difficulty is not worth the additional cost. \n\nThe easiest method of actuation is a motor that rotates back and forth through a predetermined angle. It is easy to seal (only one point of dirt ingress, and we have been creating bearing seals for a long time), easy to build (we have been making them for a long time), and easy to fix (like 10 parts total, all of which are very common). However, this only cleans an arc (as you have noticed). Bus windshield wipers have a pivot point on the wiper which allows them to do a better job of cleaning the whole piece of glass, but this also is another point of failure. For a typical car, the additional maintenance is not worth it. As well, works best on a flat piece, but typical car windshields have significant curvature. \n\nIf you were instead to try to install a vertical or horizontal wiper that traversed the entire front, you'd need a track that could get jammed or damaged from road dirt, again making it not worth the cost. \n\nThe final concept that I have seen is using air to blow the water off, but this again has more points of failure (any of the nozzles can get clogged). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
dtsawt | how to can a complete beginner learn how to sing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dtsawt/eli5_how_to_can_a_complete_beginner_learn_how_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"f6yiabm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Step one: open mouth.\nStep two: produce noise.\nStep three: listen and determine if sound is pleasant."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2vk18s | what exactly happens when i press "door close" on an elevator? nothing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vk18s/eli5_what_exactly_happens_when_i_press_door_close/ | {
"a_id": [
"coib4dl",
"coibaeb",
"coicpxk",
"coidn63"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"When you press the \"door close\" button on an elevator control panel, the elevator door closes.",
"On some elevators, yes, nothing happens. On those elevators it is for show, because people expect it to be there, and because it's cheaper for the elevator manufacturer to leave it in than to build a second version that doesn't have them.\n\nThe button works on most elevators though. In the ones I've seen, you have to hold, not press, the door close button, in which case it either immediately starts to close the door, or cuts into the delay time that the door would normally be open.\n\nIf you're expecting the button to instantly slam the door shut, you'll never see that. Elevators close slowly because it gives people time to make sure they and their belongings aren't stuck in the doorway, and because those doors can be heavy, and thus it would be dangerous if not lethal to have them slam shut quickly on your soft, squishable flesh. ",
"It closes the door.\n\nIt still has a delay, but every elevator I've ever used shortens the delay if you press the \"door close\" button.\n\nCanada.",
"It may appear like it doesn't do much in normal service, but I assure you the button has to work. In fireman service the door close/open buttons are very important and have to function in a certain way for safety's sake."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2d09il | in the usa, how are dui checkpoints not considered a violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution regarding 'unlawful search and seizure'? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d09il/eli5_in_the_usa_how_are_dui_checkpoints_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjks32u",
"cjksl5w",
"cjkyimc",
"cjkz94a",
"cjl1kv0",
"cjl1nm1",
"cjl3kaz",
"cjl3nnd",
"cjl5vw1",
"cjl7qo5",
"cjl8545"
],
"score": [
4,
22,
3,
58,
9,
3,
2,
5,
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It actually is unconstitutional in some states.",
"\"DUI Checkpoints\" are actually checkpoints that check your drivers license is legal, in California at the very least. At that time, if they suspect drug or alcohol use, they have probable cause to use a breathalyzer test or sobriety test of their choice. \n\nThere are signs before the checkpoints and right after that sign is the option to make a turn to avoid the checkpoint. To drive, you need a legal licence. They're making sure you're not driving with a suspended license or without one at all. And they're sneakily checking for drunk drivers. \n\nEdit: it is not entrapment If Its not advertised or if they do not allow you to turn around, but most states allow you to do so that way in respect of the 4th amendment. ",
"They are actually illegal here in Texas.\rThey cannot use any dwi checkpoints.\r\rBut 5 miles over in Oklahoma they love them.",
"For the most smart ass answer: because the Supreme Court of the United States said so. *See _URL_1_. Now your reply might be, \"I don't agree with that decision\" -- that's great no one cares -- go become a lawyer and take it up with them. \n\nI'll give a slightly more detailed explanation. \n\nLet's take some time to have a gander at the Fourth Amendment, shall we? \n\n\"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against **unreasonable** searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\"\n\nI've highlighted probably the most important word in that phrase: unreasonable. So, for a search or a seizure to be constitutional it need only be reasonable. Oftentimes that means supported by a probable cause and maybe a warrant, but not always. \n\nIn the case of a DUI stop, you've technically been seized, so the real question is -- is that seizure reasonable? For one of these checkpoint situations, the court came up with a rule, you'll see it described as the \"Brown Rule\" or \"Brown Balancing test\" (for brown see _URL_0_)\n\nThe test balances \"[T]he State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped.\"\n\nIn the Supreme Court's view a DUI checkpoint weighed in favor of being constitutional. First, the state had a high interest in combating drunk driving. Second, the Court found the checkpoints helped combat the problem. Third, the intrusion on motorists was brief, they were not surprised by the checkpoint, and it wasn't too intrusive. \n\nIn balancing these things, the Court concluded it was indeed reasonable to have DUI checkpoints. So a DUI checkpoint wasn't an \"unreasonable\" search or seizure. \n\nTo clear some things up: \n\nIn many states it is against the state constitution to conduct a DUI checkpoint. \n\nAlso, it pains me when ever someone says \"it's an acceptable violation of the fourth amendment\" because that doesn't make any fucking sense. It's reasonable or it's not. In this case it's been held reasonable. There's no such thing as an acceptable 4A violation.",
"Isn't driving a privilege, not a right, and by accepting a license you agree to be chemically tested upon request?",
"Uh, can't see it mentioned here, but the real reason is that the Supreme Court holds that electing to use a public road is implied consent. ",
"You first have to understand this ::: There is no such thing as a **Federal** DUI Checkpoint, so they are all enforced by state governments or municipalities. Realize which government is in control of a policy, and it is much easier to understand why a policy is a certain way.\n\nHistorically, not all amendments to the US Constitution were applicable to State Governments and the ones that are, only became so through *precedence*. No one has challenged this particular law yet in federal court and it exists in a legal gray area.\n\nIn say, the 1960s, taking blood to determine BAC wasn't even something many considered possible. So, there was no environment for such a law to exist in. Likewise, it was this way when the USA was founded (there wasn't DUI's b/c there was no cars). Our understanding, legalese speaking, of what constitutes an \"illegal search and seizure\" has changed over time because the applicable situations has become more diverse over time.\n\nAs far as the enforcing parties are concerned, they created the law to make it legal & the Supreme court doesn't even know if it is technically a \"search & /or seizure\" or not because they've never heard the case.\n\n**Tl;Dr** Because no one has ever challenged the particular state or local laws which allow the state or local government to enforce such a policy in a case which has been heard or ruled on by the US Supreme Court, who decide if a policy/law/action is unconstitutional. ",
"Check this out, this entire comic does a pretty good job explaining a lot of things. _URL_0_",
"DUI checkpoints *are* a violation of the spirit of the fourth amendment, but the courts just don't care. ",
"Checkpoints have been upheld by SCOTUS provided that:\n\n1) The purpose is narrowly tailored to a legitimate state interest and;\n\n2) Some method was established to eliminate profiling/racism\n\nAs for item #1 - it means that the state is justified on establishing a checkpoint if it's for one particular thing (example: drunk driving.) If the state claims it wants to curb drunk driving, a drunk checkpoint is justified. The state cannot have a checkpoint for \"suspicious activity\" because that is way too broad and open to too much interpretation. \n\nNB- the same has been upheld for a checkpoint for missing people/drugs/ wanted vehicles\n\nAs for item #2 - The checkpoint must have a clearly defined method. So, in advance, police will establish something like \"every 5th vehicle will be pulled over.\" This type of method eliminates profiling based in race or gender and truly leaves the check to chance. \n\nUsing these two approaches, they are not unreasonable searches as outlines by the 4th amendment. \n\nAlso remember, if a car is stopped and given a once over - it is not a search nor is it a seizure. Police are using the \"in plain sight\" rule to establish probable cause for a search and detainment/seizure. \n\n \nSource: I'm a licensed attorney. ",
"Driving a car on public roads, or flying aircraft, or using a boat on a public waterway is an activity that requires a license. Where you're getting confused is, yes, you have a right to obtain that license, if you meet the criteria for it's issuance. \n\nIn the case of motor vehicles, the conditions of that include consent to have your lawful exercise of the privileges granted by that license to be verified.\n\nYour car is your property, just like the Cessna 172 that a pilot can get into. But by registering it for use in public areas, you must comply with the current laws of that area.\n\nHope that helps. And, if you're going to enjoy a few drinks, please don't drive."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/47/case.html",
"http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/case.html*"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1917"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3fighm | why is it you can sue drug companies for bad drugs but not the fda who approved them to be sold on the market? why are they not able to be punished if they were the ones that allowed it to be released to begin with? | Without the consent of the FDA these medicines couldn't hurt people to begin with so why are they not held liable? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fighm/eli5_why_is_it_you_can_sue_drug_companies_for_bad/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctow2ex",
"ctow4z5"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"'The Federal Tort Claims Act' Does not permit people to sue the Federal Government. You can in some cases sue individual federal employees for negligence, but you cannot sue a department such as the FDA. ",
"As far as [I am aware of the process](_URL_0_), FDA just reviews the test results and other data supplied by the manufacturer. Test data can be colored to look better than it actually is, or due to limited sample size simply not exhibit the problem that leads to suing. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/"
]
] |
|
j95zz | how do baristas make awesome designs in coffee? | Like [this?](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j95zz/how_do_baristas_make_awesome_designs_in_coffee/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2aa7rw",
"c2aa7rw"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I googled, apparently it has to do with pouring technique and then some simple toothpick skills. This video shows making leaves and a dragon.\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"I googled, apparently it has to do with pouring technique and then some simple toothpick skills. This video shows making leaves and a dragon.\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [
"http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/coffee_designs/87.jpg"
] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7iUSPPYvIQ"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7iUSPPYvIQ"
]
] |
|
2kxqyl | - how the uk is paying world war 2 debt (bonds) and to whom? | Based on this article: _URL_0_
Don't quite understand how these bonds work. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kxqyl/eli5_how_the_uk_is_paying_world_war_2_debt_bonds/ | {
"a_id": [
"clpmv9t",
"clpmyyg"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"*\"The finance ministry said on Friday that it would redeem 218 million pounds ($348 million) of 4.0 percent consols -* **a rare type of bond with no maturity date** *- on Feb. 1 next year, to be funded by issuing new debt.\"*\n\nNormally bonds have a maturity date. For example, a 10 year bond has a maturity date ten years from the day it was issued. That means that one the final day of year 10 the full amount of money borrowed is repaid.\n\nConsul bonds don't have a maturity date, they can (theoretically) go on forever as debt. I assume Britain is paying them off because they can, and have decided that it will make for some good press. ",
"The Government borrows money using loans called [gilts](_URL_1_). Anyone can buy gilts to lend money to the Government. They all have a face value of £1.00 and a Coupon. The coupon is the interest paid, e.g. a Coupon of 4% means the Government pays £0.04 every year to the owner of the gilt. Gilts can be traded between investors. If I buy a 4% coupon gilt, then sell it to you, you will then start earning the £0.04/year instead of me. While gilts have a face value of £1.00, they are rarely bought and sold for this value, e.g. at the moment interest rates are very low, so 4% is a very good rate, so people are willing to pay more than £1.00 for a 4% gilt with a face value of £1.00. The vast majority of gilts have an expiry date, at which point the £1.00 face value is returned to the owner and the last interest is paid out. During WW1, the Government issued a gilt called [\"War Loan 3.5%\"](_URL_0_) with no expiry date, so it is still paying out £0.035 a year to the owners of these gilts. The war loans are currently trading at about £0.92. The Government can buy back these loans on the open market, destroy them, and make up the shortfall by issuing standard gilts at a lower interest rate to new investors."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/us-markets-bonds-britain-idUSKBN0IK16O20141031"
] | [
[],
[
"http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/w/war-loan-3-12",
"http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/corporate-bonds-gilts/bond-prices/uk-gilts"
]
] |
|
kpbe1 | why ebay allows sniping services to exist | It seems to go completely against eBay's proxy bidding system. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kpbe1/eli5_why_ebay_allows_sniping_services_to_exist/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2m3cjb",
"c2m4syf",
"c2m3cjb",
"c2m4syf"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The technical challenge of stopping sniping is enormous. And if they did, how much practical good would it do? Most people don't snipe, and even those who do snipe are still making EBay money - they're buying stuff. And EBay gets a small percentage of the sale price of that stuff.\n\nAs far as problems go, fraud is a way bigger problem and way more worth spending time and effort on. Sniping is at best a distant second priority.",
"eBay gets paid no matter what happens.",
"The technical challenge of stopping sniping is enormous. And if they did, how much practical good would it do? Most people don't snipe, and even those who do snipe are still making EBay money - they're buying stuff. And EBay gets a small percentage of the sale price of that stuff.\n\nAs far as problems go, fraud is a way bigger problem and way more worth spending time and effort on. Sniping is at best a distant second priority.",
"eBay gets paid no matter what happens."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5feydl | why is jill stein the one requesting the recount? what is she expecting to get out out of it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5feydl/elif_why_is_jill_stein_the_one_requesting_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dajpvh7",
"dajq5ue",
"dajria6"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"As a third party candidate Jill Stein has nothing to lose, but the authority to ask for a recount. The speculation that Russia hacked or influenced the US elections is rumored, whispered- but serious. If a recount exposes irregularities it would be a story.\n\nThen again, Bush didn't win at least twice and he was President for 8 years. ",
"Cynical explanation: If she doesn't spend all the money raised, the Green Party gets to use it in other elections.\n\nOther explanation: It raises the profile of the Greens.",
"The Green Party is not widely known and its presidential aspirations were not taken very seriously by the left of the Democratic party, which is the demographic they might appeal to. This gets her and the Green Party in the news (much like her arrest warrant in the Dakota pipeline protests). The difference now is that the major parties are done campaigning, so there is more focus on her/her party. Yea, she can't win, but from her perspective only good can come from the recount. Added publicity leads people to learn about the Green Party and in the off chance that it changes some electoral college votes, the party more closely aligned with the Green Party (Democrats) stands to benefit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6pqjqu | how fast can anyone physically gain body fat? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pqjqu/eli5how_fast_can_anyone_physically_gain_body_fat/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkrgsoy"
],
"score": [
47
],
"text": [
"Less than 30 seconds.\n\nIf you drink sugar after fasting for 12 hours, that sugar will appear as fat in your liver 30 seconds later. It probably happens faster than that, but that's how long an MRI scan takes. Essentially if you drink a big glass of sugar water on an empty stomach, some of that sugar will be fat before you finish drinking."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
83r1vo | how do neutrino detectors avoid false positives from radioactive decay? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/83r1vo/eli5_how_do_neutrino_detectors_avoid_false/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvjx8mg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > How could they manufacture such a large apparatus and be certain there are no radioactive atoms inside\n\nThey don't. And they don't block *all* of the cosmic rays, or *all* of the other background radiation.\n\nWhat they measure with the detector will always have some background. When they analyze the data, they can find ways to subtract background from their spectra, or at least estimate it statistically.\n\nIt will end up contributing to the uncertainty on their final result."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
41dsk6 | what exactly is happening at the molecular level that causes us to get burned? is there a difference between burn sources (ie. the stove vs. radioactive material)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41dsk6/eli5_what_exactly_is_happening_at_the_molecular/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz1j7qe",
"cz1jel3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Burning is a chemical reaction. Carbon-containing molecules (basically everything that makes up your cells and connective tissue - organic molecules) react with oxygen and create carbon dioxide (oxygen + carbon) and water (all the hydrogen in organic molecules + oxygen). This reaction only requires a high temperature, which is why your tissues don't normally burn even though being surrounded by oxygen. But when you get close to a fire, it raises temperature enough to start this chemical process.\n\nRadiation doesn't cause this chemical burning, unless it's intense enough to increase your tissue temperature (in which case it's the same kind of burning process as above, caused by high temperature). Radiation causes random damage in electronic or molecular structure by ejecting electrons and breaking molecular bonds. Alternatively, radioactive material of high activity can be intrinsically at a high temperature, and it can burn you on touch (but this is, again, simply the high temperature causing it).\n\nTl;dr: Burning happens when your tissue and the immediately surrounding oxygen reach a high enough temperature for the two to automatically react in a chemical process.\n\nThe key, in any case, is temperature. Anything that burns you does so by increasing temperature in some way. The oxygen around you does the rest.",
"The simple explanation is that the heat kills and/or damages the cells that it comes into contact with. Depending on the severity of the burn, this can merely affect the surface layer (epidermis, first degree), pass through to the connective (dermis, second degree, swelling \"bullae\" form) down to the muscle layer (third degree). Think of the changes that happen to the proteins in the white of the egg when it is put into the pan, and imagine the same happening to the proteins and components of the cells.\n\nThe heat is beyond the tolerance of the cell wall and other component's ability to tolerate without proteins and such deforming. The walls of each cell can rupture or at the very least become excessively leaky, leading to the release of multiple extracellular components into the surrounding tissue, this causes inflammation and along with the wide destruction of natural barriers to transport of material from the blood, a lot of fluid is trapped in the area of the burn. This is most noticeable in second degree burns and more, but you can notice the reddishness and such from first degree, along with the pain and inflammation from the release of bradykinine and intracellular components in response to the inflammation.\n\nFollowing the burn, the skin needs to regenerate. However, the body is mostly concerned with closing the compromised area of skin first and foremost, so first a scab forms as it would a would, then nearby supportive cells such as fibroblasts/cysts start making supportive scar tissue. After this, the skin's stem cells start to divide and slowly create natural skin to cover the area. If the burn area is large, and the burn was of a second degree so the stem cells in the dermis are also damaged, a scar may permanently form.\n\nRadioactive material can burn-by-heat in the same way, however the most dangerous aspect is usually that the ultraviolet rays can damage the genome of the cells is passes through, killing cells, making them susceptible to cancer and so forth.. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2l9bsc | what does "died from complications from alzheimer's" mean? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l9bsc/eli5what_does_died_from_complications_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"clsp0fa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most people with Alzheimer's disease don't die from Alzheimer's itself. Instead, due to deteriorating brain function, victims become bed-ridden, get pressure ulcers and/or pneumonia which eventually lead to death. \n \nLike AIDS, it isn't the disease itself that kills but the opportunistic diseases that it enables"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3y1q7l | the rules for reddit | Anything i try putting up gets removed for violating a rule somewhere. Ive seen some messed up things on here that a person probably shouldnt see in their lifetime but somehow manage to not violate any rules | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y1q7l/eli5_the_rules_for_reddit/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy9qsda",
"cy9r3h7",
"cy9rt2h"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Every sub-reddit has rules. Every sub-reddit has moderators. Don't break the rules and the moderators won't get mad.\n\nEx: These are the rules for r/explainlikeimfive\n_URL_0_\n",
"well,, there's rettiquette,, which is less a matter of rules than a moral code of behavior, and then each sub has specific rules.\ndepending on what sub you're in, there may be none, our there may be a long list. furthermore, those rules may be tightly enforced by the mods of the sub, or not enforced at all. \nReddit is weird sometimes. It's like a democratic tyranny",
"Rules for reddit are about making the subs useful to the users. From the fact that you don't believe in apostrophes I am going to take a wild guess: you want to get what you want from reddit (for example, explanations of the rules) with a minimum of effort. Unfortunately, reddit is a useful resources for all of us when everyone puts a little bit of extra effort into their posts and comments. That means that when you put an extra 2 minutes into thinking about what you are going to post, you can save other people 10 minutes of trouble. Different subs have rules so you can see what *that* sub would like *you* to do in that extra 2 minutes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/rules"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
9gervu | how does your body create suction to suck up liquids? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9gervu/eli5_how_does_your_body_create_suction_to_suck_up/ | {
"a_id": [
"e63m55q"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"The same way you suck in air. The basic key to it is that pressure always wants to equalize. If you have a higher pressure in one place, and a lower pressure in another, air will move to try and make that equal. \n\nInside your chest, there's a sealed cavity in which your lungs sit. You have a big muscle at the bottom of that cavity called the diaphragm. When you inhale, what you're actually doing is moving that diaphragm muscle downwards. \n\nWhat that does is make that cavity larger. Because it's a fixed amount of air inside there, increasing the space that air occupies reduces the pressure the air is under. This causes the air pressure all around you (which is now at a greater pressure than inside your chest cavity), to rush into your mouth or nose and down into your lungs causing them to expand inside your chest cavity, and equalize the pressure in there again. \n\nWhat you do with a straw is very simple and very similar. You grip the straw between your lips ~~and then inhale~~ and you lower your jaw. That reduces the air pressure inside your mouth, much like lowering the diaphragm lowers the pressure in your chest cavity, which then reduces the pressure in the straw. Atmospheric pressure which is pushing down on the surface of the drink now has an advantage against the pressure in your mouth, and forces the liquid up the straw to attempt to compensate. \n\n*Edited in response to a correction* "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
rxong | what is linguistic philosophy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/rxong/eli5_what_is_linguistic_philosophy/ | {
"a_id": [
"c49gum5",
"c49hhwx"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"In philosophy, there are lots of unresolved disagreements. So an important question for philosophers to answer is \"how should we resolve disagreements?\"\n\nLinguistic philosophers believe that resolving disagreements should resolve around carefully defining terminology. That is, they think that every competent philosopher agrees on concepts, it's just that they define words differently.",
"Linguistic philosophy is an attempt to understand language completely, which includes origin of language and origin of phonetics (the sounds that make up the words in a language), as well as trying to understand why we have language and why languages are different from place to place.\n\nThere are lots of theories about where our languages come from and how they originated, but the most popular theories at present came from Noam Chomsky: Universal Grammar.\n\nUniversal Grammar posits that we are all born with a huge library of every possible sound that can be made, and as we're exposed to our parents' language, we get rid of the sounds we don't need. \n\nThink about it like this: you've got every video game ever made and they take up a lot of space. All of your friends love to play first-person shooters, so you end up playing a lot more Halo than Zelda, so as time goes on and you spend more time playing with friends and get more skilled at shooting, you throw away all your RPG's to make room for more Call of Duty games. In other words, you're limiting your library to what you play the most due to the society you're in.\n\nEventually, picking up an RPG is completely foreign to you, and you would have to completely relearn how they work, so you watch all the tutorials to figure it out. This is akin to learning a foreign language.\n\nI don't personally agree with Chomsky since his linguistic theories are basically untestable, but there are many other linguists to read into.\n\n[I read this](_URL_0_), and it was a pretty solid introduction to the different philosophies."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Linguistics-Oxford-Introductions-Language-Study/dp/0194372065/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333800830&sr=8-1"
]
] |
||
dns0is | why car computers are so slow? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dns0is/eli5_why_car_computers_are_so_slow/ | {
"a_id": [
"f5ey5m3",
"f5f0y40"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"They are different systems.\nThe airbag system for instance is super fast (quicker than you can blink) whilst the radio or satnav doesn't have to.\n\nYou also may encounter a problem with heat dissipation on some elements (and this is why you don't have the fastest processor on your radio).\n\nThe infotainment system will also slow down over time as (just like any computer) will accumulate crap over the years",
"The car doesn't have one computer, it has many small computers. The system that operates your touch screen isn't controlling the engine or anything like that.\n\nThere are some intentional decisions to use slower but more reliable computers in environments that may be excessively hot or cold or where reliability really matters. Your regular home PC is meant to operate with a room temperature generally between 0 and 40 degrees Celcius (about 32 to 104 F). Your car on the other hand will be started up in the dead of winter or after it's cooked out in the sun in summer and expected to just work. Getting something to work reliably in these environments and have a really fast CPU speed is difficult.\n\nStill, what you're describing sounds a bit extreme."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.