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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2t142m | what exactly is spacex and what are they trying to do? | ^ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2t142m/eli5_what_exactly_is_spacex_and_what_are_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnur2il",
"cnurkx5"
],
"score": [
15,
2
],
"text": [
"\"SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets.\"\n\n_URL_0_",
"SpaceX is basically a government contractor, but there are two differences between SpaceX and contractors like Lockheed Martin or Boeing. \n\n1. SpaceX doesn't just manufacture parts, it runs the launches and manufactures and designs everything on their own. Essentially NASA pays SpaceX to go do something it wants, and SpaceX manages the whole thing mostly themselves. There are some other places which do this but SpaceX is the biggest.\n\n2. SpaceX is very tightly controlled, it is privately traded not publicly, and Elon Musk actually has a very large degree of control over it. One of the odd things about this is that it really does seem like they have the goal of just expanding without much concern for profit, they are trying to grow instead of find a successful niche. \n\nWhat these two things combined together basically mean is that SpaceX isn't really innovative, just very efficient. SpaceX is in many ways the ideal government contractor, it requires little oversight, it won't try to rip you off or have cost overruns, and it is tightly managed making communication easy. Here is where things get weird though, there's another side to SpaceX, the media. Elon Musk has a big media presence and so does SpaceX, by contracting with SpaceX, NASA is basically proving to budget hawks and conservatives that they are working with private industry, that improves their political standing and help secure more allies and funding. \n\nThat is what SpaceX is, what it is trying to do is somewhat different.\n\nElon Musk is basically trying to have his own truly exploratory space program. This idea has seeped into all of SpaceX and is part of what makes them so driven and effective, there is a definite cult of personality there surrounding Musk, and the level of reverence from people who work there can kind of get creepy sometimes, but just a little. In any case it means that the company follows him in his vision, they see themselves as on the frontier of exploring all of space. In fact because of this the people I have met there are often very touchy about the fact that they would be nothing without NASA, they see themselves as independent and a driving force in space exploration.\n\nIs SpaceX going to get to Mars? No. Just no, they don't have the money and no one will pay them to do that. Barring something crazy the first people on Mars will be wearing NASA patches, but this isn't to say that SpaceX isn't doing something cool. While the goal of SpaceX is exploration, in reality it has been really effective at simply improving the way we do things in orbit, its reusable technology has some promise, and the efficient way the operation is run has been a great way to reduce costs, they are starting to open up earth orbit for real private expansion, and that is a big development. \n\nThe fact remains that exploring the universe and seeing beyond humanities next horizon is going to be done on the government's dime, and frankly I can't see that changing ever, certainly not soon. But opening up the more common parts of space to private development is a rare opportunity that is good for business and humanity, and SpaceX is leading that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.spacex.com/about"
],
[]
] |
|
836h1v | why are bonuses taxed differently than ordinary income? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/836h1v/eli5_why_are_bonuses_taxed_differently_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvfftpx",
"dvfthzb",
"dvgjzy0"
],
"score": [
49,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They're not\n\nThey're *withheld* differently from your normal paycheck since the computer doing the withholding wasn't accounting for the bonus. Since it ends up boosting your income it gets taxed at your marginal tax rate but any income boost of the same amount would require the same taxes",
"Understand the money that is taken out of your paycheck is **not** your income tax. It is money **withheld** from your paycheck to pay income tax. \n\nThat withholding is computed against your base salary, and likely includes your standard and other deductions. You might make $50K, but only be taxed on $40K of it, and that is what the withholding is computed against. If you get a $10K bonus, your deductions were already applied to your base salary, so your bonus gets withheld assume the regular tax rate.\n\nAlso, your bonus can put you into a higher tax bracket, which is withheld at a higher rate. However, this is rarer, and the difference will not be that large for most people. ",
"Payroll guy here. \n\nMost software that calculates taxes does so based on your normal income. Get paid bi-weekly? That's 26 pay periods a year. So any given check cut will be assumed to be 1/26 of your gross income for the purposes of your annual income. \n\nSo if you get a gross of $2,000 bi weekly, the system will calculate your witholding taxes based on a $52,000 per year income, modified by your marital status and exemptions. \n\nNow let's say your boss is feeling REALLY generous and gives you a $4,000 bonus. Left to its own devices, most payroll software will assume that you now make $104,000 a year for tax purposes and calculate your taxes MUCH higher. Of course, manually overriding them or blocking them to compensate can make the employee underwithheld and owing money come tax season. The 25% is a recommended amount to both avoid getting nuked by taxes on the check while making sure you're not underwithheld. Of course, that is the IRS guidelines and they'd love you to overwithheld, so it errs on the side of too much. \n\nMy suggestion? Using the above example, have the bonus check \"Taxed Monthly\". Changing the frequency in the system would make it assume you get that $4000 only once a month or $48,000 a year making the taxes much more in line with the levels you'd see on a 'normal' paycheck. Not eating half your bonus, but not leaving you with a giant tax bill at the end of the year either. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3kwcx1 | what does it mean when some websites end in .xyz instead of .com? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kwcx1/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_some_websites_end_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv11dic",
"cv11v9x"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It probably means that the domain they wanted with the .com was already taken. So instead of being able to buy _URL_1_, they were stuck with example.xyz. There are TONS of new top level domains (TLDs) now. Most of them are two letter country codes, plus the old standard .com, .net, .gov, etc... but there are a bunch of brand new ones too. A full list is at _URL_0_",
"That what you mean is the TLD *(top-level-domain)*. It can be *.de* for Germany, *.fr* for France, *.au* for Australia, *.mil* for military *(country doesn't matter)*, *.gov* for governments *(country doesn't matter)*. Those are all referring to something. A country, organisation, etc.\n\n*.xyz* is for everyone. It doesn't apply to a country, organisation, institution, goverment, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains",
"example.com"
],
[]
] |
||
7n7a7b | what's the point of adding alcohol when cooking some food dishes when the alcohol is going to be burned off anyway? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7n7a7b/eli5_whats_the_point_of_adding_alcohol_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"drzlxay"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not all of it is burned off depending on how you cook it, but adding alcohol generally has always been about flavour, not the tiny amount of alcohol left in it\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1m1wjo | how would i look like if i were in a car traveling near the speed of light, and why would i look like that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m1wjo/eli5_how_would_i_look_like_if_i_were_in_a_car/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc4ywbo",
"cc4zn31",
"cc52f81"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"How would you look to who? To yourself you would look exactly the same. To others you would look squished (or the car would) along the direction it's travelling\n\n----\n\nSlowly:\n\n < < < [YOU] > > > \n\n-- Observer ---\n\n----\n\n\nVERY Fast:\n\n < [U] > \n\n\n-- Observer ---\n",
"It's a phenomenon called \"length contraction.\" The easiest way to explain it relies on you already knowing \"time dilation,\" which gets asked about [extremely often](_URL_0_), so I'm not going to bother explaining it here.\n\nSo, imagine that you have some rod of length L, and it's at rest according to you. You also have a stopwatch, which you'll use in a second.\n\nI have a really powerful cannon that shoots stopwatches for some absurd reason, and what I do is shoot a stopwatch along the length of the rod at 99% of the speed of light.\n\nYou measure the time, t, that it takes the stopwatch to pass from one end of the rod to the other. Naturally, since speed is distance divided by time, you have\n\nL/t = v\n\nwhere v is the moving stopwatch's speed, and thus\n\nt = L/v.\n\nThe stopwatch that I shot out of the cannon is also measuring time. However, it's moving really fast, so it's going to measure a shorter amount of time because of time dilation. We'll call the time that the moving stopwatch measures t', remembering that t' is less than t.\n\nThe speed according to the stopwatch is still the same (it would say that the rod is coming towards it), so\n\nt' = L/v?\n\nWell, no, because t' < t, so L can't be the same:\n\nt' < t = L/v\n\nAnd v has to be the same, so the only appropriate thing to do is to say that L gets \"contracted\" from the perspective of the moving stopwatch, just like how time gets dilated:\n\nt' = L'/v\n\nso\n\nL' < L\n\nThus, length contraction. Relativistic effects force objects that are moving extremely quickly to appear to get \"flattened\" from the perspective of someone watching them whiz by.\n\nI know that this explanation was a bit mathy, but that's the unfortunate nature of physics at this level. I think that it's not unreasonable to get an intuitive grasp of time dilation, and once you understand why that happens, it's reasonable to show that length contraction just sort of \"falls out\" pretty naturally, like I did here.",
"I did my research project last summer on this at MIT.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nWe built a 3D simulation of what it's like to travel near the speed of light by slowing light down to a nearly walking pace.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=time+dilation&sort=new&restrict_sr=on"
],
[
"http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/"
]
] |
||
6y2v2c | how does "lift" actually work? | \ > inb4 "differing air pressure above and below the wings"
How does that make it so the plane wants to go up?
What is "air pressure" anyway? And how does the wing make it so there's more air pressure on one side of the wing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6y2v2c/eli5_how_does_lift_actually_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmkhxoa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: How do aircraft [eg. fighter jets] generate lift upside down? ](_URL_1_)\n1. [ELI5: How are plane wings designed to achieve lift? How do they decrease lift when landing? ](_URL_6_)\n1. [ELI5: The physics of how an airplane flies ](_URL_5_)\n1. [ELI5: How do airplane wings actually work? ](_URL_0_)\n1. [ELI5: How is lift created with an airfoil? ](_URL_4_)\n1. [ELI5: How does a helicopter actually attain lift? ](_URL_3_)\n1. [ELI5: Lift, Drag, And Thrust ](_URL_2_)\n1. [ELI5: how in the hell do planes fly, if you really think about the explanation it makes no sense ](_URL_8_)\n1. [ELI5: Flight & Lift without \"Equal transit theory\" ](_URL_7_)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jkj3b/eli5_how_do_airplane_wings_actually_work/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lmqoj/eli5_how_do_aircraft_eg_fighter_jets_generate/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w1d47/eli5_lift_drag_and_thrust/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47p984/eli5_how_does_a_helicopter_actually_attain_lift/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ussb9/eli5_how_is_lift_created_with_an_airfoil/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uiano/eli5_the_physics_of_how_an_airplane_flies/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xy53m/eli5_how_are_plane_wings_designed_to_achieve_lift/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11z6a0/eli5_flight_lift_without_equal_transit_theory/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pzwfn/eli5_how_in_the_hell_do_planes_fly_if_you_really/"
]
] |
|
3gxejr | why doesn't your brain tell your toenails to stop growing after they penetrate skin? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gxejr/eli5why_doesnt_your_brain_tell_your_toenails_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu2cfrv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The growth of toenails is not under the control of the brain. Indeed, the growth of tissues is not under the control of the brain.."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
dmy3lq | how come sticky things (like spilled coke) can stay sticky for days or weeks? shouldn't they dry up relatively quickly and lose their "stickiness"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dmy3lq/eli5_how_come_sticky_things_like_spilled_coke_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"f55tg6j",
"f55xg2m",
"f57lycb"
],
"score": [
34,
3,
11
],
"text": [
"No. They will stay sticky from their sugar content. When things dry up it’s because the water in them has evaporated, but when something sweet spills the water evaporates and leaves the sticky, sugary mess behind. Hope that helps!",
"Talking about soda/pop specifically, it tends to stay sticky after being spilled due to the high amount of sugar inside of it. The water will evaporate, but sugar does not. This is why sparkling water (Which is just like Coke, except without all the sugar) does not leave behind a sticky mess if it's spilled. [Watch videos of people boiling soda/pop and you'll see what I mean. It's quite disgusting.](_URL_0_)",
"Sugar is a humectant. It draws water from the atmosphere to itself, so it is constantly replenishing the moisture it needs to remain sticky. In a humid place like the area in which I live, it’ll be stickier for longer than a pop spill in Las Vegas or Calgary."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/LZp29Qeu8_U?t=78"
],
[]
] |
||
23e6g0 | if time were to pause, would the force of gravity disappear? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23e6g0/eli5if_time_were_to_pause_would_the_force_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgw3qdr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Acceleration would be 9.81*t so if t = 0 acceleration is 0, not undefined. You could speculate but nothing would be able to move as time has stopped. \n\nAll physics equations would still apply."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
b4kwpe | how do plants remove toxins from the air? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b4kwpe/eli5_how_do_plants_remove_toxins_from_the_air/ | {
"a_id": [
"ej7cljf",
"ej7g17c"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Plants specifically remove carbon dioxide from the air through a process called photosynthesis. Although it's a complicated word, photosynthesis is just the plant version of how we humans breath (admittedly, it's more the plant version of how our individual cells breathe, but it's fine)\n\nWhen a human breathes, their lungs take some oxygen from the air to fuel their body, and puts some carbon dioxide into the air.\n\nWhen a plant 'breathes', it takes some carbon dioxide from the air to fuel itself, and puts some oxygen into the air. This oxygen is good for us humans because we need oxygen to live, and the removal of the carbon dioxide is also good because in high amounts, it can be dangerous to us.\n\nI'm not familiar with plants removing any other toxins, so I'm sorry if I accidentally answered the wrong question.\n\nEdit: plants, not pants",
"Plants dont actually remove toxins. The word toxin actually has a specific meaning, it's not just \"something that's bad for you\". Here's a definition from a quick Google search:\n\n\"an antigenic poison or venom of plant or animal origin, especially one produced by or derived from microorganisms and causing disease when present at low concentration in the body.\"\n\nLike someone else said, plants remove CO2, something that every animal engaging in respiration produces.When people talk about trees and plants cleaning the air, that's what they're talking about, CO2. It's also something that accumulates in our atmosphere from other chemical reactions, most notably combustion. Plants and other photo synthesizers use that compound to build sugars that they store as plant tissues and use for energy. \n\n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1y84n3 | why is it said that some people lived even 900 years? | Please give me some biology examples of why this is not possible*. The conditions, alimentation etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y84n3/eli5_why_is_it_said_that_some_people_lived_even/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfi6lif",
"cfi6m95",
"cfi6zul",
"cfi71pb"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Since the people saying it are invoking religious texts, it's not a scientific statement. People don't, to the best of our understanding, live 900 years.",
"It's from the Bible - _URL_0_\n\nEvery scientist will tell you it's simply impossible to live that long.",
"This is literally only stated in religious stories. There has never been a record of a mammal living for that long, let alone a person. ",
"We have modern medicine. We're lucky to make it to 100 years. There's no way someone 6000 years ago was living to 900. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchal_age"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1incte | how did berlin (the western part) exist during the cold war? the wikipedia map shows the wall only on one side. where did the sewage go? where did fresh water come from? how did iggy pop and david bowie score drugs and record albums there in the 70's? | The [picture](_URL_0_) I'm thinking of. If the answer is a simple search away, remember that I'm five-years-old, spent 30 seconds looking, quit and started crying out of frustration. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1incte/eli5_how_did_berlin_the_western_part_exist_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb66wp8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Road: the Helmstedt-Berlin autobahn (A2) (Checkpoints Alpha and Bravo respectively). Soviet military personnel manned these checkpoints and processed Allied personnel for travel between the two points. Military personnel were required to be in uniform when traveling in this manner.\n\nRail: Western Allied military personnel and civilian officials of the Allied forces were forbidden to use commercial train service between West Germany and West Berlin, because of GDR passport and customs controls when using them. Instead, the Allied forces operated a series of official (duty) trains that traveled between their respective duty stations in West Germany and West Berlin. When transiting the GDR, the trains would follow the route between Helmstedt and Griebnitzsee, just outside of West Berlin. In addition to persons traveling on official business, authorized personnel could also use the duty trains for personal travel on a space-available basis. The trains traveled only at night, and as with transit by car, Soviet military personnel handled the processing of duty train travelers.\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Berlin_satellite_image_with_Berlin_wall.jpg"
] | [
[]
] |
|
r71li | giant swords in fantasy games/art | Most of the fantasy games and artwork I've seen lately are at least reasonably realistic until they get to the weaponry. I often see swords that are impossibly huge wielded one-handed by heroes and villains alike. I don't mean, "Wow that's a pretty big sword" but rather "Wow, that sword has to weigh more than he does."
Why do artists do that, when the rest of the image is more or less realistic? When did this artistic trend start?
I think this artistic practice detracts from the suspension of disbelief to have the characters hitting each other multiple times with 200 lb weapons and I'm hoping game designers and the attendant artists reverse this trend a little and restore the proportion to the artwork. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r71li/eli5_giant_swords_in_fantasy_gamesart/ | {
"a_id": [
"c43f3j6"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Nearly all sword play in almost any depiction may it be television, film or video games is extremely stylized. A sword hitting another sword dulls the person's blade extremely quickly (You can imitate this by buying two axes blades and smashing them into each other.) and as such most blocking was done with a shield and not the person's primary weapon. Spears, Polearm and other Long pointy things were far more common on the battlefield as they were easier to use in formation (Spears don't require a swinging arc so people can stand closer together and have a longer range.), and less expensive. Dueling sports such as Fencing, Sabra and Epee are sports not battle techniques and are mimicking dueling swords.\n\n\nAs such having a over sized sword is only slightly less realistic then how a sword is generally shown. The audience is ignorant of all these facts and enjoys it none the less."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
33wn1a | what happened to michael jackson? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33wn1a/eli5_what_happened_to_michael_jackson/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqp1xlo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Just because someone is a talented artist doesn't mean that they don't have their own issues. Jackson obviously did have his own demons he was wrestling with. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5fu3m8 | how do people quit their jobs and travel the world for years? | As the title suggests, how do people just travel the world with no job? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fu3m8/eli5_how_do_people_quit_their_jobs_and_travel_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"danagkl"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"They save like demons while they're working, then travel cheaply and sleep in questionable places. Some get odd jobs or barter for food or lodging. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1mhx7z | australian government | Can someone please explain how the Australian parliament works? What us the senate? Diagrams would be good! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mhx7z/eli5_australian_government/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc9e7f7",
"cc9edxu"
],
"score": [
12,
6
],
"text": [
"I don't have any diagrams, but I can give it my best shot from my understanding.\n\nThe Australian Government is divided into two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. \n\n\n\nThe House of Representatives is technically the 'lower' house, and is made up of representatives from each 'electorate' in the country. (An electorate is basically just a division of the country, like a tiny state, which is represented in the federal government by one individual.) There are 150 electorates, and therefore 150 different members of parliament in the house. These MP's not only represent your electorate, and fight for particular issues concerning your specific electorate - they also help vote and pass bills in the house of representatives.\n\nThe party with the majority of 'seats' (MP's) in the house of Representatives becomes the party in power, and their leader becomes the Prime Minister. So when we vote for the representative of our electorate, we are also voting for that particular party to be in power. The house of Representatives serves a 3 year period.\n\n\n\nThe Senate is the 'higher' house - and consists of 76 senators. 12 for each state, and 2 for NT, ACT and Tasmania. The senators serve a 6 year period, with half of the senate elected each 3 years. \n\nFor a 'bill' to become law, it must first be passed through both houses. To my understanding a bill can be introduced in either house, however, it is usually introduced in the lower house (representatives). The bill will be introduced, debated/discussed etc. Once this is over, they will take a vote. If this vote passes, it is passed on to the next house. This house must then also pass the bill for it to become law.\n\n(Here is a diagram! _URL_0_)\n\n\n\nThis system comes with pro's and con's. It means that a law takes thought and time (mostly) before it can be passed - preventing the party in power from just 'dictating' laws. (The two houses can often have a majority of two different parties.) This in itself can cause issues though.\n\nFor example: If the Liberals are in power (House of Reps), but the senate is majority Labor (they can have major differing views on policies and issues) then it can render a government ineffective. The house of Reps passes a bill, but the senate disagrees and denies it - thus the law is not changed/formed etc.\n\n\n\nHope this wasn't too confusing to understand - if you have any questions feel free to ask and I'll try explain.\n\n\nEDIT: TL;DR:\n\n2 houses. House of Representatives and the Senate. Representatives form the party 'in power' (i.e. Prime Minister). Senate votes on new/changed laws. A new/changed law has to pass both houses to become law.",
" [Here is a visualization](_URL_0_) of how senate preference flows worked in the state of NSW"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/briefs/~/media/82250A99B09944548BFD7DF26C509B0D.ashx"
],
[
"http://www.grwpub.info/senate/nsw.svg"
]
] |
|
4y2pvf | why is it so difficult to design an advanced ai in strategy games when there is a chess computer that can beat grand masters? | Hearts of Iron, Civilization, etc..
Why do these types of games always rely on giving the AI bonuses rather than just making them play better? If a chess computer can beat grand masters, shouldn't strategy games be capable of having advanced AI? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4y2pvf/eli5_why_is_it_so_difficult_to_design_an_advanced/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6kgu67",
"d6kh0q1",
"d6kh1q7",
"d6khnit",
"d6kiaox",
"d6kk2hs",
"d6kl6or",
"d6knxmg",
"d6kpmsu",
"d6kpn7l",
"d6kqno3",
"d6krx7a",
"d6ksaec",
"d6ksk50",
"d6kvjxo",
"d6kvjzy",
"d6l1jk3",
"d6l2lo2",
"d6l4fox",
"d6l4k2s",
"d6l4ntz",
"d6l4wlo",
"d6l5dnr",
"d6l89u2"
],
"score": [
9,
658,
23,
12,
2,
197,
16,
14,
415,
7,
2,
2,
2,
100,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
5,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Variables. In Chess, there are very limited options, as well as best practices. Video games have a lot more variables, and a lot more real time calculations. ",
"I'd more than likely say that it is because there are significantly more variables to account for in strategy games as opposed to a game of chess.\n\nIn chess the rules and possible moves are simpler than a game of Starcraft or similar strategy game. Here is a random quote from the internet:\n\n > The maximum number of legal moves in a position is 218. So a crude upper bound for the number of possible chess games is 218^11797 = 10^27586 ([source](_URL_0_))\n\nWhile the number itself is a rather large number, it is a finite number due to the rules regarding chess. While in strategy games can potentially contain near infinitely more possible moves due to a higher level of complexity. Attempting to program AI with so many possibilities becomes extremely challenging and taxing on hardware. If you want a more challenging bot, you'll need to give it more resources.\n\nThe good news is that we are always improving both in programming and hardware. Who knows, in a few years you could have an AI assistant in your pocket that could pass the Turing test. ",
"With chess, there's only a handful of moves you can make and a handful of moves your opponent can make each turn. Making an AI for that is easy for a computer that can run several billion calculations per second- simulate all of the moves and pick the one that gives your opponent the fewest possible win scenarios. \n\nWith more complex games, this strategy doesn't work. There are so many possible moves you could make that the computer can't possibly predict what you'll do. That's why Google's DeepMind defeating a Go grandmaster earlier this year was such a big deal- it's the first time anyone had beaten a master at a game that's too complex to simulate. And that's with hundreds of computers in a datacenter with custom AI hardware, not running in your off-the-shelf PC along with the rest of the game.\n\nAnd the number of possible moves in Civilization is way higher than the number of possible moves in Go. The DeepMind team has stated that they want to work on a game AI next (they were saying Starcraft), but they're just getting started with that. It will be quite a while before that sort of AI will be able to fit in your offline game.",
"Like others have said, there are significantly more variables in strat games.\n\nAlso, it gets more complicated when the AI is expected to carry out human-like strategies that these games would imply.\n\nIn chess, there is the expectation that the AI will figure out the best possible move, and it is incumbent on the human to determine how NOT to lose. After all, it's just chess, and you're only moving pieces.\n\nIn strat games, there's an expectation of some semblance of humanity since it represents an aspect of it. For instance, if you wipe out a village of priests on the AI team, the programmers might think it would enhance the immersion for the AI to do a retaliatory raid on your settlements with their paladins.\n\nWith the Civilization series, diplomatic interactions with AI players put this concept to the test. Some leaders will be more forgiving than others, some more bold, and some will be more open.",
"Programs that play chess well don't use AI. They aren't reasoning from the rules in some way that's trying to simulate how people play. There are far more efficient algorithms for chess, and the best programs have large database of move outcomes. That's only possible, as others have said, because people have been studying chess and writing PhD theses on it for decades. A company trying to put out a game can't make that sort of intellectual investment in automatic play, AI or otherwise.",
"If mathematicians had spent as much time studying and picking away at the problem of civ AI as they did at chess AI, deepblueMontezuma would be kicking your ass right now. \n\nInstead, a few developers were given a couple months to make something playable. \n\nFurthermore, the two problems are different enough that they can't just take the chess AI and repurpose it for civ. For example, there subterfuge and deception in civ. Chess doesnt teach people how to lie or bluff about an open borders treaty. Or how to get Cleopatra off your back by promising Washington assistance with the Chinese if he takes Paris. \n\nThose are problems that would take more mathematicians more years of study and engineers working towards generalized solutions. But that won't happen soon, because 'if Rand() invadeRussia()' works well enough.",
"Degree in Computer Science reporting in. There are two very different situations for computer games. The first is games where the number of moves multiplies massively such as in chess. The AI that is used here is vastly different than what you see in a typical strategy game.\n\nThe second class of game and the one I'm more familiar with would be the strategy game. In this case the problem is one of resource management and most of the time the problem is making an AI seem intelligent yet still beatable. In many games the AI has to be tuned down to give the player a chance to win. A quick search on Google turned up numerous references to games being \"dumbed down\" to make them more fun - and in many cases that meant to make it winnable.\n\nWikipedia has a [short article on game AI](_URL_0_) that covers the very basics on the topic.\n\nMany people here have addressed the concept of turns/moves and the idea of a [game tree](_URL_1_) that is used to pick the best move however this really doesn't directly apply to resource management/strategy style games as easily.\n\nEdit: a word",
"Computerphile did a great video on this exact topic a few months ago ([Link](_URL_0_))\n\nTo over-simplify, the computer is told how to 'score' the current state of the game then look slightly into the future and score the possible outcomes based on actions it takes now. Then the computer picks the one that minimizes the risks and maximizes the gains. In a game like chess, the computer can 'see' far enough into the future (it can't see the end state, but it looks a few moves ahead) and always make the optimal move. However in a game like starcraft there's too much to look at (the branching factor is too high). There's up to 200 hundred (ok, more if zerg is involved) units at once, all of which move and do things. Not to mention buildings that also do things and upgrades. On top of that there's the other player, and you don't know everything so you need to make assumptions. Add in hardward limitations and there's simply too many options to look very far into the future. Humans, or at least some players, can do this better than the computer so they can 'out-think' the computer.",
"Strategic AI works in two main ways.\n\n1) Think very hard to make the best move considering all factors.\n\n2) Look at all moves and judge if they are good or bad by looking at the tree of possible outcomes. (look at [minimax](_URL_0_) for more details)\n\n#1 only works if the following conditions are met:\n- optimal moves are possible to calculate\n- optimal moves don't avoid, misrepresent or ruin game design (this is actually really hard)\n- players looking ahead can't trivially beat the AI by guessing what it will do.\n\n#2 only works if the following conditions are met:\n- you must be able to mathematically rate game state\n- calculations about move and game state must be trivially fast\n- number of possible moves must be tiny (chess has only ~30, HOI4 has millions/infinite)\n- opponent moves must be predictable\n- \"feel\" of the AI is not a consideration\n\nSo Hoi, Civ, Starcraft, Dota, EU, and all the other strategy games we love don't work with #1 or #2 - You end up with some crummy compromise between the two. \n\nI know it's not kosher to explain with a question but I need to ask. Would you like to play a game where the AI was designed to win VS to let you understand what is happening and have a good time playing?\n\nSource: Wrote chess for windows (I know it's terrible but I had so little time!) and AI for games.\n\nEdit: formatting",
"First off the AI that can win against Grand masters builds on decades of research so it wasn't just thrown together. Chess AIs are written to solve a very specific problem space. A strategy game like starcraft for instance has very different game mechanics and objectives. So the problem space of a chess AI and a starcraft AI don't overlap. Second AI that can win at starcraft aren't (relatively speaking) that hard to write. Writing an AI that a human can win against and provides a fun experience is much more challenging. An AI has a huge advantage in a game like starcraft because it has perfect aim and perfect reflexes. The question is how as a AI do I make you have fun without just killing you. In Starcraft the AI could find and kill you before the game even gets going because it could have a perfect build with no wasted time and at the same time send units out to scout the map and find you with perfect multitasking. That wouldn't be fun.\nAs to your question some games have really good AI's just look at any of the blizzard strategy games they have hit a good balance of fun to play without just killing you (or resorting to AI bonuses).",
"Actually, these answers aren't quite correct. The harder problem is to develop a challenge that grows in a way that isn't frustrating. It would be easy to build AI that won almost every game, but that wouldn't be fun for the majority of people. You've seen bot programs that auto-aim? Not hard to build. ",
"The best AI Ive ever seen is in Supreme Commander 1 - They have multiple difficulties for the AI, but they also include various AI types that utilize different strategies in the game. There's Turtle, which the AI will build defenses and defend its territory, Tech, which pushes for the highest research available to create the strongest units. Rush, which spends every last resource making as many units and possible , creating small squads that perform guerilla tactics and harass other players. Lastly there's Cheating AI, which are given more resources per second at the start of the game. I haven't defeated a single cheating AI alone. \n\nI gather these are all based on the optimum build and techniques the developers found when they ran each AI against each other in thousands of simulated games. There's only one way to start the game, but to finish it there are multiple strategies that work depending on the race that's being played and the battle map itself.",
"It's not. Building an AI, that would utterly destroy 99% of all players, every time (without \"cheating\") is not particularly difficult. However how well do you think, that a strategy game, that hands your ass to you at every turn is going to do sales wise? How large of a market share do you think a chess computer that consistently beats the worlds best players, would have? The cost to develop a game like Hearts of Iron or Civilization, means they have to sell millions just to break even. Now you want to suggest they spend more money to develop a better AI, at the cost of fewer people buying it, because the AI is so good at the game, that only a handful of people in the world can beat it?\n\nThat's essentially why. Deep Blue, AlphaGo and Watson where milestones of technology, built to prove a point at tremendous cost. Video games are entertainment for the masses. A game that could figuratively beat you blindfolded and with one hand behind its back, is not entertaining. It doesn't work. You have to dumb it down to the point where it is a rough analogue to the average human player, then you balance it to an individual players level by tweaking the parameters, towards a harder or easier disposition.",
"All the other replies missed an important fact:\n\nVideo game AI are not designed to win. On the contrary, they are designed to provide fun to the player, while giving the player the *perception* that the AI is smart(because it's not \"fun\" or satisfying to beat an AI which you perceive as stupid). This means to have good difficulty curve, act \"human-like\" (even intentionally make mistakes so the player can exploit them), etc. \n\nIf you want to look at \"true\" video game AI, try something like the AIIDE where programmers design Starcraft AIs that fight each other to death. ",
"To summarize very simply, it could totally be done, but it wouldn't be fun to play against, it might require more computing power than the user has available, it would probably require more development time than the developers have, and if it involves any sort of dynamic learning it would definitely be too much for QA to deal with. ",
"We absolutely can develop AI that can win at these games, hands down. They have better reflexes for a start. Placing that first supply depot and queuing that first SCV takes a human multiple frames. An AI could do both in one frame. An AI could calculate which units to attack to optimally use every single attack so no damage is wasted. I actually developed an AI chunk as my dissertation. \n\nThe majority of the answers here are missing the two most important factors. \n\n1) Dev time (and therefore cost).\n\nWhy spend ages developing an AI that wins \"fairly\" when you can just cheat and make a cheaper game?\n\n2) Real time calculations. \n\nChess computers have as long as they need for each move. If an RTS AI takes 5 seconds to make a decision it has already lost. So either you spend ages optimising the algorithm to the wall (see point 1) or you wipe out low end computers and reduce your customer base. \n\n",
"Chess is a simple game, you don't even need a computer to play it, and set of legal moves you can make every turn is pretty small - just 20(i think) on starting turn and 218 is the absolute maximum(probably in position that never happens in real game). \n\nStill it requires a supercomputer to beat a grandmaster player in a turn-based game where it has time to think, so how exactly do you expect more complex games running on a home PC to have a good AI?",
"Apples and Oranges. Chess is much simpler than Civilization with regard to different possible moves and end goals.",
"Some developer apparently experimented with making good AI. People at first were impressed and excited about it but after playing a while people really hated it and claimed it was not fun because they couldn't get past the AI. \n\nFor a game the trick is to make the AI seem realistic but give it weaknesses people can learn to exploit. Unfortunately that is the better complaint, it still is obvious the AI is exploitable. ",
"Keep in mind that it took decades to reach the point where computers could beat Grand Masters in chess. Companies don't have that much time or the money to spend developing AI's for games.",
"The answer is far simpler:\n\n* One is academically driven and is a tantalizing problem to be solved. A slew of the greatest minds are eager to work on it, have the best resources, and have high expectations.\n\n* The other is financially driven, and exists only to be good enough to sell a game at a profit. One or two random cheeto loving programmers work on it, have severely limited time and resources, and their expectations are merely the momentary diversion of a simple mind looking for a couple fun hours.\n\n(Not to disparage cheetos, mind you)",
"Shout out to /u/Ar3s701 for the correct answer as to why programming AI for RTS is hard. The issue is, in a word, complexity. \n\nI want to go a little further into exactly how chess programs work, why they are neigh impossible to implement for RTS, and what we can do instead. \n\nChess programs are basically search algorithms, they compute a score for each move they can make based on how good they think that move we'll be and then make the move with the best score. There are many different ways you can compute these scores, but in the end the prices looks like this: Find all moves - > Compute scores - > Rank moves based in score - > Do move with best score.\n\nIn an RTS that's difficult even before we start playing. \n\nWhat constitutes a move? Is it a frame? A second? Five seconds? The time it takes a basic unit to move 1 space? For a game like Civ we have turns so this question is solved, but in something like Age of Empires we need an answer.\n\nThen it gets harder, what are the possible moves?\n\n* Each unit can move to each position on the map\n\n* Each building can attempt to build/research\n\n* Each worker can try to build at each location on the map\n\n* Each worker can gather resources from each deposit on the map\n\n* Each combat unit can try to fight every enemy on the map\n* Etc. Etc. Etc\n\nI can think of the meaningful solutions (but there might be more):\n\n1. A Hardcoded AI that simple follows a certain set of instructions no matter what. A lot of story-mode RTS AI use this but it's not really fun for a random game.\n\n2. A Greedy Search AI might simply look for the nearest resources, nearest open space for a building, or nearest enemy.\n\n3. A Learning AI would start out doing random things, by would learn as it played more games what was successful and what wasn't. The caveat is that they are really bad to start and of a game needs a hard AI at launch then the developers have to train one.\n\nThese types are not exclusive, pieces of each could be mixed and matched to create levels of difficulty.\n\nThis is by no means an exhaustive explanation and the problem of smart AI in strategy game is still \"unsolved,\" making it and incredibly interesting topic filled with a lot of debate and passion. I'll try and come back and add some subs/webpages that'll give more detail if you're interested in looking deeper.",
"The reason has to do with the way in which computers can be programed to see the game they are playing and whether or not someone programs it to see it the way humans do. Humans look at the situation as \"what's placed where\" to determine where to go and then decide the next move. Perhaps an example might make more sense.\n\nBack in the day - I wrote a simple Pascal program that would play Tic-Tac-Toe with you and try and beat you. It wasn't very complicated but the basics of it were to look for patterns of potential wins to block, put down a random character or to put one down to try and win. It wasn't very hard but in reality one could have programmed it with thousands of lines of code to strategize how to win. It only would win if you were stupid and let it, which was probably next to impossible unless you also weren't paying attention.\n\nHowever Tic-Tac-Toe has a far more finite amount of solutions (tens of thousands) vs the hundreds of millions of solutions a chess player can do. So building a smart Tic-Tac-Toe AI is far easier than Chess. But again - the reality is that you have to know the rules and have it program (or have a structure to learn and program new moves) into itself.\n\nIn the case of learning chess, one could write algorithms to understand the moves because there are documented moves out there on how games are played. Games like Hearts of Iron and Civilization do not have these metrics (or maybe the developers do hidden somewhere) but alas those games have far many more random pieces that are generated and seen in the game. So therefore learning to play and win at those games requires a visualization of seeing the gamefield and knowing what to do.\n\nChess is more like - here's your pieces, here's a static board and when someone makes a move then you make yours. Very back and forth and semi-predictable because there's only so many moves someone could make. In the other games, you have a limitless amount of variables and thus the amount of scenarios are endless because one could delay doing something for a second and change the entire outcome of a game. THat's why in those games its more timing and luck - too many things that even the best AI cannot predict unless its programmed to know all the variables.\n\n",
"I dont think you know how much work went in to designing those strong chess engines. They are not simply strong because of their brute force calculation...that approach was proven to be insufficient. The process of getting computers to beat strong humans actually required the programmers to learn things about chess that was not understood by anyone yet.\n\nSure you could probably get an ai that beats humans at some game like civilization...but why would anyone spend billions to create such an ai? the only reason this was done for chess is because there was a relevant philosophical debate about whether it was possible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/8331/is-the-number-of-possible-chess-games-infinite"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_(video_games)",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_tree"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oXyibEgJr0"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bddsdg | why does a car start when we push it ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bddsdg/eli5_why_does_a_car_start_when_we_push_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekxgnih",
"ekxgqu0",
"eky0we8"
],
"score": [
24,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A car starts when you turn the engine manually. Normally this is done by the starter motor, which turns the engine when you turn the key. But because the wheels are connected to the engine (assuming you're not in neutral and you don't have your foot on the clutch pedal), pushing the car turns the engine. So it starts.\n\nThis is why, when you're working on your petrol-powered lawn mower, the manual always says that you should disconnect the spark plug first. Because otherwise, when you're turning the blade by hand in order to remove junk and grass, the engine could start. Ever seen those videos on Youtube when they start the engine of a plane by turning the propeller by hand? Same thing.",
"From my limited mechanical knowledge a push or bump start is used when the starter motor is failing to provide the needed power to cause a spark and start the engine.\n\nBy pushing a car up to speed and then putting it in gear you are in effect forcing the engine to turn over which I believe is the mechanical parts of the engine are then forced to move which causes the spark and starts the engine bypassing the starter motor. \n\nBut, I could be so wrong ha",
"let me have a try for a real ELI5.\n\nSo, for an engine to work it needs two things: it already needs to be turning and it need little explosions on the right time to keep it turning or make it turn faster. it need more than one little explosion to get enough speed where it continues turning, otherwise it just stops. you can't just make a couple explosions in an engine that is not turning, because you can only do one explosion every 2nd turn on a very exact moment.\n\nSo in a normal situation the electrical starting motor will turn the engine for a bit until it has enough speed to keep turning.\n\nThe way a car moves it that the turning engine connects to the wheels to turn them. if you don't want to move you disconnect the engine from the wheels so the engine can turn and the wheels stop. that is called the clutch.\n\nSo now to starting the car while pushing it.\n\nA car where the wheels and engine are not connected is moved relatively easily. when you all the sudden connect the wheels with the engine while it is moving, the engine will turn because the wheels are turning. With a bit of luck it will turn fast enough to keep running."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ncte6 | if water can easily penetrate sand (e.g. at the beach), why is it that sandbags are used to control flooding? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ncte6/eli5_if_water_can_easily_penetrate_sand_eg_at_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvmucr0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"because it is cheap, easy to build and has abundance amount of it everywhere. brick wall, reinforced steel wall, these are the alternatives that aren't easy to implement. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
24d4ro | what's the difference between human and non-human brains that have allowed us to accomplish so much? | The difference in what we have achieved compared to any other creature is astonishing. Is it out brains are made in a different way or is it one small but crucial difference that has allowed us to leap ahead? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24d4ro/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_human_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch5xjtj",
"ch5xp0w",
"ch5xzug",
"ch5y2pn",
"ch60sa6"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is our ability to adapt that has propelled us to our current status.",
"While we have one of the largest brains in proportion to body size, we also have the ability to adapt. The fact that we have opposable thumbs make us dominate in handling tools",
"One might speculate that the FOX-P2 mutation sufficiently enhanced our grunting ability to allow language and once we had language we had both genetic and memetic replicators driving us forward. Once mate selection starts taking in factors of perceived cleverness and language fluency, rapid evolution of our monster cerebral cortex may have been amplified by the presence of language. Fire was also a big help - it made high protein diets easier to digest.\n\nComplex communication skills, fine motor control, upright gait, opposable thumb and the ability to plan and imagine self-referentially are the big differentiators. ",
"In the human genome there is an area of 49 segments which are called \"Human accalerated regions\" (HAR). Since the seperation of humans and chimpanzees, these regions have changed the most. These mutations may have led to specific human traits. HAR1, for example, is involved in brain developement and folding of the cortex. HAR2 is linked to the developement of the opposable thumb and some modifications that allow us to walk on two legs.",
"In addition to what was told here, I should ad that or brains have the unique feature of acknowledging the self, \"us\", enabling us to ask ourselves question and make hypothesis that could save us time in the future, be a advantage and even save our lives, and that no other species does, A great book for this subject is Antonio Damasio: Self Comes to Mind.\n_URL_0_\nDamasio suggests that the brain’s development of a human self becomes a challenge to nature’s indifference and opens the way for the appearance of culture, a radical break in the course of evolution and the source of a new level of life regulation—sociocultural homeostasis. He leaves no doubt that the blueprint for the work-in-progress he calls sociocultural homeostasis is the genetically well-established basic homeostasis, the curator of value that has been present in simple life-forms for billions of years. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7766914-self-comes-to-mind"
]
] |
|
4l5dw8 | why people don't send letters using return addresses | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4l5dw8/eli5_why_people_dont_send_letters_using_return/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3kespn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Also, you're defrauding the USPS. [This guy](_URL_0_) got caught doing it on a large scale. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/San-Diegan-Admits-to-Defrauding-USPS-18K-in-Unpaid-Postage-US-Atty-361147831.html"
]
] |
||
70r3du | -male seahorses | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70r3du/eli5male_seahorses/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn5aff9"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > So what makes the male a \"male\"...is it that he has XY chromosomes or is his contribution is more sperm-like? \n\nHis contribution isn't \"sperm-like\". His contribution is sperm. He produces sperm, so he's male."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6gvzlk | why was the european takeover of north america worse than other historical invasions? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gvzlk/eli5why_was_the_european_takeover_of_north/ | {
"a_id": [
"dithkrq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It wasn't more terrible. It just seems that way because everyone in the US talks about it, and never about other hostile takeovers of other lands. In fact, a lot of the deaths of natives in the Americas was accidental, such as the Spanish accidentally wiping out all of SA with their disease. Spanish explorers wandered south and found nothing but corpses, because their diseases had moved faster than them. The Americas were more 'par for the course' of colonization, and not some Stalin-Hitler evil combo"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
7vu9gh | what is acl and why does it get torn frequently among athletes? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vu9gh/eli5_what_is_acl_and_why_does_it_get_torn/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtv6mxt",
"dtv7d0x",
"dtv9isy",
"dtvgswm"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"ACL is the anterior cruciate ligament, one of the major tendons in the knee. It sustains injury when the knee bends the wrong way or hyperextends ",
"The [ACL](_URL_0_) is one of the major ligaments holding your knee joint together. It stops your knee from wobbling side to side.\n\nAthletes in many sports are frequently diving/dodging from side to side which puts a lot of stress on the ACL, giving it an opportunity to tear.",
"The ACL stands for Anterior Cruciate Ligament. It's a ligament that holds the femur (thigh bone) in proper alignment with the tibia (shin bone). It's main role is to keep the tibia from moving forward, relative to the femur. There's another cruciate ligament at the back of the knee joint called the PCL or Posterior Cruciate Ligament.\n\nThe main reason the ACL is torn frequently among athletes is because it's not as large or as strong as the PCL. The ACL can be torn in various ways. The most common are over-extending the knee joint, getting hit on the side of the knee or quickly stop moving and change direction while running, landing from a jump, or turning. \n\nYou have other ligaments holding the knee joint together: Lateral Collateral Ligament and Medial Collateral Ligament. These act like hinges that allow the knee joint to open and close below the kneecap. You typically tear these ligaments by making the knee bend in a way it's not supposed to bend (from side-to-side). But since the knee naturally bends front-to-back, it's the weaker ACL that usually ends up getting injured over the other three knee ligaments.",
"I tore mine and it was excruciating. It took my breath away and my knee looked like it had been inflated like a balloon the next day. I had surgery to repair it using the middle third of my patellar tendon (20 years ago) and it’s holding up well. No issues.\n\n(Doesn’t answer your question - but I see others already did. I guess I just wanted to share.) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_cruciate_ligament"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3f0n0k | why doesn't the french government just deport all the migrants running amok in calais? | Surely the fact they are trying to reach the UK for economic reasons is evidence that they aren't legitimate asylum seekers, or they would have sought asylum in France already. Plus they must be breaking French law by being in the country illegally? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3f0n0k/eli5_why_doesnt_the_french_government_just_deport/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctk4yec",
"ctk5nmh"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Expensive. \n \nPlus, why does France care of a bunch of illegal immigrants get into the UK? Not so long ago there were claims that the French were helping them. The alternative is letting them stay in France.",
" France and Britain have similar economies and development and so on. So why so many people ( emphasis on so many) are risking their lives, to get from France to britain?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1iym7n | why is it feasible for scalpers to buy tickets and then resell them? couldn't the original ticket seller just sell the tickets at the price the scalpers sell them for? | I recently tried to get some advance sale tickets off Ticketmaster and they were gone within less than five minutes. This is, apparently, fairly typical and then the tickets show up on StubHub for a significant premium above face value. I find this puzzling. It seems that Ticketmaster could easily make more money by setting a higher price point in the first place. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iym7n/eli5_why_is_it_feasible_for_scalpers_to_buy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb9b5fn",
"cb9bo63",
"cb9cgxd",
"cb9cy09",
"cb9d0ih",
"cb9dfla",
"cb9drix",
"cb9f4rz",
"cb9fe31",
"cb9fnb2",
"cb9g7hh"
],
"score": [
42,
7,
222,
5,
28,
14,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's supply/demand. If the tickets are gone in 5 minutes, the price is now influenced by low supply and high demand. When demand is high and supply is low, price goes up. ",
"The original ticket seller (the venue) sometimes sets the price low to be nice, so \"regular\" folks have a chance to see the show. Or sometimes, they werent trying to be nice, but just underestimated demand.",
"NPR recently did a piece on this. Part of it is if the artist charges $200 then the artist is a money grubber. If a scalper does it, it is expected.\n\nHere is the piece.\n_URL_0_\n",
"Often - the artists themselves (through management) will have \"rights\" to the tickets being sold. Sadly most of the tickets are sold to the scalpers and the stub hubs almost directly prior to the box office opening.\nThe artists themselves are then guaranteed that the bums will be in the seats. \nThis is the reason why shows are sold out so fast and fans are forced to shell out big bucks for tickets. \n",
"Think of it as buying \"risk\" when a scalper buys tickets to resell. \n\nThe risk is that the value of the ticket will decrease or a final buyer will not be found. The original buyer is guaranteed a return on the ticket at the cost of a potential increase in value of the ticket. \n\nThere are some other bits about expectations and price stickiness (I bought a $50 ticket last week, the seat next to it is now $25... most people would not be happy).\n\nThe San Francisco Giants have setup \"dynamic pricing\" for tickets that fluctuate with current demand.\n\nAn interesting on the ground conversation with scalpers: [econtalk](_URL_1_)\nA bit more of a technical article:\n[An Economic Guide to Ticket Pricing in the Entertainment Industry](_URL_0_)",
"The inefficiency in the ticket market used to be that Ticketmaster would sell every ticket to the concert for the same price, even though the public doesn't value every ticket equally. That's the way brokers made money. Ticketmaster used to sell the front row at the same price as the last row, even though those seats have vastly different values to the public.\n\nFrom an economic standpoint, every seat has a different value to the public. ~~That's \"price discrimination\"~~. So the way the artist should maximize their profit is to charge a different price for every seat. For each seat, they should charge the maximum price the public is willing to pay. If artists and Ticketmaster started doing this, there would be no more ticket brokers, because the artist and Ticketmaster would have gotten 100% of the profit with nothing left over.\n\nBut this is impractical to implement. In the last decade or two, they have started charging more for the floor. And lower deck is more than upper deck, and sidelines are more than endzones. And artists now sometimes sell the first ten rows at much higher prices. The more individualized the price can be per seat, the less potential ticket brokers have to make a profit. Their profit came from inefficiencies in the market that are slowly disappearing.\n\n",
"| Couldn't the original ticket seller just sell the tickets at the price the scalpers sell them for?\n\nOf course they could, but who wants to spend every Friday and Saturday night standing out in front of a stadium?",
"What I don't understand is how scalpers in front of the stadium are considered \"illegal\" but companies like ticketmaster and stubhub, which are businesses built on scalping, are legal. Does anyone know why?",
"It is worth noting (depending on who you believe) that the Rolling Stones actually tried doing this for their current 50 and Counting tour. They set floor/premium seats at $600 knowing full well that there would be a lot of that inventory left. Then on the day of the show they offered all their unsold inventory for $85 per ticket - buyers were only allowed to get a max of two tickets - they had to show up to the arena with their confirmation number, a photo ID, and their guest in tow - then they were given tickets on the spot and could not exit the arena. This essentially ensured that the ticket(s) could not be resold.\n\nThe Stones picked up a lot of flak for this...some people were mortified by the sticker price of the tickets, skeptics said the Stones were simply not a good enough draw and they had to offer their tickets in a fire sale. Either way, the Stones came out of this tour looking \"damaged.\" When you consider they are rock royalty, this probably doesn't matter, but now you can imagine what Bruno Mars or Maroon 5 would look like if they attempted the same strategy and charged $400-500 for floor seats to box out the brokers.",
"Most countries have laws against it. In the USA you can thank capitalism pushed too far. ",
"Saw an interesting idea by an artist and I can't remember who it was. Basically to combat scalpers they just kept holding concerts at the same venue every day until tickets didn't sell out. Then everyone who wanted to see them could and nobody could scalp tickets because the supply was so high. They ended up playing 4 or 5 shows in the same city and all sold out but the last one. Would be tough to do in general because most big venues book up quite a bit in advance but was interesting."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/06/25/195641030/episode-468-kid-rock-vs-the-scalpers"
],
[],
[
"http://harbaugh.uoregon.edu/Readings/Ticket%20pricing/LER.pdf",
"http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/07/ticket_prices_a.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2cxd2q | why can people who trespass on your property sue you if they're being a bone head and get hurt? (more info in post) | I live in the city. We've had people trespassing on our roof lately (walking from roof to roof over multiple buildings). We have multiple signs saying, "keep off the roof", "do not trespass", etc. We have cameras, motion sensored lights, signs, but we still get these kids drinking beers walking across all the roofs. They stop to hang out and have a beer on all the various roof decks. I'm told by neighbors, if they fall off the roof, we would get sued. How/why is that allowed? We're doing the best we can with signs, security etc, but Unless we post a person up there 24 / 7 we have no control over what these kids are doing. Can someone explain why the law allows this? What else does the law expect us to do to "protect" these trespassers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cxd2q/eli5_why_can_people_who_trespass_on_your_property/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjjyfws",
"cjjyluj",
"cjjymnc"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Do you live in USA? There are no restrictions on what a person can or cannot be sued for in your country. Whether or not it would be entertained by the courts is another matter, and probably depends greatly on the *general* condition of your roof, or more specifically the argument presented by the \"victim\". Having said that, even defending yourself from a bogus lawsuit can be costly if it is eventually thrown out of court.",
"You can sue any one at any time for any reason for any amount of money in the US. Doesn't mean you'll win your case. If you've taken the proper steps to keep the kids off the roof, and they go up anyway and hurt themselves, their case will probably get thrown out of court. ",
"Anyone can sue anyone for any reason at all. The real question is, can they win. In a case like this, there is zero chance of them winning. HOWEVER, fighting it is going to take time and money from your building. \n\nIn many cases it's easier to simply settle, and that's why these people sue in the first place. They know it's not worth the fight for larger companies and they will just pay a small amount rather than deal with the hassle. But what's a small amount to a company might not be a small amount to a stupid drunk teenager. To that stupid teenager it might be quite a lot of money. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9ymwy8 | why are todays movies still filmed with film-rolls? | Isnt this "old fashioned", whats the deal?
ELI5 | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ymwy8/eli5_why_are_todays_movies_still_filmed_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea2jrpc",
"ea2k2kx",
"ea2lyt4"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Resolution is infinitely better on film than digital, easier to scan to whatever resolution they want to produce the movie at. ",
"Some are, some aren't. It depends on a whole bunch of factors.\n\n[Wikipedia](_URL_0_) is your friend.",
"The majority of films are shot digitally. The main reason is convenience/cost. It is far cheaper and easier to continually swap out hard drives throughout the day than replacing film reels.\n\nThe resolution difference is partly true, due to the fact that film can be \"scanned\" at any resolution, but higher resolutions reach diminishing returns around 4K. \n\nThe main reason for directors preferring the look of film, is for the more natural, organic aesthetic that film produces compared to the more mathematical grain(noise) and even image of digital. \n\nThe truth is however, with today's colour and DI technology, anything shot on digital can more or less be processed to look almost indistinguishable to film."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema"
],
[]
] |
|
6iqlrb | why is it that people are much more likely to be allergic to fish or shellfish than red meat or chicken? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iqlrb/eli5_why_is_it_that_people_are_much_more_likely/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj8gvqk",
"dj8hkfn"
],
"score": [
5,
11
],
"text": [
"because we're made of very similar meat. it's rather difficult for something to be allergic to itself and not dead.\n\nsea creatures are different enough to humans that they contain many proteins we, and land animals in general, simply don't have. ",
"Allergies are not fully understood but there are a few interesting studies looking into their causes. I've linked one below and the basic premise is that exposure to many plethora of microbes has taught our bodies to not feel threatened by certain exposures in our environment. Whereas lack of exposure to many microbes has resulted in more allergies. This is believed to be one of the reasons for the rise in allergies and asthma in our society today (but is still being investigated). \n\nNow because allergies are not fully understood this is just my interpretation and I hope it makes sense. It is possible is that for most of our history we have had constant contact with cows, chicken, pigs, etc. (through agriculture) that has resulted in an exchange of microbes and this has been passed down in our genes. This constant exchange has made our bodies much more used to what these animals bring, and our bodies do not sense it as a threat. \n\nFish and shellfish are in the water and there is almost no exchange of microbes between our two species. The only real exposure our bodies have to them has been through what was caught fishing. Compared to agricultural societies living with or close to the animals in their homes, the amount of exchange was minimal. \n\nAnother possibility is the fact that other mammals are closer to our species than shellfish and our bodies sense less of a threat. But again, we simply are not 100% sure. \n\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/08/12/why-amish-could-hold-key-curing-asthma-and-allergies/88629400/"
]
] |
||
3ppk5u | when filling up a car for gas, what stops the pump to prevent gas overflowing? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ppk5u/eli5_when_filling_up_a_car_for_gas_what_stops_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw8benx"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In the gas pistol, there is a vapor recovery system that siphons off the vapors coming from the fuel. When the gas tank is reaching its capacity, the vapors caught in the top of the tank are expelled by the rising fuel level in the tank, and the pump detects this rise in flow rate. This signals the pump to shut off to prevent overfilling.\n\n\"clicking\" the gas pistol after the overflow system kicks in is not recommended, because topping off the gas tank in that manner can cause spilling, leaves no room for the fuel to expand due to temperature change, and may also leave you feeding fuel back into the pump through the vapor reclamation system - meaning you are paying for gas that goes back into the gas stations' tanks."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
f5pann | can someone explain the significance of typing with a mix of upper and lower case letters -like this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f5pann/eli5_can_someone_explain_the_significance_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhzzc7b",
"fi008lz",
"fi023zg",
"fi059de"
],
"score": [
47,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a mockery of the original phrase or words to invoke a tone of dumbassery. Or in simpler terms, it's that kid that copied whatever you said back to you, except he said it in a really annoying way, except upgraded.",
"Sarcasm,mostly. It’s inferred /s. A lot of people want their voice heard so they express themselves quite strongly.",
"Nowadays, it's a way of trying to convey the extralinguistic features, like intonation or sarcasm, when not actually speaking, but for instance, typing a comment online.\n\nBut also, in my first language (Polish) back in the mid and late nineties, this way of typing, together with using anglicised spelling and (later) a shitload of emoticons, was characteristic of silly teens and tweens who wanted to seem cool while using irc or other chat engines.\n\nETA: curiously enough, young people who used that kind of language over chat, were called \"pokemons\" :P",
"This is better in r/outoftheloop."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
95681g | what is the purpose of panicking? | Most "how to get out of extreme situations" guides say not to panic.
"Remain calm", etc.
So why do humans (and other animals) panic? Does it ever do any good, or is it just the byproduct of a scared brain with no real purpose to it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/95681g/eli5_what_is_the_purpose_of_panicking/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3qb46t",
"e3qbbkw",
"e3qe5xp"
],
"score": [
2,
20,
6
],
"text": [
"In a panic you are going to run or fight. Being in a panic will increase the response and make your fight or run more effective. That increase in response is known as adrenalin which a chemical in your brain. ",
"It's been pretty beneficial to our survival up until we started contending with our own technology; running away from danger is frequently a good strategy in the wild.\n\nPanicking is the \"flight\" version of \"fight or flight\" and like any other adrenaline response it is there to help you ever overpower or outrun whatever threat you're facing; in nature there were more threats that needed running from or overpowering than ones that required calm rational thinking (something that gets thrown out in an adrenaline response), but now that we're dealing with less natural danger and more man-made danger, the opposite is true. \n\nYou're not going to overpower, for instance, the door in your car being held shut by water pressure if it gets driven into a lake, no matter how much absurd strength you get from being panicked. You're also not going to overpower a machine that has your finger stuck inside the gears, and by trying to pull away from it like your panic instinctively makes you, you may make the damage far worse.",
"For most animals, getting out of problems is mostly a physical challenge. We retain a system geared to that. Even tough we have specialized in THINKING our way out of problems. \n\nUnfortunately, we don't have the metabolic horsepower to use out body AND our brain. Depending on the situation, either may be the only way to survive.\n\nSo, the old system can still kick in when you are stressed. There are times when that system lets you lift a fallen tree now (what is the purpose of all those push ups Bruce) or otherwise run away from the bear. Which is why martial artists work so hard to get their attacks and counters to be reflex, the fight is faster than thought can cope with.\n\nOther times, NOT thinking is deadly. Jet is on fire, I'll jump out, oh wait, no parachute. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2timqu | being attracted to someone's scent | hey i've read a couple of articles about this but they all have medical and very complicated explanations that are hard to understand. so, if someone wouldn't mind explaining it i would be very grateful ^^ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2timqu/eli5being_attracted_to_someones_scent/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnzdop1",
"cnzieei"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"The process itself is extraordinarily complicated, but the idea behind it is simple enough to understand. \n\nEveryone's body secretes chemicals that are designed to attract a potential mate through smell. And, much like fingerprints, everyone's smell is just a tiny bit different so some people will smell good to you, and you will be attracted to them. It's basically the same way that food that smells good makes you desire to eat it, but it's a little more subtle than that because it primarily happens in your subconscious. That's really all there is to it.",
"In addition to what asdjfweaiv said, there are some other things that are important about it. Everyone's body is good at fighting off certain sicknesses, but which sickness those are vary from person to person. Often times, our body can pick up on when someone has immunities that compliment yours (meaning, in this case) that they're different than yours. That's important because it means that if you had babies with that person, the baby would be more likely to be immune to a greater number of illnesses than if you had babies with someone with the same immunities as yours."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2x3x36 | why does medical research need so much of donated money when pharmaceutical companies are super rich and can afford to do the research themselves? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x3x36/eli5why_does_medical_research_need_so_much_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cowmzli",
"cowmzup",
"cowpa8x"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Pharmaceutical companies make drugs. They do not invent new surgical techniques, new equipment or new courses of treatment.\n\nEven in situations where the solution turns out to be different drugs, the reason pharmaceutical companies are super-rich in the first place is that they spend their money on those avenues best suited for a high return.\n\nErectile dysfunction drugs are high return. Curing obscure forms of cancer is not.",
"Because \"big pharma\" isn't one monolithic block, and even if it were, priorities are a thing. Companies exist to make money, so they're going to go for the easiest, biggest payback they can find. \n\nMedical research looking for donations is investigating things that don't fall in that \"easy and will make us rich\" bracket.",
"Because academic and industrial research are looking at very different things. A lot of academic research (like what I used to do) is \"basic science.\" It's focused on figuring out how life works and what is going wrong in diseases. It's absolutely critical to modern drug development, but in and of itself, unlikely to generate new treatments or valuable patents. Thus, academic research needs to seek funding from the government or private donors, in exchange for doing research for the benefit of humanity. \n\n Industry research is focused more on \"translational science.\" Industry takes the basic science done by academia and translates it into treatments. This process, including FDA trials, can be enormously expensive, and is not something academia can (or wants) to do. In exchange for taking these risks, industry can make substantial amounts of money. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
76cpga | why does the protein in eggs denature faster/with less heat than other proteins like meat? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76cpga/eli5_why_does_the_protein_in_eggs_denature/ | {
"a_id": [
"dod5y46"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not a chemist, but i would argue that it has to do with two things:\nThe makeup of egg white vs. Muscle tissue (which is the part of the animal mostly eaten) and the nature of the proteins within the egg vs those within the muscles.\n\nWhen you boil an egg, you boil a wholly different substance than when frying/cooking meat. That has to do with it's purpose. While an egg is essentially an ~~egg cell(yolk) with it's supply tissue (egg white)~~ egg cell with its primary supply (yolk) and it's protective and secondary supply (egg white). The egg white contains a lot of water that evaporates easily when boiled, and 10% of it's mass are actual proteins (less than in the yolk, which has 16% proteins). Also, because of all the water, the egg is less dense, allowing for faster heating and subsequently a quick denaturation of the proteins.\n\nA muscle contains a lot more protein, just because the cells themselves are much more complex and have many different enzymes, transporters and other proteins to guarantee that a muscle can function in a body. Up to 80 % of muscle mass can be protein. So that accounts for a longer denaturation time - there simply is more protein in a muscle.\n\nThen there might be some proteins within the muscle that may be more heat resistant than those in eggs, thus taking a higher temperature to unfold. But i can only speculate on that.. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1agz7g | why is it so socially acceptable to drive 5-10 mph over the speed limit? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1agz7g/why_is_it_so_socially_acceptable_to_drive_510_mph/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8xb7lh",
"c8xb893",
"c8xbfi6",
"c8xbgoo",
"c8xbmk2",
"c8xbsub",
"c8xc9t1",
"c8xce6j",
"c8xchj1",
"c8xchuh",
"c8xcn4t",
"c8xcsmm",
"c8xcxv5",
"c8xczpm",
"c8xd4f5",
"c8xd5cs",
"c8xd5im",
"c8xd84r",
"c8xdipe",
"c8xdqou",
"c8xduft",
"c8xe3a1",
"c8xe3qk",
"c8xeb9v",
"c8xf91q",
"c8xffng",
"c8xgcve",
"c8xgffj",
"c8xghps",
"c8xhb5q",
"c8xhl1e",
"c8xi74l",
"c8xi76s",
"c8xitof",
"c8xitx7",
"c8xj5zh",
"c8xj76c",
"c8xjels",
"c8xjrvy",
"c8xqgwc",
"caa3x7m"
],
"score": [
26,
176,
529,
1407,
122,
13,
2,
3,
37,
11,
2,
83,
12,
7,
2,
92,
2,
180,
12,
13,
3,
4,
6,
3,
2,
34,
3,
2,
7,
6,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We like to get to places more quickly, 5-10 mph doesn't seem like a huge difference while you're driving, and the law is rarely enforced when it comes to driving a little bit over.",
"In my experience:\n\nOn non-urban main roads in the UK the limit is usually 60-70mph (30-40mph in urban areas, sometimes lower).\nIf you exceed the limit in an urban area and are caught you will be heavily prosecuted - *\"What if you'd run over little Timmy?\"*\n\n\nI've only seen it to be \"socially acceptable\" to exceed the speed limit on motorways (highways), especially when there is more traffic and lots of people are doing it.\n\nReasons I've heard are:\n\n\"The limit is too low nowadays\"\n\n\"I had to go faster, the guy behind me was already doing 75+\"\n\n\"Everyone else was doing it\"\n\n\"I was in a hurry\".\n\nFrom an enforcement POV if there are many motorists doing it at the same time you can't really penalise them (manpower issues) without extensive automated surveillance, like speed traps or average-speed zones.\n\nPlus, so long as everyone is moving at roughly the same speed there is less danger than from \"reckless speeding\" - where one person is going much faster than everyone else.",
"Why shouldn't it be? Speed limits are an inherently crude and not particularly effective solution to a complex problem: how to encourage people to drive *safely*. I see two main problems with speed law:\n\n1) If there were a maximum \"safe\" speed at which to drive down a certain road, it wouldn't be a constant--it would vary wildly depending on road conditions, visibility, traffic volume, etc. Driving over the limit on one day can easily be safer than driving under the limit the next day if conditions were better on the first day.\n\n2) Although speed is a major factor in how much damage there is in a collision (not to mention that it reduces the reaction time available to the driver), it is really only one aspect of road safety. Driver skill, maturity and awareness, as well as car maintenance are also very important (I would say more, at least to a point), but they're far more difficult to enforce so they don't get much emphasis. Personally, given a choice between being on the road with other drivers who are attentive but going 10 mph over vs. drivers who follow the speed limit but are spaced-out, I'd choose faster and more attentive any day.\n\nTo answer your question, I think there are enough people that feel safe enough going 10-20% over the speed limit that it has become socially acceptable. This is enabled by the fact that in some jurisdictions, the cops usually won't bother you at this speed unless you're doing something stupid.\n\n(Edit: forgot a couple words)",
"The one police officer I asked this exact question told me that 5-7 mph over is within the margin of error and easily disputed in court, but anything over 10 above the limit is fair game. ",
"Because speed limits haven't changed in 40 years while car performance and safety have gone up tenfold at least. A BMW M3 going 90 is much, much safer than an '89 Ford Aerostar going the speed limit.",
"I think some of it origins from cars having not-that-accurate speedometers. You added 5-10 mph over the speed limit to actually go the actual speed limit. Then it just became a normal thing to do and as the traffic generally goes 5-10 mph above the speed limit now, it's easier to keep up with the traffic instead of obeying the limit, and the circle goes on forever.\n\nWell, at least until the average speed radars will be added to traffic enforcement. For some countries, that's not too far into the future, so a device that checks example 5 mile portion and calculates your time from point A to point B and gives you a ticket if your average speed is above the speed limit.",
"The reason that this is so acceptable is fairly straightforward.\nSpeedometers on cars measure speed based on how many times your tires turn in a given space of time. It takes the size of your wheel as a given value, and then when you have the number of rotations in a given space of time it's really easy to compute the speed. There's a problem with this:\n\n* Tire size isn't a constant value, it can be affected by tire pressure, temperature, even the brand of tire\n\nSo this error introduces a between 5 and 10mph range of error between how fast you are actually going and how fast your car says you're going. Officers like to ask \"Do you know how fast you were going?\" Well, sometimes, you just don't know.\n\n^At ^least ^this ^is ^what ^I've ^always ^heard.",
"Let's take a look at the Ontario Highway Act:\n\n > Penalty\n(14) Every person who contravenes this section or any by-law or regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, where the rate of speed at which the motor vehicle was driven,\n\n > * (a) is less than 20 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $3 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;\n* (b) is 20 kilometres per hour or more but less than 30 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $4.50 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;\n* (c) is 30 kilometres per hour or more but less than 50 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $7 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit; and\n* (d) is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit, to a fine of $9.75 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 17 (7).\n\nThe maximum fine for going 19km over the limit is $57. 10km over the limit would be $30. A police officer would have to decide if $30 is worth stopping someone. ",
"\nA properly set speed limit would use the 85th percentile speed rule, where people could drive as they please, then set the limit at the sped where 85% of the drivers drive.\n\nIn many cases engineering limits are higher than posted speed limits, and in some cases far higher. \n\nThis is probably where people go faster. Their personal limit is probably balanced against risk of getting a ticket.\n\nThat said, in some places, artificially low limits are placed which make the roads more dangerous for drivers.\n\n",
"Because people are hateful fucking maniacs who want to kill me personally.\n\nSource: learning how to drive",
"The explanation I once received was simply that if the cop would be comfortable at the speed you were driving you wouldn't be pulled over. Dependent on road conditions, location, etc.",
"Because driving 35 on a 4 lane road is absurd",
"I wish the speed limit on highways/express ways/ any way with more that 2 lanes had 'lane speed limits'. For example, on a 4 lane highway the lane with on and off ramps (the first lane) would have a max speed of, say, 60mph, the next lane 75, the next 85, the last lane could be autobahn. So many people seem to love to cock block the whole road because they don't want someone in front of them, yet are going almost the same speed as the person next to them. In the greater Phoenix, AZ area, people can be real dicks. Pass or get the hell out of the way! Rant done ;)",
"I think I remember learning in a human factors class that people drive the speed that they feel safe driving at. Implementing safety features into cars doesn't always have the predicted safety effect because they can cause people to feel comfortable driving faster. If people feel safe driving above the speed limit, they will. In the same way, sometimes a speed limit will be set higher than I feel comfortable driving, especially on unfamiliar windy roads.\n\nThe point was illustrated in class by a day when a country switched from driving on the left to driving on the right (or vice versa). I want to say it was called \"T-Day\"? Anyway, they predicted there would be a lot of accidents on the day of the switch, but found that people adjusted to the new hazard by voluntarily slowing down, keeping the number of accidents no different than a normal driving day.\n\nEdit: it was called H-Day _URL_0_",
"A cop came to my high school and said he'd give 5 for your equipment, 5 for their equipment, and 5 for margin of error. Ever since I've always set my cruise at 10 over on the highway and never have had a problem. ",
"There are 2 exceptions to this rule I've found by the way. One is pretty much etched in stone, the other, depends on the state.\n\nSchool Zones: If its 25 or whatever, you better be doing that.\n\nConstruction Zones: With the advent of \"double fine\" in a lot of states, they aren't as tolerant of the 5 over the limit in these areas.",
"Try that in a work zone... Points + summons. ",
"This is interesting to me as I used to be a speeder until recently. I used to always drive just a bit faster than the flow of traffic, generally around 15 mph over the speed limit. It has been many, many years since I've been pulled over. Recently I have been conducting a personal experiment where I peg my cruise control to exactly the speed limit and ignore assholes pressuring me from behind (yes I stay in the right lane) I have found that the difference in the amount of time it takes me to get places is nearly unchanged, especially on highways with frequent congestion. I experience much less stress while driving, increased fuel efficiency and feel relaxed after hour + congested highway trips rather than flustered and pissed while trying to zoom just a little faster than traffic flow. I have been pulled over since the experiment began. I thought that was strange.",
"I think in a nutshell there's an obvious benefit (getting somewhere faster) and usually no drawback (getting caught/crashing). It's viewed as a classic victimless crime.",
"I'd be careful with this. When I was in Oregon almost no one went over, and definitely not more than 5 over.\n\nI live in NY however, and there's some roads you can be 15 over and go right by cops and not get pulled over.\n\nRanges a lot regionally and situationally. Bad weather also means youre more likely to get pulled over for going over.",
"Because generally speed limits are set arbitrarily low in order to profit from speeding tickets. Good 10-15 mph over is generally not unsafe. ",
"It's cultural. In India, they rarely pay attention to many driving laws at all. You might see people diving the wrong direction or crossing several lanes of traffic in an intersection. The extent of keeping to laws is dependent on social norms which change with culture. ",
"People are going to take the mindset that going just a little bit over can't be that unsafe, so speed limits are set lower in order to compensate for this mindset. Say people are willing to go up to 60 in a 50 zone. Could you imagine if it was actually a 60 zone? People would still be in the mindset that only slightly faster wouldn't hurt anyone, they would go up to maybe 70, then cause trouble. I think it is socially acceptable because it is expected that licensed drivers don't know how to drive.",
"The margin of error is usually 10%, if you drive at 110% of the speed limit, you're ok, if you go up to 115% you could get in trouble.",
"The reason is because unless your speedometer is regularly calibrated they have to make allowances of around five mph inaccuracy and another five on top of that is negligible. ",
"It blew my mind driving on the highway between Vegas and LA how I was being passed by pretty much everyone while going 20 MPH over the speed limit.",
"Conversely, why is it socially *unacceptable* to go 5-10 mph under the speed limit?",
"Social acceptability varies. In metro Atlanta, Georgia, USA, there's a little road called Georgia Highway 400 that people routinely drive on as if it were the Autobahn; 80+ MPH in a 65 (sometimes 55) MPH zone. The cops usually only pull people over if the people are driving dangerously (weaving, tailgating, not paying attention), but they also do it whenever they're behind on fine income for the month. \n\nOne rationale I've heard is that the speed limits are generally set low. Officially, they're best-case limits, for ideal conditions on a dry road on a sunny day, and you should go slower when any of those is not true. Unofficially, you can go at least 20% over them in ideal conditions, as long as you're a competent driver who is otherwise driving safely. \n\nOf course, everyone thinks they're a competent driver who drives safely even while tweeting about how ridiculous these speed limits are..",
"If this is a question that often vexes you, here's the best advice:\n\n*MOVE RIGHT.*",
"Having had a brief look at comments, I feel like there is something people are forgetting.\rCars are huge chunks of metal that speed along fast enough to kill one or more people instantly and easily.\rCars are really fucking dangerous, just look at the number of people killed on the road every day.\rWhen designing rules about safety, you have to take everything into account, and find the line between what is unsafe but convenient, and what is totally safe, but inefficient. Inevitably, rule makers will side with safety over convenience (since being late to work may get you fired, but won't get you killed.)\rI'm not saying that all speed limits are justified, but I would suggest the possibility that there is a reason (apart from revenue raising) that some seemingly stupid speed limits are the way they are.\rIn the end, people will never be satisfied. Whatever the speed limit is, people will demand it be raised.\rThat being said, speed limits are there for a reason, and in ny opinion, they should be observed, no matter how stupid they seem.",
"I know that this doesn't really apply to US much, but over here (Lithuania, little country that no one has ever heard of, Northern Europe) the fine for speeding at up to 10 km/h is a verbal warning. As a result, if the speed limit is 90 km/h, then you can go 99km/h and not worry about fines. \n\nAlso, the usual margin of error for most speed guns is 4km/h, so you can technically even go faster, although it's risky, speed guns just keep getting better and better.",
"Per my traffic engineer husband:\n\nRoadway speed limits are set based on three primary factors:\n\n1. Legislative: there may be a state maximum speed limit, for example. In addition, depending on state/municipality citizens may petition for lower speed limits out of safety concerns (reduced speed in school zones, etc.)\n\n2. Roadway characteristics: This could be lane configuration, typical traffic patterns, or any other special cases that affect the safety of travelers.\n\n3. Driver behavior: Engineering best practice is to actually use typical driver behavior to help determine speed limits, partially because any speed limit that is much lower than what people will naturally drive on the roadway will be unenforceable as so many people will be in violation. So they actually do traffic studies to determine typical speed on the roadway, and set the speed limit at a threshold where approximately 85% of drivers are already driving below it. \n\nThe third one is actually a primary driver behind the decision, except as restricted by the other two. So, 5-10 mph is so socially acceptable partially because the speed limits are set so 15% of people are doing exactly that anyways.\n\nThat, and the cops won't enforce it, as other commenters have said.",
"Because we all like to lives little bit in the..... DANGER ZONE! \n\nSource: I'm Kenny Loggins",
"In this thread we will learn that a lot of Redditors don't understand high school physics. ",
"* Drivers think it's safe to drive at a higher speed than what's on the sign\n\n* Driving faster will get you where you want to go sooner, so there's an incentive.\n\n* Drivers have noticed that others don't get fined for driving ~5-10 miles above the posted limit.",
"The theory of speed limits that I know of says that the speed limit should be set so that 85 out of 100 people would be traveling at or under that speed. The idea is that most people will travel a speed that feels safe to them without much outside intervention. \n\nPeople who travel significantly over or under that speed represent a traffic hazard. What would surprise most people is that people traveling 15 mph under the speed limit actually are more dangerous than people traveling 15 mph over. \n\nThe thing that confuses most people is everyone knows that stretch of road where \"everyone speeds\" and wonders why why that speed doesn't reflect that 85th percentile. This is because of people's misunderstanding that slower=safer. The safest speed is the one that everyone is traveling together.\n\nBecause many people travel within 5-10 miles per hour of the speed limit, it is socially acceptable because it isn't causing a traffic hazard and most people recognize that.\n\nI read this somewhere but cant find the source now, found something that has similar information. _URL_0_",
"It depends on what the limit is. With a limit of 55-65, it seems like you can usually do up to 10mph more before getting in trouble. Unfortunately I live in the northeast and the limit is never more than 65 (that I have seen) so I am not sure how it is on other parts of the US where the limits go up to 75. \n\nHowever, if you are on local roads, you get less leeway, usually about 5mph. Of course if you are driving in Malverne NY be prepared to be pulled over and ticketed for doing 32 in a 30.... ",
"It is odd going from California where everyone drives 80 on the freeway (when there is no traffic) to Washington where everyone drives the speed limit.",
"I've had this theory that the speed limit is on purpose lower than what the acceptable speed for the road would be because people are always going to go a little over the speed limit that is posted.\n\nMaybe completely wrong but it seems to make sense.",
"15 is where the fine and points increase.\nthis is the point where its worth the officer's trouble to write the ticket.\n\n5 over on small streets\n\n10 over on highways.\n\n14 over on the interstate, or 95mph if in the middle of nowhere (100mph+ bigger ticket)\n\nthese laws were written when cars did not perform the way they do today. better acceleration, suspension, breaking, traction...",
"I one thing I didn't see mentioned here: on a ticket (at least in PA), the office checks a box indicating the number of mphs you were driving over the speed limit (10, 20, 30, double) and there is no box for less than 10. However, the officer can always check the ”unsafe speed” box. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_504.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8qolaq | why are american school lunches so consistently terrible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8qolaq/eli5_why_are_american_school_lunches_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0ktosa",
"e0ktysz",
"e0ku631"
],
"score": [
10,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"Japan and France fund their schools much better than America allowing them to have better meals.",
"Because what they serve is mass-produced and as cheap as possible. School budgets are very tight around here, so every penny counts - except when it comes to competitive sports, that is (whole other discussion). So by serving cheap, mass-produced lunches, they're saving money. Most public schools are funded based on student attendance and standardized test scores, so nutrition is very low priority.",
"Virtually no US schools only serve pizza and wings. That is generally the supplementary option that student have. The hot line will normally be something like meatloaf, shepherd's pie, roast, spaghetti, sloppy joe, etc along with a vegetable side or two often including a salad. This is the meal you will get if you are on school paid lunches and the options of burgers, pizza, wings, etc are bought with the student's money. (at least at my school)\n\nBut you are correct that the quality is to keep meals cheap. They meet the minimal standards set for nutrition with the cheapest food they can produce. \n\nThere has also not been much backlash from parents against the types of food. Pizza, burgers, chicken wings, etc are considered normal everyday foods here. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
d9gstw | why does moon in daylight looks transparent? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d9gstw/eli5_why_does_moon_in_daylight_looks_transparent/ | {
"a_id": [
"f1h7o1r",
"f1h7unn",
"f1hae8t"
],
"score": [
11,
11,
51
],
"text": [
"You know how objects in the distance look like far minecraft rendering? Basically but up.",
"I want to share a relevant trick in photoshop. \nSay you want to insert an object behind a transparent thing. \nDon’t make the thing transparent, make the object you are inserting transparent. \n\n**The human eye can’t tell which of the objects is actually transparent** \nIt tends to fall back on remembering what objects are usually transparent. \n \nIn this case it’s not the moon that’s transparent, it’s the blue sky. \nThe blue sky is refracting blue light into your eyes. \nLight being reflected by the moon is punching through the transparent atmosphere. \n\nSo the light from the moon is mixing with the light being refracted by the atmosphere. \n \nYour brain interprets this as something being transparent, in this case you seem to have interpreted it as the moon being transparent.",
"1. We imagine the daylight sky is blue and everything is in front of it.\n\n2. But actually, the sky is just the atmosphere, and the moon is behind the atmosphere.\n\n3. So the sky is *in front* of the moon.\n\n4. It's the sky that's transparent."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4ials4 | why do people go into deep sleep mode after a few drinks? deep enough for friends to do all sorts of stuff and sounds and they're still asleep? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ials4/eli5_why_do_people_go_into_deep_sleep_mode_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2wgtet",
"d2wqmb8",
"d2wr3lt"
],
"score": [
76,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"An **agonist** is a chemical that can greatly enhance a process in your body.\n\n**GABA** is a chemical in your brain that usually shuts down electrical activity in the brain.\n\nAlcohol is an extremely potent **GABA agonist** that makes the \"shut down\" effect even stronger. Basically all incoming stimuli (sounds, tactile sensation) won't be interpreted by the brain because the enhanced effects of GABA is shutting it down.",
"When I reached this magical state, I awoke to hugging a toilet with the seat as my pillow and did not notice the many sharpie marks on my sleepy face.",
"I saw that video too, and one comment mentioned it was for a school project about viral videos. So although people can pass out, it's no where near this extreme"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1io2k5 | where electricity actually comes from and how it gets to our homes. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1io2k5/eli5_where_electricity_actually_comes_from_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb6xbrq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Electricity is moving electrons in wires. \n\nWe cause the electrons to move through wires by pushing a magnet next to the wires. In a power plant, we use a large magnet called a generator, and we turn it by converting some other energy source into heat. (coal,nuclear,gas), or by using wind/water. When we turn the generator, the magnets push the electrons in the wire. Your house is hooked up to the same wires as the generator and thats what makes your lights work. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6r19tw | why does blue light from a phone trick my brain into thinking it's daylight, but blue lighting in a movie or play makes it look like night time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6r19tw/eli5_why_does_blue_light_from_a_phone_trick_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl1spcm"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"You are confusing two different things here. \n \nThe first effect is a chemical reaction that removes the sleepy drug (melatonin) from our bodies when our eyes are exposed to blue light. \n \nThe second is a theatrical representation of night time that is culturally accepted as a substitution for darkness because plays and films would be pretty rubbish if you just turned off all the lights to represent a lack of light."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3zhlag | in engineering majors at universities, why is that chemical engineering has more ratio of girls than guys compared to other engineering majors? | Are girls' brains wired differently in those subjects? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zhlag/eli5_in_engineering_majors_at_universities_why_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cym6u2k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Statistically, girls do better in subjects such as chemistry and biology compared to maths and physics.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2q7dit | how does shakespeare "invent" a word and it becomes a part of every day language when we already had a developed english language? | He's credited with inventing words like "elbow" and "tranquil" but I can't understand how he would even begin to craft a new word and have it actually integrate into the common language. What process would he have gone through to form the word? How were the words so easily accepted into society? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2q7dit/eli5_how_does_shakespeare_invent_a_word_and_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn3jfxf",
"cn3jhch",
"cn3jjth",
"cn3js22",
"cn3jv12",
"cn3q1sb"
],
"score": [
18,
8,
3,
7,
27,
2
],
"text": [
"Some of them were easy. UNdress, laughABLE, gloomY. That just change the meaning of an old word (lowercase) by changing the part of speech (uppercase)\n\nSome of them were derived from Latin or Greek. Zany comes from the Italian word, zani.\n\nSome, he probably just pulled out of thin air to fit the scene or rhyme, kind of like comic book writers do today. Bedazzled!\n\nScientists make up words all the time. What makes them become part of the mainstream culture is if they are accepted as meaning something. With scientists, they usually have Latin origins of some sort. Gene comes from Latin for kind or type. Genome =gene +chromosome. Then proteome easily follows as a protein version of genome.",
"There are words added and removed from our lexicon all the time. Words like \"bling,\" \"dappy,\" or \"selfie,\" are rather new additions, something like \"citharize\" or \"eicastic\" are out, and some have morphed meaning. As for how easily we accept them, that's rather easy. If you invent a word for something that would otherwise require a sentence to describe, and people find it meaningful, in due course it too will enter the lexicon. ",
"Because his plays were so widely seen that people started using the words he invented in their everyday speech, so they eventually became perfectly cromulent words.\n\nThe same is happening today, and it doesn't take centuries. In many cases they are words for new things and new ideas, such as \"spam\", but not always.",
"When we say that Shakespeare \"invented\" a word, what we really mean is that's just the earliest recorded use of the word. It's quite possible that many of the words credited to Shakespeare were already in somewhat common use in spoken language at the time, and he was simply the first person to write them down in a text that has survived. Spoken language changes and evolves quite rapidly, and written forms are usually slower to catch up. Think of most slang words (or even commonly used phrases today like \"I can't even\") – these almost always originate in spoken language.",
"Many of the words weren't necessarily invented by Shakespeare. His works are the earliest surviving example of the word being used, but the word could have been in common use in speech, and have appeared in other written works of which no copies survive.",
"English invents, borrows, and modifies words all the time. Having a famous person popularize words they have invented is just an example of that. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
18bkjv | the sequester and its impact on the national deficit / debt | If the sequester goes through, how will it impact the national deficit and debt? What are some other options? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18bkjv/eli5_the_sequester_and_its_impact_on_the_national/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8ekxa7"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"First the sequester: \n\nIt all started in july 2011 in the fight over the debt ceiling. Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree on programs to cut, so they pointed a gun at their own heads called the \"Fiscal Cliff.\" The fiscal cliff gave the Republicans and the Democrats about a year and a half to try to find stuff they wanted to spend less money on. If they couldn't agree, they decided, they would just cut from pretty much everything, including things both sides liked. It was meant to be a strong reason to come to an agreement.\n\nIn December 2012, they compromised on a few things, but also decided that they needed more time to think. So they gave themselves three more months to decide what should be cut. But it looks like they might not agree on more cuts, so about $85 billion in automatic cuts are going to go into effect on March 1st, unless they agree on better things to cut. This is the sequester.\n\nSecond: what will happen to national deficit?\nHere's a chart of what will get cut: _URL_1_. From now until 2021, if the entire sequestration goes through, the government will cut $1.2 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office, who try really hard to be neutral, estimated in May 2012 (before the fiscal cliff, so that changes things, but on a pretty small scale) that the sequester would reduce deficits by $15.3 billion over the 2012-2013 period, by $136.9 billion over the 2012-2017 period, and by $328.0 billion over the 2012-2022 period\" (_URL_0_).\n\nNext question: why are the savings the CBO estimates smaller than the actual cuts? if we are looking at $85 billion in cuts in 2013, why would deficit only be reduced $15 billion? The answer is that government expenditure creates economic activity. Eventually, the economy would be stronger if a smaller part of it got eaten away by taxes. And eventually, we need to pay for stuff we buy. But in the short term, cutting government spending reduces both the deficit and GDP, so the government collects less money to pay for its programs.\n\n(If I actually was explaining this to a five year old, and I used to teach kindergarten, I'd use more concrete examples.)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43226",
"http://www.offthechartsblog.org/heres-how-the-march-1-sequester-would-work/"
]
] |
|
1987nz | why does zimbabwe have $100 trillion dollar bills? | How could their dollar go from being worth more than a US dollar in 1980 to being so worthless that $100 Trillion Dollar bills are necessary? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1987nz/eli5_why_does_zimbabwe_have_100_trillion_dollar/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8lo7fk",
"c8lu3yb"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"It's inflation. Their $1,000 bills are worth more as sources of fire kindling than they are as tender. When an economy is doing really poorly, the value of the money goes way down relative to other currencies. Inflation is expected in economies (and is very much happening in the United States), but hyperinflation is when it gets out of control. In the Weimar Republic (pre-WW2 Germany), [the same thing happened](_URL_0_). Note that that graph not only has an exponential curve, but the scale itself is also logarithmic. That is outrageous.\n\nSo when does it happen? Generally in times of war or a lack of confidence in government. What's a piece of paper worth anyway? If the government says $100, then we consider it worth $100. If you find a bill on the street you'll be pretty happy. But what if you have no confidence in that government, and what if nobody else-- no stores, no friends, nobody-- has confidence that that money is worth anything? Then it becomes worthless. Money is worth something because, no pun intended, people buy into it. They trust that it is worth something, and that gives it value. Hyperinflation occurs when that trust shoots down. So if you have money in the bank, you lose everything.\n\nThat's what's happening in Zimbabwe right now. Now the government \"disowned\" their currency and they're using foreign money! [More info](_URL_1_)",
"Inflation. Inflation is defined as an increase in price level. Inflation is, in the short run, a tradeoff for unemployment (i.e. decreasing inflation in the short term will generally increase inflation, and vice versa), and defined as an increase in average price level. There are two most common causes for short term inflation, increases in production cost or consumer demand, and one long term cost for inflation, an increase in money supply. Inflation is generally manageable provided wages increase with inflation (i.e., the currency you are paid with is worth less, but you are paid more of that currency to compensate). The rate at which Zimbabwe (and, even worse than Zimbabwe, postwar Germany (in the past, obviously)) prints/[printed] money (i.e., creates long-term inflation) far, FAR outstripped wages. Even if wages had raised in correlation, it becomes supremely impractical to have to carry $500 billion for a loaf of bread. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:German_Hyperinflation.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe"
],
[]
] |
|
dqa9j1 | how come combining multiple cleaning products of the same type (glass cleaners, wood cleaners, etc) doesnt just make a "super product" that is better thej eady product individually? | I was curious because if I used Pine-Sol, 409, and a generic cleaner...wouldn't it be way better then each by itself? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dqa9j1/eli5_how_come_combining_multiple_cleaning/ | {
"a_id": [
"f61l4dj",
"f61qneu"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Different products have different ingredients based on what they are supposed to be cleaning. A generic cleaner that can be used for something like a stainless steel faucet might be corrosive and strip the tarnish or oils from the wood floor or tabletop that your Pine-Sol is going to clean. \n\nA lot of glass cleaners have ammonia in them, for instance - that can discolor or dull the finish of a wood surface.\n\nAlso, some of the chemicals in those cleaners are toxic in their own right, but if you start mixing them with other chemicals it can result in an even more toxic fume or product.",
"Different cleaners have different methods of cleaning that are generally targeted at a specific problem. So some cleaners are good at removing grease while others are good at removing stains. Adding them together doesn't really help in most cases. Using a stain remover on your greasy stove will not help at all.\n\nFurther, combining cleaners can be dangerous. The most common one being mixing ammonia and chlorine bleach. If you do that it releases chlorine gas which is very poisonous (it was used in WWI in gas attacks...so not nice stuff). Other hazards would be mixing an acidic cleaner with a cleaner with a base Ph. Those react violently with each other.\n\nIn short, pick the right cleaner for the job and never, ever mix them.\n\nEdit: A word"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3g8g9j | what the point of a child getting a degree at age 10. | Can they actually get a job that young or what good (apart from an ego boost) can a degree do to a child? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g8g9j/eli5what_the_point_of_a_child_getting_a_degree_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctvtnde",
"ctvtnz8"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I think most of the time, it's an ego boost for the parents. \"Look at how successful little Quentin is! He's studying maths at Oxford, and he's only three!\"\n\nThe reality is that, although these kids might be academically brilliant, pushing them so far so young means that they're unable to identify with their peer groups, and basically miss out on the experiences of a normal childhood/adolescence that would make them into an adult able to function in society.",
" > Can they actually get a job that young\n\nafaik in most countries they can't\n\n > what good can it do\n\na degree just says you are done with some education, so you can just go on and do something else, or go on and do awesome work (not as in a job, but as in research) in that field."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
32zezt | how does a doctor's unnecessary prescription of antibiotics to a patient help the bacteria which the antibiotic was meant to attack to develop antibiotic resistance? | If the bacteria is not in the patients body when the antibiotic is being taken then how is it able for it to develop resistance to that same antibiotic? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32zezt/eli5_how_does_a_doctors_unnecessary_prescription/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqg291a",
"cqg2abu",
"cqg4sqa"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If they are 100 batectia that 2 are the bad ones and 98 are the ones that will be killed by the antibiotics and sudenly 98 dies, there will be only 2 to occupy the same space/foodd resource and multiply. In the end you will have 100 bad ones with no competition",
"Doctors writing frivolous prescriptions is a problem but most of the antibiotic resistant disease strains come from people not finishing an antibiotic regimen and the rarely talked about preemptive use of antibiotics on livestock. ",
"Antibiotics aren't 100% effective, few things are. If you take an antibiotic that kills 99.9% of bacteria, that means 1 in 1,000 lived. I don't feel like googling and freaking myself out, but I feel pretty safe in assuming that in most cases, there a billion bacteria in your body by the time you're showing symptoms of an infection. Killing 99.9% of them leaves a million left a live. More specifically, it leaves alive the million most fit to survive antibiotics. \n\nThis is where we get into evolution: it isn't the survival of the strongest, it's survival of the most adapt to survive. The million remaining bacteria in your body are the best able to adapt to the presence of antibiotics. Give them a few thousand generations ([an experiment invovling E. coli hit 50k generations after 26 years](_URL_0_)), and you have a recipe for accidentally directing the evolution of bacteria to be resistant to antibiotics.\n\nAlso, think about this: when was the last time you finished a course of antibiotics? For most people, the answer is probably never. You take them like your doctor tells you until you feel better and leave the rest of the meds in your medicine cabinet until you start feeling sick again. Right, about that: that helps the above along. You know the expression \"what doesn't kill me, makes me stronger\"? Yeah, think about that in the context of bacteria."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment"
]
] |
|
5mkm3j | why does the southern united states react so badly to cold weather? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mkm3j/eli5_why_does_the_southern_united_states_react_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc48wax",
"dc495af",
"dc4cjgr"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The Southern US doesn't experience cold weather as frequently as other regions so is unused to it. Also southern cities are less prepared to handle the weather conditions that come from colder weather (e.g., ice, snow). People also have less experience driving in those conditions and have accidents or are afraid they'll have accidents. Essentially, lack of familiarity and preparedness with cold weather. \n\nSource: grew up and live in the southern US, lived a long time in the Midwestern US.",
"Infrastructure can play a part. I grew up in New Mexico and when heavy snow hit (once in a blue moon), we had to borrow plows from Colorado. I'm living in Minnesota now and there are actual fleets of said plows here. If you're living somewhere that only needs plows every so often, chances are good that government resources have been allocated elsewhere, towards more pressing concerns.",
"I've lived in the South my entire life. In addition to the lack of infrastructure, from what I understand, the difference is here in the South, snow is usually preceded by rain that then freezes on the ground or freezing rain/sleet. This makes the roads much more dangerous than if it was just snow. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1uj4rw | what is a dimension ? | In terms of maths and physics what is a Dimension? is it just something we came up with to explain things or would Dimensions still exsit if humans didn't ( like how time would exist with out people but hours wouldn't?). | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uj4rw/eli5_what_is_a_dimension/ | {
"a_id": [
"cein21i",
"cein3p1",
"ceinwux",
"ceipaoz",
"ceipbqs",
"ceiptk5"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2,
2,
22,
2
],
"text": [
"Like everything else in maths, dimensions are very well defined. Whether it's made up or exists on its own is a very philosophical question which comes up every now and then in math, and I don't think there's always a consensus, so I'll skip that part. \n\nThe way it's typically defined is in the context of vector spaces. A vector space is, simply speaking, a collection of things that you can add together and stretch by a scalar factor. The best example for a vector space is the so called R^(3), which is the collection of all triples (x,y,z), where x, y and z, the components, are real numbers. You can add two triples by adding the respective components and stretch it by multiplying each component by the scalar factor.\n\nYou may have guessed that R^3 has dimension three. The actual definition (or one of them, there are several) goes like this: The dimension of a vector space is the maximum number of elements you can have that are linearly independent. Okay, now I need to explain what linearly independent means. If you have four elements of R^(3), no matter which, then there is always one element that can be written as a linear sum of the three remaining ones. If you choose only three elements, then that's not always possible (for instance (1,0,0), (0,1,0) and (0,0,1)), so the dimension of R^3 is three. Strictly speaking, this is something you have to prove, but I think in this case it's fairly plausible.\n\nTranslating this concept to physics is a little more complicated. We often talk about the number of dimensions of the Universe, but the Universe is not a vector space. The reason why it's not is that it's curved. This makes it a so called manifold. But the beautiful thing about manifolds is that they look like vector spaces if you \"zoom in\" on them, i.e. you only look at a small patch. If I look at my room for instance, a very small part of the Universe, then the curvature in it is pretty negligible, so it sort of looks like (part of) a vector space. Then we can say the dimension of a manifold is the dimension of the vector space that it looks like up close.\n\nBut another complication comes from the time dimension. From special relativity we know that space and time aren't as separable as we once thought. Two events in spacetime that one person would describe as separated purely spatially, i.e. they happen at the same time, might look differently to someone else who was moving at a great speed relative to the first person. They might say that the two events have a temporal distance as well, i.e. they do not happen simultaneously, and they would say spatial distance is smaller than the first person claimed.\n\nThat's because space and time are part of the same thing, spacetime. It's a four-dimensional manifold.\n\nString theory says that there are even more dimensions, but that they are tiny. Basically, it says that we can describe an event in spacetime by more than four numbers, i.e. (t,x,y,z,v), where v is the extra dimension. But while t,x,y and z can take on any value (well, except t has a lower bound due to the big bang), v can only take on a very limited range of numbers. For instance, while z could be plus or minus 10 Gigaparsec or even more, v can only be between 0 and 0.00001 femtometer or something like that. After that it wraps around. Basically, any atom is much larger than that, so it occupies the entire extra dimension, so it can't really move up and down the v-direction. That's why we don't see them, or at least it's very hard to see them. There are a few experiments going on and planned which might see the extra dimensions if they're big enough.\n",
"Lets assume there is a planet like earth , but the people are restricted to only one dimension.\n\nThat would mean that the planet is constrained to a line, the people and all objects can move only north and south, no up or down left or right etc .\n\nOnly North and south along a line.\n\nLets increase the number of dimensions. Let the people move in 2 dimensions.\n\nNow the people of this planet are constrained to move north south east west , but not up or down. (including northwest north east and everthing else but not up and down)\n\nSame analogy applied to three dimension, the people are constrained to move only up down , north south east west , (and everything in between like north east or north+up, north +down etc)\n\nHope this was helpful ",
"Spacial dimensions are about direction, not location. A location is only defined by its distance in a certain direction to something else.\n\nEach dimension is an instruction on how to get from one point to the other. So the instruction \"go left 1 feet\" is one dimension, \"go up 2 feet\" adds the second dimension. In this case right is just the negative version of left (same with up and down, or forward and backward).\n\nWe only know of one time dimension. The instruction for that is something like \"next friday\". There is also a negative version for that (last friday), so that is still the same dimension.\n\nIt's possible to come up with more dimensions. But we live in 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, so we cannot express this in human language, only with mathematical formulas.\n\nWould dimensions still exist if humans didn't? Yes. Aliens also need to explain how to get from point A to point B. They probably wouldn't use the same units (feet, meters, days or seconds). We invented and agreed on these units, so we can explain how much to go into a certain dimension.",
"Draw a straight line going in one direction. This is your first dimension! You can tell where something is along that line just by specifying its distance from the start of the line.\n\nNow draw a line so that *if you walked up and down that line for as far as you wanted, you wouldn't change where you were relative to the first line*. Line 2 will be at right angles to Line 1. This is your second dimension. You can tell where you are anywhere between the lines by specifying your distance along Line 1 and distance along Line 2.\n\nNow draw a third line, so that if you walked up and down it, it wouldn't affect your position relative to the first two lines. This will be at right angles to both of them and be Line 3. This is your third dimension! You can now specify where you are at any point in space at all by giving your distance along each of Lines 1, 2 and 3.\n\nNow, you can also move in time without it affecting your position in space - stand still for half an hour, and you'll move along half an hour in time, but nowhere in space! So time is another dimension, albeit one we can't move in as freely.",
"A dimension is basically a direction.\n\nWe live in three dimensions.\n\nX, which is length. \nY, which is height. \nZ, which is depth.\n\nFrom that alone it's not terribly hard to imagine a fourth dimension in this abstract sense. It's just another direction, albeit one we can't currently see or travel.\n\nA core aspect of dimensions is that the number of dimensions is the number of coordinates required to specify a specific location within that dimensional space.\n\nSo for example, in a 2D space (a flat plane) you need two coordinates to describe any point. (x,y). Similarly, any 3D area needs three coordinates (x,y,z). So for a four dimensional area you just need to add a fourth coordinate. (x,y,z,a).\n\nOn time: Some people consider time to be the fourth used dimension. This is because you can specify a point at a specific x, y, and z as well as time. So your four dimensional area can have points specified by (x,y,z,t), where t=time. ",
"We had a nice long discussion about this [just the other day](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u39kd/eli5_the_4th_dimension/"
]
] |
|
aaolj7 | why is space black? aren't the stars emitting light? | I don't understand the NASA explanation. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aaolj7/eli5_why_is_space_black_arent_the_stars_emitting/ | {
"a_id": [
"ectnbcq",
"ectnc3a",
"ectqt2h",
"ecu38oi",
"ecu3juq",
"ecu3o68",
"ecu3wra",
"ecu41g2",
"ecu49sb",
"ecu4a3x",
"ecu52lo",
"ecu58tg",
"ecu5vy7",
"ecu5ys3",
"ecu6d6i",
"ecu6jsq",
"ecu741q",
"ecu76i3",
"ecu88px",
"ecur7iw",
"ecusm60",
"ecusqzn",
"ecutwzq",
"ecuurt5",
"ecuvr35",
"ecuweac",
"ecuwry1",
"ecux76b",
"ecuzbpk",
"ecuzf6a",
"ecv15ai",
"ecv1ffz",
"ecv5i2c",
"ecva6sy",
"ecvb56v",
"ecvekru",
"ecvf1zn",
"ecvg6zd"
],
"score": [
6397,
362,
519,
42,
14,
19,
11,
99,
3,
9,
12162,
5,
4,
2,
3,
3,
7,
23,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There’s nothing for the starlight to reflect off of (mostly). Imagine an empty room, without any light. If someone turns on a flashlight and points it towards you, the rest of the room still looks black, since that light isn’t hitting anything.\n\nEdit: That’s enough of the “a star shines in all directions” replies, it’s a very simple, imperfect analogy.",
"Stars do emit light, but there's nothing in space for the light to bounce off of. The light bulbs in your house light up the rooms because the light hits the walls and objects in the room. Space doesn't have any walls or objects.",
"While they emit light, very few photons actually hit us. If you take a high exposure picture of the sky you will see a lot of stars and galaxies that you normally can't see. However, that doesn't fully explain it. The universe is big, really big, so where is everything? The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so we can only see light from objects within a certain distance of us because the light coming from outside our visible universe can't reach us. It gets more interesting than that, the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Because of this, our visible universe is slowly shrinking. At some point in the very very far future we won't be able to see the rest of the universe because the light can't reach us.",
"it's a combination of age and size. since light travels at a finite speed, it takes time for light emitted arbitrarily far away to reach us. and the universe isn't old enough that there's been infinite time for that to happen, which means that light emitted from far enough away hasn't had enough time to reach us. combined with the expansion of the universe, which is growing faster than light can travel, that means some light *never* will reach us.",
"Minutephysics has a great video [here](_URL_0_) on this topic. ",
"Inverse square law mate. \n\nYou know how when you use a shotgun up-close in games it's an instant kill? The pellets haven't travelled far enough to spread very much, so they cause a lot of damage to a relatively small area. When you're further away, the shotgun becomes a lot less useful. In fact, it becomes less effective very rapidly with distance because the pellets spread out more - fewer hit their target. Your eyeballs are the target, the stars are the shotguns and the light is the pellets.",
"In theory, every single inch of the sky will contain a star if you go far enough. But the light from most of these is redshifted past the visible light spectrum, into infrared and beyond. ",
"I haven't seen the NASA explanation, but if they haven't mentioned it yet, there are some interesting implications to this question: _URL_0_",
"Photons are like a bundle of balls, when they get pushed away from the star, they also get pushed apart, because there is so much distance between the star and our planet, the photons spread out over a long distance, so that only a few hit the earth. ",
"Part of this is, as people have said below, that there is nothing in space for the light to hit and bounce off, so we only see light when we're looking at a star.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nTied to this, though, is a concept known as Olbers' Paradox. If space were infinite and filled with an infinite number of stars spread out randomly/evenly, then any direction we look, we'd see a star eventually. If there's been enough time for light to get to us from that star, then every point in the sky we could look at would have a star in it. That's not what we see, so one or more of those assumptions have to be wrong: there can't be an infinite number of stars spread across the sky, or there can't have been enough time for light to get to us from all of them. We now believe that they're both wrong.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIf you get into the models of the Big Bang, there was a time when the whole universe was filled with light, and we should be able to see that light no matter which way we look...and we do! But because the universe has been expanding, that light has gotten stretched out until it's not visible light anymore, but rather microwave light, which we can't see with our eyes.",
"This is called Olber's Paradox.\n\nIn essence, if we posit that the universe is infinitely large and contains an infinite number of stars (and they are largely randomly distributed), then every line of sight an observer can see should eventually end at a star.\nSo if the universe is infinitely old, every point in the sky should be as bright as the surface of a star.\n\nSince it clearly isn't - we have to discard one or more of our assumptions.\n(They are the universe is infinitely large, contains an infinite number of stars and is infinitely old)\n\nThis is evidence for the big bang - we discard the idea that the universe is infinitely old, so although every line of sight does end in a star, the light from those stars has not had time to arrive yet. (As the speed of light is slow compared to the size of the universe).",
"The light that makes it to us is actually in wavelengths outside of visible light such as X-rays and Radio waves. If we could see in those wavelengths, the sky wouldnt be black at all it would look like this _URL_0_",
"Space isn't black actually, it shines with a very dim microwave wavelength that humans can't see. That is the CMB, whats thought to be the leftover radiation from the big bang. Initially it was yellow light but over billions of years the expansion of space has converted it into microwaves.\n\nAs for the stars, there is just way more empty space than stars themselves. For light to reach your eye it either has to come directly from the source or to be reflected off something. In space there are some things to reflect off like cosmic dust but due to the size of space, all of the light that actually gets to experience reflection gets absorbed by the reflective surfaces themselves before making any significant progress towars earth.\n\n",
"The universe had a beginning. Light has a speed. We can't see things which are too far for their light to reach us and the universe used to be smaller and has expanded so there aren't an infinite number of stars everywhere - space is largely space.",
"There are two answers. \n1. Due to the vast size and age of the universe many stars have not existed long enough for their light to have reached us yet. \n2. All the light from the beginning of the universe is still there and it is everywhere as you are imagining it should be. However, since the universe is expanding the original light waves have become stretched causing them to move from the visible portion of the spectrum into the longer wavelength portions. This is the Cosmic Background Radiation detected by radio telescopes and even your common analog radio. \n\nSo the short answer is - the sky IS saturated with the original light waves from all the stars but those waves are no longer in the visible part of the spectrum. ",
"Space is not black. Take a long exposure of the sky and you’ll see plenty of stuff. There’s a reason our galaxy is called the Milky Way.",
"This is a great question and is essentially the same as one called Olbers' paradox. \n\nThe paradox is basically that if stars are distributed evenly in the sky, and they don't move, and the universe has been around for ever, then the sky should be bright all the time, because even though less photons from the stars far away get to us, there would be more stars in that small patch of sky. The fact this isn't the case was a clue that the universe isn't infinity old and static.\n\nFirst of all we only see stars that are 13bn light years away. Second, the universe is expanding, and the faster stars are a accelerating away results in more red shift as discovered by Edwin Hubble.\n\nUltimately though, in a way the sky is bright. The coldest the universe is 2 Kelvin at it's coldest. This is essentially the afterglow of the big bang. While you can't see it, you can hear it. When you turn on your radio and scroll through the stations some of the static noise is due to that radiation. This was discovered when Penzias and Wilson turned on the horn telescope and thought there was something wrong because they just heard static no matter where in the sky they pointed the telescope.",
"Why is the sky dark at night? This was a question raised by an astronomer many years ago. He reasoned that in any direction, there would eventually be a star. Why don't we see them all, as a canopy of light.\n\nBriefly, the reason is that the further away a star (nebula, galaxy, etc.) is from us, the faster it is retreating from us, producing a red-shift and this reducing the energy of the light from it. Eventually, there are things so far away and retreating from us so fast that we can't see them at all.\n\n_URL_0_",
"They are so far away that not much light reaches us.\n\nTry to look at a town while sitting on a hill far away, those street lights look way brighter when you're close to them.",
"Yes, They still are there in the sky it's just their light it's really really dim for our eyes.\nThere are stars in every point in the sky. What's happening is that light gets dimmer and dimmer with larger distances, the light it's so dim that is not in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum and it goes to larger wavelengths (Doppler shift), that's why galaxies that are far away are observed at really large wavelengths with radio telescopes.",
"Most space is not stars. In fact, space is predominantly empty...space. Plus, stars are far af away so you can't even see them all.",
"So in theory, if a species evolves enough to look up into the night sky in a few billion years (Or Longer), it might be possible that all the other galaxies have moved far enough away that they will base all their science on thinking there is only one galaxy (The one they are in) in the entire universe because the light from the other galaxies is too far for them to see?",
"I did not see this in the comments however i could have missed it, space is full of planets and other stuff / space junk that doesnt produce light and blocks light. So along with the other points made here there is stuff in the way of other stars. Think of how here on earth you can experience this at night you may see other stars but the closest one (the sun) is blocked by the earth.",
"There is light emitted from nearly everywhere in the sky by stars. Our eyes are just not sensitive enough to see it. If we had eyes as “strong” or stronger than the hubble telescope, we would see very little black. Heres a shot from the Hubble telescope soomed in on one of the darkest blackest region of the sky \n_URL_0_\n\nIf our eyes were sensitive enough to see a blanket of stars and galaxies at night, then during the day we would just see super bright light everywhere and not be able to identify our own hands in front of our face. Our eyes are built with low sensitivity so we can see clearly during the day.",
"The universe is actually awash with light energy, but our eyes are incapable of seeing them all without special tools. The wavelengths we can see are on what’s called the ‘visible spectrum,’ which is the only light detectable by the human eye. Thus, a lot of the universe is hidden from us — infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays, microwaves and radio waves are all forms of light energy we can’t see.\n\nI learned this from listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson on the StarTalk Radio podcast (on Spotify) the other day. I always learn cool little tidbits like this when he does cosmic queries episodes. You should check it out if you haven’t already. It’s so informative.\n\nHere’s a short article and infographic too: [The Universe That We Can’t See](_URL_0_) ",
"If you shine a flashlight at night into a field, do you see anything?\n\nLight needs a reflective surface to be seen. All materials have different levels of reflective ability but absence, space, does not. \n\nLayman's terms, if this helps. I'm also not a scientist but I understand the concept. ",
"Light comes as waves, and our eyes catch them with nerves which are only sensitive to specific wave lengths. Too short (ultraviolet) or too long (infrared) and it won't be able to interact with our nerves. \n\nEverywhere you look there IS light coming in. After the big bang, everything was very hot and bright. However, this light has been stretched out because everything keeps expanding over time, really slowly. It's been 13.8 billion years, so it's had quite a bit of time to expand, and now this light is too long for us to see with just our eyes, but special cameras can see it.\n\nNobody really knows why everything's expanding, it's one of the great mysteries of our time.\n\nI'm not really sure why different materials interact with different wavelengths of light differently, so hopefully somebody else here can help with any more detail on how the eyes and photosensitive equipment works. \n\n",
"Space is black when we are observing it at a certain wavelength of light. There is light everywhere in space even when it appears black. Our eyes see only some visible light. The far ends of the spectrum of light (blue or red shifts, from gamma rays to radio waves) can be captured with specialized detectors or telescopes.",
"Space isn't dark. It's a wild fireworks show of supernovas and pulsars, gas clouds and stellar explosions; all of it filling the night sky with mind boggling amounts of light and colors. . . that your human eyes don't see.\n\nIf you could see radio waves and/or x-rays and/or microwaves and/or gamma rays, then the night sky would be absolutely blinding. But you can't, so it isn't. You can only see a tiny sliver of all the possible light waves that bombard our little planet; \"visible light.\"\n\n\n\n",
"You can't see light \"pass by\". You can only see it when it comes at your eyes directly, which means light sources (lamps, stars, sun) and reflections (basically everything you can see because light is hitting it from the sun and bouncing off into your eyes). Everything you see that is not a source of light is light bouncing off of it. ",
"Bit late to the party, and I don't have an answer but I remember the creater of the game Elite Dangerous having the same issue when he first turn on his game (with his 400 billion star system) \n\nHe added 'space dust' to counteract it.",
"Imagine a box with a light bulb in it...the box will be fully lit...now expand the box to the size of a house...there will still be light but not very bright further away from the bulb...now add a few more bulbs and expand the room to the size of a football stadium...keep increasing the size...as the distance increases the intensity of the light drops due to the distance it has to travel...it weakens.. Hence space isn't fully lit... It's too vast...also you do have entities( not sure you can call them that) which absorb light like black holes...",
"You know how in a dark room a tiny light doesnt really make it light?\n\nWell space is like a big room, like a reeeeally big room, an absolutely gigantic room and the stars are tiny cheap ass LEDs",
"Its black because our eyes evolved to only see 390-700nm range of electromagnetic spectrum. Its actually filled with waves of light from radio and microwaves to ultraviolet and gamma rays. Its bright as fuck. ",
"\n“...Another reason that the sky may not be bright with the visible light of all the stars is because when a source of light is moving away from you, the wavelength of that light is made longer (which for light means more red.) This means that the light from stars that are moving away from us will become shifted towards red, and may shift so far that it is no longer visible at all. (Note: You hear the same effect when an ambulance passes you, and the pitch of the siren gets lower as the ambulance travels away from you; this effect is called the Doppler Effect).”\n-(source) _URL_0_\n\nI do like how this explains this as i wasn’t entirely sure on the answer myself, so i googled it of course as we do with all things. \n\noriginally i had planned on saying that light is merely a reflection, & there isn’t anything in space for it to bounce off of. wrong, i’m sure. ",
"A Number of reasons **combined** basically but I'll try my best with my reasonings;\n\n1. Universe isn't infinite based on theories such as big bang theory where light is red-shifted (stretched\n2. Also this effect your asking about also tells us that the universe also isn't infinite in time or space as if it was then enough time would have passed for enough light to reach us but also an infinite number of stars would provide a full night sky (Olbers paradox)\n3. Things get in the way sometimes such as dust clouds etc causing not all of the light to reach us. \n4. There is A LOT of space between us and the star light and photons are tiny, over that long distance this causes the light we receive to be pretty minimal. This idea can be thought similar to having finite number of points on a circles circumference (this shows a good example [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)) (the star is the centre of the circle) then tracing out a line you will see these points \"spread\" out. As stars don't make infinite amount of photons at once this causes a dimming effect on the light we see from a star. \n5. Visible light spectrum isn't infinite (doppler effect)\n6. Light pollution hitting our planets atmosphere causes a dimming effect of other visible light (star light)\n7. \"black\" is the absence of light\n\n & #x200B;",
"Every time this is asked , the top 5 or more answers are all highly upvoted, gilded and wrong (and/or focusing on mostly irrelevant facts).\n\nThe primary reason is that our galaxy is full of dust that absorbs visible light (re-radiating at non visible wavelengths). \n\nEver wondered why you can't see the colossal blaze of the galactic centre? \n\nAll the stars you see in the night sky are less than 1% of our own galaxy.\n\nThe darkness of our sky is NOT evidence for the big bang , the explanation is much more mundane. We know about the big bang and redshift from other observations, not from the darkness of the night sky.\n\nThe second-most important reason is that the other galaxies are very far away so the light reaching us from them has a very low intensity. This would still be true even if the universe had infinite age and spatial extent and no redshift. The argument of Olbers about every line of sight ending on a star is a non-sequitur: even if it did, the star may be so far away that (to put it one way) no photons of that star ever make it to Earth.\n\n",
"Also light intensity follows an inverse square law such that a doubling of the distance means a quartering of the intensity. So distant stars never create a whiteout in the heavens."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gxJ4M7tyLRE"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://fsmedia.imgix.net/06/e4/47/ed/2892/4ddb/ae6e/e1654e9a15e6/the-x-ray-map-of-the-sky.jpeg?rect=0%2C12%2C861%2C431&dpr=2&auto=format%2Ccompress&w=650"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://goo.gl/images/dqQMrF"
],
[
"https://futurism.com/universe-cant-see-infographic"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question52.html"
],
[
"https://amitksaha.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/circles-and-infinity/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3g8ubi | why don't hamsters feel dizzyness when stuck in a wheel? |
Like so: _URL_0_
The hamster that gets stuck and ends up going round and round rather than running with his stationary companion. Do hamsters get dizzy, and if not, why?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g8ubi/eli5_why_dont_hamsters_feel_dizzyness_when_stuck/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctw0s7x"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Owned a hamster some years ago. They do get dizzy, but they don't show it with facial expressions like humans. They also have four legs to keep them balanced. \nIt is hard to notice when they are dizzy in a wheel or a flying saucer, but you can see them walking zigzag and irregularily if they decide to jump out."
]
} | [] | [
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1VuMdLm0ccU"
] | [
[]
] |
|
nxhe7 | why don't we spend billions on education? | I am Canadian. I always wondered why tuition is so freaking expensive, forcing some people to take loans from the government, essentially making everyone a debt slave in the long run (sounds like a scam to me). Then I hear about military spending and the billions that get put into it and it just sounds absolutely absurd.
Why doesn't the Government just fund public universities? I don't understand. If we want a better society, the first step is education, no? If everyone can read at a high level, write, pursue their dreams, and contribute to society to make our economy stronger in the long run, why doesn't this happen? Explain it to me like I'm 5, Reddit. & #3232;\_ & #3232; | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nxhe7/why_dont_we_spend_billions_on_education/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3cvmjw",
"c3cpnta",
"c3cq4ae",
"c3cq4qc",
"c3cq85n",
"c3cq8ey",
"c3cqa4t",
"c3cqfmm",
"c3cqh2j",
"c3cqhkn",
"c3cqn7c",
"c3cqne0",
"c3cqp1a",
"c3cqseu",
"c3cqumo",
"c3cqzrh",
"c3cr7gk",
"c3cr87f",
"c3cr8y6",
"c3cr9pz",
"c3crb27",
"c3crbwc",
"c3crhzg",
"c3crir3",
"c3crv9p",
"c3cs5lg",
"c3ctmb1",
"c3cpnta",
"c3cq4ae",
"c3cq4qc",
"c3cq85n",
"c3cq8ey",
"c3cqa4t",
"c3cqfmm",
"c3cqh2j",
"c3cqhkn",
"c3cqn7c",
"c3cqne0",
"c3cqp1a",
"c3cqseu",
"c3cqumo",
"c3cqzrh",
"c3cr7gk",
"c3cr87f",
"c3cr8y6",
"c3cr9pz",
"c3crb27",
"c3crbwc",
"c3crhzg",
"c3crir3",
"c3crv9p",
"c3cs5lg",
"c3ctmb1"
],
"score": [
2,
26,
6,
12,
59,
41,
106,
22,
28,
210,
6,
93,
2,
2,
11,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
26,
6,
12,
59,
41,
106,
22,
28,
210,
6,
93,
2,
2,
11,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"While this question was asked regarding Canada, I'm sure American redditors have the same question.\n\nThe answer is the US does, indeed, spend billions on education. Granted, the years for the data I'll be posting are not exactly the same, it should still provide useful information.\n\nThe US government spends 5.7% of GDP on education [[UN, '00 - '02]](_URL_1_).\nFor comparison, the US military spending amounts to 4.06% of GDP [[CIA, '05]](_URL_0_).\n\nIt should be noted that this figure is relatively high when compared to other developed nations, and is higher than countries like France, Ireland, Canada, Germany, and Australia. It should be noted, also, that the US has a higher GDP per capita than most developed nations, indicating that the US spends more on education per person than other developed countries.",
"The fact of the matter is too many people are overeducated, and in Australia we have a skills shortage. People who are plumbers, electricians, builders etc are earning MORE than people who have degrees. We need the right % of people taking \"menial\" tasks, and the rest taking \"educated\" tasks. \n\n(i'm sorry if i offended anyone, just trying to say how it is)",
"I don't know about the situation in Canada but the US does spend billions on education but the problem is we don't spend it very well. We're definitely not getting our money's worth. Hell, that's just the U.S. way. We spend billions more per capita on everything for shoddier results than most of the rest of the civilized world. Mitt Romney doesn't want the U.S. to become more like Europe but I think that's just what the doctor ordered. They spend less money and get better results.",
"Tuition is high because government gives out loans which makes more people attend university which makes the university charge more which makes the government give out more loans which makes...\n\nYou get the point. ",
"Because the greater majority of voters are older and have kids that are already out of school. And people have a \"fuck um, my kids ain't in school no more and I ain't gonna pay higher taxes to educate someone else's kids\" mentality.",
"Stupid people don't question anything.",
"Tuition serves a purpose as it makes people wonder about what exactly they're studying. The alternative is - as many Nordic countries do - to restrict the number of positions in several disciplines, taking the choice in many ways away from the people themselves. I'm Finnish and thought it worked fine, but you have to see the downside.\n\nIf you're unwilling to do this, then the only way to make people figure out that 50% of the population can't study cultural anthropology is to make them realize that they'll have debt they HAVE to pay after the studies. This focuses the mind nicely on studies that results in actual jobs, which in turn reflect *the needs of society*, which is - after all - the whole damn point.",
"Tuition is a good idea in theory: If student made perfectly informed and rational decisions.\n\nThey would be the ones finding the education that maximizes their future income, discounting the cost of the education needed (and lost income for the years in school). I.e. the market quickly gets people into careers where the demand is high.\n\nIn reality student educate themselves for their dream career. In reality nobody know what kind of jobs will be in demand in 10 years time. In reality you don't know what salaries will develop to in 5 years time after the graduate. The only informed decision you can make is to study what seems fun and you can stand working with for a large part of your life. \n",
"Here's a Utah perspective:\n\nWe do. ***65%*** of our money our state brings in goes to education ([source, page 4 of document](_URL_0_)), with 50% going to K-12 and 15% going to higher ed. Even with this, our public school teachers are the lowest paid in the nation, and our public universities, while definitely cheaper compared to the rest of the nation, definitely aren't close to \"free\". \n\nAll social entitlements are simply ridiculously expensive. In our case, even if 100% of the available money went to education, it still wouldn't be close to enough. \n\nEdit: Fixed source",
"Nearly all universities in Canada are public. The majority of student education costs are paid by the provincial government. See [page 2 here](_URL_0_): The average full-time student in Ontario pays $6,000 in tuition fees, but the provincial government pays an additonal $7000.* While the government share has declined over the years, it's definitely non-trivial!\n\nSo, in fact, we *do* spend billions on education. For 2011-2012, in Ontario, the [budget allocates $5.7B](_URL_1_) to colleges, universities, and student support.\n\n*These numbers are a few years old, but my 30 seconds of googling didn't turn up anything more recent.\n\nETA: [Slide 28 here](_URL_2_) shows what the Ontario provincial subsidy was for a full-time student in various categories as of 07-08.",
"After Sputnik was launched the US government decided we needed to beat them damn Commies and a ton of money was poured into public education. What was created was the hippies, a generation of young people who were educated enough to question the government's polices and take action against the unjust ones. An educated youth means a generation smart enough to vote incompetent / corrupt elected officials out of office. It should be of no surprise that politicians don't put more of an emphasis on education.",
"Educational Funding\n\nIn 2005-06, public expenditure on education from provincial, territorial, federal, and local governments amounted to $75.7 billion spent on all levels of education, which represented 16.1 per cent of total public expenditures. Of this total:\n\n * $40.4 billion was for elementary and secondary education\n * $30.6 billion for postsecondary education\n * $4.6 billion for other types of education such as special retraining and language training for newcomers\n\nIn 2002-03, combined public and private expenditure on education was $72.3 billion:\n\n * $42.7 billion on elementary and secondary education\n * $5.2 billion on trade and vocational education\n * $5.6 billion on colleges\n * $18.8 billion on universities\n\nPublic expenditure was 82.3 per cent of the total, with private spending at 17.7 per cent.\n\n(All dollar figures are taken from Education Indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators)\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"Yeah I wonder this as well. Here in Scandinavia our Universities are free. ",
"education is supposed to function in a free market. there are lots of important jobs that don't require education like working at the store. the idea is to let the cost of education increase until it is no longer worth it to get education. then, that cost is the market equilibrium cost.\n\n\nusually this process of establishing a market equilibrium cost for anything causes some \"overshooting\". in this case, public education likely overshot.\n\n\nthe problem is that the job market requires education, even if it doesn't help, even if it's just a certificate. so it's become kind of a catch 22. \n\n\nimagine that a 7$/hr gig requires a bachelors that costs 80k and 4 years of time to get.",
"In Finland, where the education system is best in the world, all schools are public and free for citizens.\n [Article](_URL_0_)",
"Let's just say that the military business moves more money than the education business in the short term.",
"Because we have idiots like Ron Paul who want to get rid of the dept of education entirely,which is such a backwards mentality.",
"I'm actually more concerned about spending in K-12 education...",
"The people & corporations lobbying/bribing elected officials can't get rich off people getting educated like the military contractors can by killing people, or the pharmaceutical companies can by medicating peoples' worries away.\n\nPlus, if everyone could get a 4-8 year degree without sinking under a mountain of debt, more people would take them up on it. That would make the program more expensive, society would benefit, and we'd eventually do away with class distinctions.",
"Because, the minute the U.S. Government funds anything, it needs to then have government employees, unions etc. and the most inefficient system around is a bureaucracy, and guess what the U.S. uses to run its programs? Essentially for every dollar spent on kids there would be 10 spent on officials etc. This wouldn't make the school system better, just make the people presiding over it richer. Also, the way schools are run right now, directly pumping money into them always goes into the administration, not into the classrooms, dorms, or elsewhere that it could help the students or faculty.\n\nBasically, if you want an example of what would happen, at best mind you, since college isnt considered essential, look to the public school system, look at chicago, and new jersey public schools. thats what happens when the U.S govt funds education.",
"In my opinion the entire 4 year BS/BA + masters is hopelessly outdated.\n\nWe need to move towards an intense certification-type of education model that can adapt to changing industry.",
"Spending more on education has increased massively but has failed to improve anything. It's just a big money pit. The truth is that TOO MUCH money is spent on education. The problem is not money, the problem is the system itself, which is still using centuries-old obsolete technology such as classrooms and paper.",
"You could spend infinite money on education but it doesn't guarantee anything because some of the population isn't cut out for higher education or just don't have the motivation to get educated.\n\nHowever, spending trillions on defense guarantees tons of jobs for both public and private workers to support and operate the war machine. All of these workers pay taxes too unlike some full time students.\n\nIt's just a matter of where the government gets the most benefit for its spending.",
"Look at Cuba.",
"J. D. Rockefeller once said, \"I don't want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers.\" Charlotte Iserbyt expounds on this thought in the [deliberate dumbing down](_URL_0_) of America. The NEA is a failure on purpose.",
"If you, as a Canadian, think tuition is expensive, you're doing it wrong. I got a _URL_0_. from the University of Manitoba, and I paid a total of $14,500 to the university over the entirety of my degree. If $14,500 turns you into a debt slave in the long run, then your marginal increase in pay from your degree wasn't worth it, and you should not have gone to university in the first place\n\nI'm going to do some mathemagick here. When I graduated university, I had paid a total of **$14651.01** to the university. Books don't count, because you can torrent them, borrow a friend's, or use the library. Rent doesn't count because I lived with my parents. This number does not include transportation, but if you want to, $60/mo + 3 hours commute per day in lost opportunity cost. \n\nWhen I graduated, my first job I landed paid me $25,000/yr. From my paycheques, I received **$1,673/mo** after taxes (due to the strangeness in assuming that bi-weekly payments are bi-monthly payments, I actually received 1 additional payment of $1,673 every year but ignored it for budgeting purposes). \n\nKeep in mind that full time minimum wage where I live is $20,000/yr. I was making about as low a pay as I could possibly make in my field. For comparison's sake, someone in my city in my field with my level of expertise and experience can demand a $55-$65k salary, and that does not include vacation time, sweet benefits, quarterly bonuses, etc, that they can expect from it\n\nMy monthly expenditures on essentials: rent, transportation, phone service, groceries, household goods, was **$1,037/mo**. This is a bare minimum calculation: short of going into 'only buy ramen' mode, I could not drop this number any farther. For a more honest number, factoring in beer, coffee, occasional movies, video games, etc, I paid about **$1,300/mo**.\n\nAt the bare minimum subsistence level of expenditures, and my barely-above-minimum-wage salary, I could bank **$636/mo**. Which works out to **$7,632/yr**. At this rate, I could pay off the capital of my student loans in 2 years. Giving the banks an extremely generous assumption of the interest on my loan totalling 50% of said loan, give it a third year to pay off the interest.\n\nI have now just gotten a _URL_0_. in Canada, paid for the entire thing on student loans (fun fact: I checked once and I didn't even qualify for that much loan money), and paid the loans off in 3 years.\n\nI don't feel like showing the numbers for an actual minimum wage job, but I ran the calculations, and if I change my income from $25k to $20k, the time to pay off the loan doubles. However, this does not factor in the fact that a) min wage is raised due to inflation; and b) if you work a min wage job for 6 years, you will get periodic raises. Furthermore, since the entire purpose of going to university is to get a *higher paying job*, this number should be an extremely worst case scenario, an upper bound on the time to pay back your loans. \n\nIf you think 3 years to pay off a loan makes you a 'debt slave in the long run', then I'm afraid you've made some VERY bad choices regarding post secondary education, and I don't want your viewpoint dictating our government's policy towards post secondary education",
"Spending more money on education is treating the symptom of high tuition and not the root problem of the costs that drive the price up.\n\nKeep in mind that the money to fund these programs comes from taxes so the people are still ultimately paying for the tuition. If 100% of taxpayers wanted higher education, and the Government decided to pay $10,000/year/person towards it, taxes would have to increase by $10,000/year/person.\n\nThis demonstrates how the \"billions\" will still ultimately be paid by the people. 100% is not a realistic number; if it were 25%, that would still necessitate a $2,500 increase in tax revenues to fund it (and 75% would be paying for something they aren't getting).\n\nAnother factor to consider besides affordability is the necessity of higher education. Some people don't need it for the careers they wish to pursue, some may not have the intellectual capacity for it, and others may be able to learn outside of formal institutions.\n\n**TL;DR: The \"billions\" would have to come from higher taxes. Also, not everyone needs or is cut out for higher education.**",
"The fact of the matter is too many people are overeducated, and in Australia we have a skills shortage. People who are plumbers, electricians, builders etc are earning MORE than people who have degrees. We need the right % of people taking \"menial\" tasks, and the rest taking \"educated\" tasks. \n\n(i'm sorry if i offended anyone, just trying to say how it is)",
"I don't know about the situation in Canada but the US does spend billions on education but the problem is we don't spend it very well. We're definitely not getting our money's worth. Hell, that's just the U.S. way. We spend billions more per capita on everything for shoddier results than most of the rest of the civilized world. Mitt Romney doesn't want the U.S. to become more like Europe but I think that's just what the doctor ordered. They spend less money and get better results.",
"Tuition is high because government gives out loans which makes more people attend university which makes the university charge more which makes the government give out more loans which makes...\n\nYou get the point. ",
"Because the greater majority of voters are older and have kids that are already out of school. And people have a \"fuck um, my kids ain't in school no more and I ain't gonna pay higher taxes to educate someone else's kids\" mentality.",
"Stupid people don't question anything.",
"Tuition serves a purpose as it makes people wonder about what exactly they're studying. The alternative is - as many Nordic countries do - to restrict the number of positions in several disciplines, taking the choice in many ways away from the people themselves. I'm Finnish and thought it worked fine, but you have to see the downside.\n\nIf you're unwilling to do this, then the only way to make people figure out that 50% of the population can't study cultural anthropology is to make them realize that they'll have debt they HAVE to pay after the studies. This focuses the mind nicely on studies that results in actual jobs, which in turn reflect *the needs of society*, which is - after all - the whole damn point.",
"Tuition is a good idea in theory: If student made perfectly informed and rational decisions.\n\nThey would be the ones finding the education that maximizes their future income, discounting the cost of the education needed (and lost income for the years in school). I.e. the market quickly gets people into careers where the demand is high.\n\nIn reality student educate themselves for their dream career. In reality nobody know what kind of jobs will be in demand in 10 years time. In reality you don't know what salaries will develop to in 5 years time after the graduate. The only informed decision you can make is to study what seems fun and you can stand working with for a large part of your life. \n",
"Here's a Utah perspective:\n\nWe do. ***65%*** of our money our state brings in goes to education ([source, page 4 of document](_URL_0_)), with 50% going to K-12 and 15% going to higher ed. Even with this, our public school teachers are the lowest paid in the nation, and our public universities, while definitely cheaper compared to the rest of the nation, definitely aren't close to \"free\". \n\nAll social entitlements are simply ridiculously expensive. In our case, even if 100% of the available money went to education, it still wouldn't be close to enough. \n\nEdit: Fixed source",
"Nearly all universities in Canada are public. The majority of student education costs are paid by the provincial government. See [page 2 here](_URL_0_): The average full-time student in Ontario pays $6,000 in tuition fees, but the provincial government pays an additonal $7000.* While the government share has declined over the years, it's definitely non-trivial!\n\nSo, in fact, we *do* spend billions on education. For 2011-2012, in Ontario, the [budget allocates $5.7B](_URL_1_) to colleges, universities, and student support.\n\n*These numbers are a few years old, but my 30 seconds of googling didn't turn up anything more recent.\n\nETA: [Slide 28 here](_URL_2_) shows what the Ontario provincial subsidy was for a full-time student in various categories as of 07-08.",
"After Sputnik was launched the US government decided we needed to beat them damn Commies and a ton of money was poured into public education. What was created was the hippies, a generation of young people who were educated enough to question the government's polices and take action against the unjust ones. An educated youth means a generation smart enough to vote incompetent / corrupt elected officials out of office. It should be of no surprise that politicians don't put more of an emphasis on education.",
"Educational Funding\n\nIn 2005-06, public expenditure on education from provincial, territorial, federal, and local governments amounted to $75.7 billion spent on all levels of education, which represented 16.1 per cent of total public expenditures. Of this total:\n\n * $40.4 billion was for elementary and secondary education\n * $30.6 billion for postsecondary education\n * $4.6 billion for other types of education such as special retraining and language training for newcomers\n\nIn 2002-03, combined public and private expenditure on education was $72.3 billion:\n\n * $42.7 billion on elementary and secondary education\n * $5.2 billion on trade and vocational education\n * $5.6 billion on colleges\n * $18.8 billion on universities\n\nPublic expenditure was 82.3 per cent of the total, with private spending at 17.7 per cent.\n\n(All dollar figures are taken from Education Indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators)\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"Yeah I wonder this as well. Here in Scandinavia our Universities are free. ",
"education is supposed to function in a free market. there are lots of important jobs that don't require education like working at the store. the idea is to let the cost of education increase until it is no longer worth it to get education. then, that cost is the market equilibrium cost.\n\n\nusually this process of establishing a market equilibrium cost for anything causes some \"overshooting\". in this case, public education likely overshot.\n\n\nthe problem is that the job market requires education, even if it doesn't help, even if it's just a certificate. so it's become kind of a catch 22. \n\n\nimagine that a 7$/hr gig requires a bachelors that costs 80k and 4 years of time to get.",
"In Finland, where the education system is best in the world, all schools are public and free for citizens.\n [Article](_URL_0_)",
"Let's just say that the military business moves more money than the education business in the short term.",
"Because we have idiots like Ron Paul who want to get rid of the dept of education entirely,which is such a backwards mentality.",
"I'm actually more concerned about spending in K-12 education...",
"The people & corporations lobbying/bribing elected officials can't get rich off people getting educated like the military contractors can by killing people, or the pharmaceutical companies can by medicating peoples' worries away.\n\nPlus, if everyone could get a 4-8 year degree without sinking under a mountain of debt, more people would take them up on it. That would make the program more expensive, society would benefit, and we'd eventually do away with class distinctions.",
"Because, the minute the U.S. Government funds anything, it needs to then have government employees, unions etc. and the most inefficient system around is a bureaucracy, and guess what the U.S. uses to run its programs? Essentially for every dollar spent on kids there would be 10 spent on officials etc. This wouldn't make the school system better, just make the people presiding over it richer. Also, the way schools are run right now, directly pumping money into them always goes into the administration, not into the classrooms, dorms, or elsewhere that it could help the students or faculty.\n\nBasically, if you want an example of what would happen, at best mind you, since college isnt considered essential, look to the public school system, look at chicago, and new jersey public schools. thats what happens when the U.S govt funds education.",
"In my opinion the entire 4 year BS/BA + masters is hopelessly outdated.\n\nWe need to move towards an intense certification-type of education model that can adapt to changing industry.",
"Spending more on education has increased massively but has failed to improve anything. It's just a big money pit. The truth is that TOO MUCH money is spent on education. The problem is not money, the problem is the system itself, which is still using centuries-old obsolete technology such as classrooms and paper.",
"You could spend infinite money on education but it doesn't guarantee anything because some of the population isn't cut out for higher education or just don't have the motivation to get educated.\n\nHowever, spending trillions on defense guarantees tons of jobs for both public and private workers to support and operate the war machine. All of these workers pay taxes too unlike some full time students.\n\nIt's just a matter of where the government gets the most benefit for its spending.",
"Look at Cuba.",
"J. D. Rockefeller once said, \"I don't want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers.\" Charlotte Iserbyt expounds on this thought in the [deliberate dumbing down](_URL_0_) of America. The NEA is a failure on purpose.",
"If you, as a Canadian, think tuition is expensive, you're doing it wrong. I got a _URL_0_. from the University of Manitoba, and I paid a total of $14,500 to the university over the entirety of my degree. If $14,500 turns you into a debt slave in the long run, then your marginal increase in pay from your degree wasn't worth it, and you should not have gone to university in the first place\n\nI'm going to do some mathemagick here. When I graduated university, I had paid a total of **$14651.01** to the university. Books don't count, because you can torrent them, borrow a friend's, or use the library. Rent doesn't count because I lived with my parents. This number does not include transportation, but if you want to, $60/mo + 3 hours commute per day in lost opportunity cost. \n\nWhen I graduated, my first job I landed paid me $25,000/yr. From my paycheques, I received **$1,673/mo** after taxes (due to the strangeness in assuming that bi-weekly payments are bi-monthly payments, I actually received 1 additional payment of $1,673 every year but ignored it for budgeting purposes). \n\nKeep in mind that full time minimum wage where I live is $20,000/yr. I was making about as low a pay as I could possibly make in my field. For comparison's sake, someone in my city in my field with my level of expertise and experience can demand a $55-$65k salary, and that does not include vacation time, sweet benefits, quarterly bonuses, etc, that they can expect from it\n\nMy monthly expenditures on essentials: rent, transportation, phone service, groceries, household goods, was **$1,037/mo**. This is a bare minimum calculation: short of going into 'only buy ramen' mode, I could not drop this number any farther. For a more honest number, factoring in beer, coffee, occasional movies, video games, etc, I paid about **$1,300/mo**.\n\nAt the bare minimum subsistence level of expenditures, and my barely-above-minimum-wage salary, I could bank **$636/mo**. Which works out to **$7,632/yr**. At this rate, I could pay off the capital of my student loans in 2 years. Giving the banks an extremely generous assumption of the interest on my loan totalling 50% of said loan, give it a third year to pay off the interest.\n\nI have now just gotten a _URL_0_. in Canada, paid for the entire thing on student loans (fun fact: I checked once and I didn't even qualify for that much loan money), and paid the loans off in 3 years.\n\nI don't feel like showing the numbers for an actual minimum wage job, but I ran the calculations, and if I change my income from $25k to $20k, the time to pay off the loan doubles. However, this does not factor in the fact that a) min wage is raised due to inflation; and b) if you work a min wage job for 6 years, you will get periodic raises. Furthermore, since the entire purpose of going to university is to get a *higher paying job*, this number should be an extremely worst case scenario, an upper bound on the time to pay back your loans. \n\nIf you think 3 years to pay off a loan makes you a 'debt slave in the long run', then I'm afraid you've made some VERY bad choices regarding post secondary education, and I don't want your viewpoint dictating our government's policy towards post secondary education",
"Spending more money on education is treating the symptom of high tuition and not the root problem of the costs that drive the price up.\n\nKeep in mind that the money to fund these programs comes from taxes so the people are still ultimately paying for the tuition. If 100% of taxpayers wanted higher education, and the Government decided to pay $10,000/year/person towards it, taxes would have to increase by $10,000/year/person.\n\nThis demonstrates how the \"billions\" will still ultimately be paid by the people. 100% is not a realistic number; if it were 25%, that would still necessitate a $2,500 increase in tax revenues to fund it (and 75% would be paying for something they aren't getting).\n\nAnother factor to consider besides affordability is the necessity of higher education. Some people don't need it for the careers they wish to pursue, some may not have the intellectual capacity for it, and others may be able to learn outside of formal institutions.\n\n**TL;DR: The \"billions\" would have to come from higher taxes. Also, not everyone needs or is cut out for higher education.**"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html",
"http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.governor.utah.gov/budget/Budget/Budget%20Summaries/FY%202012_SumBk.pdf"
],
[
"http://www.publicpolicy.utoronto.ca/FacultyandContacts/IanClarkWebPageatUofT/Documents/Challenges%20in%20university%20financing%20and%20accessibility%20in%20Ontario.pdf",
"http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/estimates/2011-12/volume1/TCU_784.html",
"http://www.douglas.bc.ca/__shared/assets/Academic_Tranasformation_summary_-_Forces_Reshaping_Higher_Education_in_Ontario66410.pdf"
],
[],
[
"http://www.cmec.ca/pages/canadawide.aspx"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/"
],
[
"B.Sc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.governor.utah.gov/budget/Budget/Budget%20Summaries/FY%202012_SumBk.pdf"
],
[
"http://www.publicpolicy.utoronto.ca/FacultyandContacts/IanClarkWebPageatUofT/Documents/Challenges%20in%20university%20financing%20and%20accessibility%20in%20Ontario.pdf",
"http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/estimates/2011-12/volume1/TCU_784.html",
"http://www.douglas.bc.ca/__shared/assets/Academic_Tranasformation_summary_-_Forces_Reshaping_Higher_Education_in_Ontario66410.pdf"
],
[],
[
"http://www.cmec.ca/pages/canadawide.aspx"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/"
],
[
"B.Sc"
],
[]
] |
|
5xnhnw | why do urban climbers that upload footage with their faces in it rarely get punished by law? | People like James Kingston, Nightscape. How do they usually end up getting out, publishing the video and not get suited or simply get a fine for it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xnhnw/eli5_why_do_urban_climbers_that_upload_footage/ | {
"a_id": [
"dejerml",
"dejfg58",
"dek1p9a"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is rarely illegal for people to climb things. Some cities that have had problems have made specific laws to prevent it, and some cities with suicide problems have ordinances for bridges, but in general there are no laws stating that you cannot climb stuff. ",
"it woudl be a trespassing charge. the owner of the private property would have to call the police, the police respond, and then would apprehend you on property. \n\nif the offender is not caught by the police.....the police would have a hard time knowing who was trespassing and would have no idea how to find the person that was trespassing...",
"Same reason why rappers don't get arrested for depictions of themselves using weed on videos- the police have better things to do than try to investigate and prosecute someone for a minor, victimless crime that's already taken place and may be difficult to prove. It's not trespassing unless it's properly marked and/or they were told to leave. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
aldc7j | what long term effects does a polar vortex have on a state/region? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aldc7j/eli5_what_long_term_effects_does_a_polar_vortex/ | {
"a_id": [
"efd2okd"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"As a biologist, I can definitely tell you that it will have a lasting impact on what plants and animals as well as insects or even microbes survive into the spring.\n\nMany organisms living in nature live and what humans consider pretty extreme poverty. Little protection against the elements as well as often insecure food supplies make for a pretty delicate network of organisms Who all depend on each other in different ways just to create something as simple as a forest.\n\nImportantly, living organisms are only meant to sustain themselves within a certain range of temperatures at environmental conditions. Anything outside of that often results in the lack of ability to produce new offspring as well as death. When organisms of a species can no longer produce offspring, that species goes extinct in that area population numbers cannot survive.\n\nWe could see verdant places in Minnesota become virtually deserts within only a couple of years depending on how these types of cold spells become more and more frequent.\n\nIf you’re interested on how something as simple as a single organism, say a wolf, can change a landscape say bring back waterfalls, other animals, and even change the places trees grow and meadows extend, you should really check out what happened in real life only a few years ago when they were introduced back to Yellowstone national park. \n\nI think it surprised all of us.\n\nHere is a short article on that Parks website, Yellowstone, and there’s a link to a YouTube video it’s only five minutes but it really explains well.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\nBy the way thanks for reaching out and asking for resources and answers to questions instead of just making assumptions like so many people. \n\nI have a lot of respect for that.\n\n(Sorry for so many typos-I’m on my way somewhere and I am using talk to text)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem",
"https://youtu.be/ysa5OBhXz-Q"
]
] |
||
5r2aq1 | how can the president of the united states hold the power to sign all these orders if the united states is considered a democracy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5r2aq1/eli5_how_can_the_president_of_the_united_states/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd3uaky",
"dd3ugkq",
"dd3v4n0",
"dd3w2ni",
"dd3ygj5"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Not a democracy, but a republic. However, it's the closest form of democracy compared to other governments.",
"1) We are a republic not a democracy. \n\n2) These powers are a function of him being the head of the executive branch. He is not creating new law he is dictating how the executive branch is to handle existing laws. \n\n3) The President is specifically given the power to control that status of the border. It is one of the basic functions of the Executive Branch. ",
"Not to parrot, but we are a Republic. \nExecutive orders are doctrine in which the President as commander in chief can make an interpretation of enforcement, meaning, he can enforce the laws (and loopholes) that he see's as appropriate in his executive powers. \nIn the balance of power, both the legislative branch have the ability to close the law/loophole, and Judicial has the ability to interpret the law to see if the law/loophole is valid. Ultimately, part of or an entire Executive Order can been deemed outside of the law interpretation in which the Executive Order can be thrown out. There's balance when the system works.",
"Trump hasn't made new law. He's telling the border patrol how the existing law on immigration from high risk countries should be enforced. Just as the president didn't tell the DEA to raid every state legal marijuana grower and dispensary, so can the president tell the CBP how to review and scrutinize the existing visas and application of new visas. Visas have been and are always \"can be revoked at any time for any reason\". Every immigrant, myself included, should know this if they bothered to read the paperwork. ",
"JFC people. This has been explained every other day just about.\n\nThe President is the head of the executive branch of government. This means that he has control over what the executive branch does as long as they don't break any laws, and his executive orders are exactly that. They're orders he gives to the executive branch for them to follow and get things done. Just like how your boss can give you an order."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
c1pkz4 | what was the berlin wall | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1pkz4/eli5_what_was_the_berlin_wall/ | {
"a_id": [
"ereo3lc",
"ereo8ar",
"ereojry",
"erep8wa"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A wall that separated the east and west side of Berlin, Germany around the time of the Cold War.",
"A long line of concrete bricks side by side with spiky metal wire on top, designed to stop people from moving from one side of a city to the other.",
"A barrier designed to prevent people from fleeing the Soviet-occupied East Germany. It wasn't just a wall, but included fences, guard towers and minefields. \n\nIf you find it odd that a worker's utopia should have to prevent their citizens from trying to escape, you aren't the only one.",
"Long answer here: After World War II, the Allies (Britain, France, and the US) and Russia split responsibility for land they retook from Germany. Russia had responsibility for the countries it had taken, and the same for the Allies. The Allies let the countries conquered by Germany go be their own countries; Russia claimed theirs into the USSR. Germany was divided in the middle of the country into East and West Germany, and the dividing line went through the middle of Berlin. Well, when you have a big city on the border and two countries who are liking each other less and less, you get spies going back and forth through that city. Also, as Soviet rule made people in East Germany poorer and poorer, they looked across, saw West Germany growing richer, and often they just... walked across into West Germany and lived there instead. The Soviet Union, faced with losing so many people across the border, eventually built a giant wall so that no one in East Berlin could see how well-off West Berlin was becoming and try to leave. A lot of people still tried to cross the wall, though, so it wasn't a great idea. Because of the spy thing, though, the Allies were OK with having the wall instead of a war, at least for a while."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4u0ig9 | how can a company like solarcity make a profit with their current strategy (i.e. no upfront costs to the customer for equipment that is worth $20-30k)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u0ig9/eli5_how_can_a_company_like_solarcity_make_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5lt60i"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"same way that a bank can profit when they give you $200k for a house. you're making interest payments on the property. if you don't pay, they'll take the property back and it'll still be worth more than what you owe. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1sy8lh | why is las vegas the only place someone can place a sports bet, despite the fact there are casinos all over the united states? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sy8lh/eli5_why_is_las_vegas_the_only_place_someone_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce2fsyn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's not. You can make sports bets anywhere in the state of nevada as well as jersey and delaware"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5he94v | how do millionaires and billionaires avoid the death tax to pass down their wealth through generations? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5he94v/eli5how_do_millionaires_and_billionaires_avoid/ | {
"a_id": [
"dazhmwf",
"dazhpql",
"dazkbm4",
"dazn0wo",
"daznfrv",
"dazp6a4",
"dazp9wj",
"dazsrnj",
"dazv07q",
"dazvwb7",
"dazwhnb",
"dazxh0m",
"dazy547",
"dazy7fq",
"dazzg25",
"db02g0o",
"db03p3u",
"db05loi",
"db06v2x",
"db0f8vq",
"db0fbc6",
"db0fx9k",
"db0iwo8",
"db0l7uv",
"db0tgy4",
"db0tqd1"
],
"score": [
145,
7,
9,
6,
154,
4,
1130,
6,
2,
5,
4,
7,
9,
17,
2,
7,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"First of all, the estate tax isn't 100%. It's not like the government takes everything. The rates are pretty comparable to normal income tax right now- it maxes out at about 40%, so the majority of the estate will still go to the kids.\n\nSecond, there is no tax on the first $5 million of the estate, so right away you can give your kids a few million that will not disappear. \n\nThird, once you have enough money, you can just make more money from growth on that money rather than having to work. It doesn't matter that much if your kids can only inherit $100 million instead of $200 million, because if they get 5% returns on their investments, they can still spend $2 million a year and still have $200 million in the bank by the time they die and pass that money on to their kids. Sure, that's not \"trashing Ferraris for fun\" amounts of money, but it is \"partying instead of having a real job\" money. ",
"First, estate tax is only about 40%. So a multibillionaire is still passing down billions, even if they paid the tax from their estate. Second, there are ways to transfer and allocate assets so that they aren't taxable as part of the estate. One method is to heavily invest in life insurance which then pays out more than the estate tax owed. This way the tax is covered and the estate goes to the children. Ownership can also be passed on in life to avoid estate taxes. Someone who owns a family business can make their heirs the owner long before they die and simply work for the company, or even receive a pension. ",
"An easy way for even low millionaire's is to gift extensively throughout a lifetime. There are limits to how large gifts can be without taxation. But it easy for millionaires to form clubs. EVeryone in the club can do matching gifts. You can gift to as many people as you want. If you gift to your children and to the children of ten friends you can pass on a lot of wealth in a few years. Your friends do the same. Your children receive ten times the gift limit as their children do.\n\nChildren of the wealthy will continue to have a huge advantage over children of the poor. ",
"There's an entire industry built around avoiding the federal estate tax. That industry uses a variety of legal schemes, including trusts, LLCs, structured giving, etc.... The idea is basically \"If you're rich, you can afford very smart lawyers.\"\n\nIn fact, that's one of the problems with the estate tax: there's no net economic benefit to all those lawyers. There's an argument that the US economy would be better off if we didn't have an estate tax. That would allow those rich people to put the money into something productive rather than spending it on lawyers. Or, an alternate formulation of the same thing: those lawyers would have to find something productive to do .",
"Edit: Superior answer here. _URL_1_\n\nI mistakenly said some strategies designed to simplify the probate process were also intended to avoid the estate tax. They are not. I think the gist of my comment remains true but the other user has a more informed post than mine. \n\nHi OP, most of the answers here have not been terribly helpful but instead tried to educate you on some assumed incorrect assumptions. \n\nThe most important thing to know is that the estate tax is only able to get to money or things of value that pass through your estate. So, you want to start removing assets from your estate as soon as you start getting rich. In many ways, non-wealthy take advantage of this as well. When you set up a checking account you can designate a POD. This amount is immediately transferred to your designated beneficiary ~~and does not count as part of the estate.~~ This can be done (and should be done) for all retirement accounts such as IRAs, 401k's and so on. This applies to a ton of the liquid wealth of the wealthy. \n\nEDIT: POD is part of the estate. I was incorrect. Please see this comment, _URL_0_, POD simplifies probate, but does not effect the size of the estate. \n\nSecond there are more sophisticated techniques to minimize assets and/or remove them from the estate. A very common way is to establish a family limited partnership. You transfer the assets in to the FLP early on and as they gain wealth the wealth is transferred to the beneficiaries in several ways, including distributions or ownership in new acquisitions. A FLP is not an estate asset, but the ownership interest in the FLP can be. So through smart planning you reduce it so your ownership in the FLP decreases over your life until you only own a nominal amount at death. FLP's have some controversy, but on the whole they work. Also extremely common is trusts, whether revocable or irrevocable. You deed your property into a trust for the benefit of your heirs. The gains to your heirs are only taxed when removed and we can start a whole new thread on that topic. \n\nAnother way is to hide your money. Take it overseas and out of the reach of the government. You can do this with offshore accounts. Or you can use clever (or illegal) accounting to hide the true ownership of assets. \n\nYou can also make a charitable donations at death. This is very common because rich people want to see their legacy continued. But, this can also be abused by making the charity your charity and abusing it so that it is essentially a piggy bank that can accept tax exempt donations and then be distributed to friends and family as salary, can make donations itself to other charities (owned and controlled by friends and family, of course) and so. For examples of charity abuse look no further than our two candidates for President in 2016. Consider this before blindly honoring the Buffett and Gates \"donations.\" Charities are abused by the wealthy and an area in need of reform, but don't expect it. \n\nIn sum, there are dozens of ways to skin that cat. I have given you the three most common, remove assets from the estate, hide the money or donate it. There are many more and many people make millions of dollars and save billions of dollars creating clever solutions to this question. But overall the general idea is to reduce taxable assets in your estate as that is what is taxed. So as a wealthy person you want to die with no more than 5 million in your \"estate.\" ",
"As others have said, the death tax is currently at 40% and not all estates are taxed at this level or even taxed at all. This year the exclusion amount was $5.45M ($10.9M for married couples) so estates of this size or smaller will not be taxed. \n\nIf your estate is larger than this then one major way you can avoid the death tax is to start reducing your wealth before you actually die. I'm fortunate enough that my parents did well in life so I receieve a couple trust accounts every year, which is done to reduce my parents wealth. I'm only taxed on interest earned on the trust fund. This prevents their money from being taxed again by the death tax at a later date. There are also ways to gift items/property before death which can avoid the death tax. The annual gift exemption is the most common, currently you can \"gift\" $14,000 to as many people as you would like every year. So in addition to giving your kids trusts you can give every family member $14,000 every year which is tax free. It isn't much but it can add up if you give it to all your kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, etc. (there are some exceptions to the rule for people under 23 though).\n\n\n",
"So *your* question is about estate tax avoidance. A well planned estate will begin moving assets out as quickly as possible (well before death) and often during a persons lifetime and by targeting assets they think have the best *growth* in the future. This is a super quick and dirty answer, keep in mind there are tons of technical details underpinning these. \n\nBasic estate planning:\n\n1) Each year the annual exclusion for gifts is 14K (indexed for inflation). A taxpayer can give 14K to as many people as they want. So husband and wife *together* can give 28K to each child, grandchild and great-grandchild. Doesnt sound like much but it can add up over time. \n\n2) Also excluded on top of annual gift tax exclusion is gifts for education so long as the payment is made directly to the school. Grandchild got into a big name school, often grandpa and grandma (assuming they are the ones with the estate) will gladly write that check. \n\n3) Also excluded on top of annual gift tax exclusion is gifts of medical. Rare, but if that grandchild has some expensive medical need, grandma and grandpa write that check to the provider.\n\n4) when all that is done each taxpayer has ~$5.4M of lifetime exemption. So grandma and grandpa combined have ~10.8M to pass down stream before they are subject to gift/estate tax.\n\nOkay, but what about 100M+, /u/w33tad1d, these numbers you tossed out don't come close to that.\n\nAdvanced estate planning (all the sexy stuff....), transactions and more transactions\n\n1) Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT), you can design the GRAT to that the donor puts assets into the GRAT and takes back an annuity plus interest. Properly designed you will have a calculated gift of zero (thank you Waltons for that great tax case). Now, if the assets grow over the period *faster* than the required interest rate, the excess goes downstream to kids. If it doesn't, then you get back everything and only lost out on professional fees. Typically you want a SHORT timeline. This is basically an \"option.\" What do you put in the GRAT, something you think is going to blow up in a short timeline. Got that family business or per-IPO stock, toss it in a GRAT.\n\n2) Installment Sales to Intentionally Defective Grantor Trusts. You gift ~10% of the value of assets you want to sell. You sell assets to a Grantor Trust in exchange for the down payment (that gift of 10%) and a note for the rest. Interest only with a balloon at the end. Ideally the assets generate cash flow and they will pay off the note during the term. You want a LONG timeline. What a deal I sell a thing to a trust for my kids, it pays for itself and my kids get to keep it. The downside, if it doesnt work out, i gave a gift of that 10% and i lose out on that amount of lifetime exemption.\n\n3) Value of assets. Any transaction I have to value the assets. Stock and bonds are easy to value. What about that closely held family business. What is it worth? Well, we need to find out so we have a guy to value it. I dont move the whole thing, I move a minority interest, say 20%. Oh, yea its not worth as much in my kids hands since they only own 20% and mom and dad owns the other 80%. Kids cant control the entity. Worse yet, the agreement for the entity says that they cant sell it without majority agreement. See I got this *terrible* thing, i cant sell it and i cant make decisions. Ewww, when we value it we will take a discount for lack of marketability and lack of control. whats that look like, say 30%. Nice, when I sell it to my kids its worth 30% less. ;-) You can even do this with a Family Limited Partnership if you hold stocks and bonds. Drop them into an FLP and now you have an entity you can \"value,\" kids get 40% of the FLP, lack of marketability and lack of control, so now that FLP interest is worth less. \n\n4) Grantor Trusts. These a particular type of trust, in which the income is taxed to the grantor. So Dad gives $1M to a grantor trust for his daughter. Say it makes 5%, that means Dad gets taxed on income of $50K, which would be ~20K of tax. So? Dad just constructively gifted the trust $20K to pay the tax all without it ever hitting his lifetime exclusion.\n\nReally there is no magic bullet. Its about planning for what the family holds and combining transactions to maximize what you gift through the life time exclusion of ~$5.4M. You could give cash of that amount or you can hire a good estate planner and you could use some sexy advanced techniques to push **much** more down to your descendants. \n\n",
"It was touched briefly, but life insurance is really a great way to duck estate taxes.\n\nFor example, a single premium life insurance. Instead of it being a policy that you pay into over time, you pay in once (single premium) up front. That is then, essentially, an investment vehicle earning you more than inflation and hopefully more.\n\nWhen you die, the insurance policy pays out to your beneficiaries.\n\nLife Insurance is exempt from federal taxes.",
"In many countries you pass your properties to your sons while you are alive then put a clause where you keep control of everything while you are alive.",
"Best way is to be Swedish. No death/inheritance tax in Sweden (nor property tax or gift tax for that matter).",
"your use of the oligarch's propaganda \"death tax\" leads me to comment that an estate tax is the one tax that nearly all the founders of our republic would have supported. One of the strongest motivations of founders was to avoid the European/UK model of family privilege.\n\n\nBTW the small business owners,farmers etc that are always trotted out as examples of the estate tax being unfair virtually all avoid the tax by buying life insurance that pays the tax",
"People have mentioned a significant amount of estate tax techniques but Life Insurance is an huge one that millionaires and billionaires use to mitigate or all together cover their estate tax. its essentially an low cost investment that will pay out income tax free and estate tax free if owned correctly (in a trust - more specifically an ILIT). Its an incredibly versatile asset. for example, a lot of hedge fund managers have recently been using a product called PPLI or Private Placement Life Insurance as a tax wrapper (estate and income tax). This product will put a portion of the premiums (a little more complicated than that but to simplify it) paid in into any hedge fund the insured chooses (except one they have control over) effectively shielding huge potential gains from estate tax and income tax when it pays out. It really doesn't take much to completely avoid estate tax if you choose to get creative with it.\n\nThere's also creative ways to avoid paying income tax on premiums paid into the trust through a split dollar arrangement where you \"loan\" premiums into the trust and then pay the note/interest on that loan which is calculated in one of two ways, economic benefit or AFR, both of which can be hundreds of dollars on an 300k premium. These techniques are pretty outragous",
"\"Son, here's a bank account number. It's in Switzerland, don't tell anybody or else they'll tax your ass. Here's Gunters number, he's a good friend and chairman of said Swiss bank, he'll help you in any financial matters. Good luck son, I'm going to meet the big banker in the sky....aargh...\"",
"If anybody out there needs some help getting below that $5M mark, my account is available for deposits.",
"Live in a place where there is no such tax.\n\nEach tax is locked to a single nation and can not be applied outside that nation.",
"Not sure about the US, but in Canada most people with lots of money who intend for their family to inherit start something called a \"family trust\" and put all their assets as they acquire them, including bank accounts and property holdings, in the name of the trust. \n\nThen, when they kick, operation of the trust continues with the next in line, all assets and incomes go into there and the family shares the wealth.\n\nthere are all sorts of other tricks as well that they use for their personal assets that aren't in the trust for whatever reason, but this is the easiest and most effective. \n",
"The ELI5 answer is; they don't. They pass down $5-10 million tax-free, and have to pay taxes on the rest. The rest can be kept in businesses or trusts that the heirs don't technically own, so they are taxed only when they take the money out to use it.",
"Lots of detailed answers here so I'll give the more ELI5 version I've gathered based off reading said detailed responses:\n\nLoopholes. ",
"Assume a 50% estate tax (not death tax - that's a silly term for silly people).\n\nAssume you inherit $100M at age 50, and you live til 80.\n\nAssume you earn a good real return of 5.3% (stock market has historically paid 6.5%) paying 25% tax on dividends and cap gains, making a real income of 4% a year.\n\nAfter you reach the age of 80 and die, your $100M will have grown to $320 million in real terms. The government will take $160M (50% tax), leaving your heirs with $160M, more than what you inherited. Even if you spent $60M over your 30 year hold on the money, 100% of your wealth would reach your heirs, without any fancy accounting tricks.\n\nNote how inefficient this is: the money is inherited every 30 years. If we skip generations, we can accumulate longer before taking the 50% hit. Eg if a 20 year old inherits from grandpa and dies at 80, he has 60 years of accumulation before losing half to tax, giving him $1B instead of $320M at time of death, meaning his heirs get $500M. Or he could have spent $400M during his life, and still pass on exactly what he inherited.\n\nSo that even if the tax is fully paid, using no trusts or other chicanery, wealth can survive and grow, assuming relatively return on capital.\n\n ",
"There is no such thing as a death tax. There is an estate tax, which effects only the wealthy and ought to be higher and better enforced.",
"In the UK farmland is widely used to avoid death duties. Mr Dyson (the hoover guy) has been the largest purchaser of late - making the price of farm land artificially high.",
"So there are some good answers here, but most wealthy people hold tbeir wealth in assets such as real estate and stock. Bill gates owns Cascade which primarily builds and buys Apts. Warren buffet owns trailer parks through Berkshire Hathaway. \n\n\nWithout going in to to much detail, the company is in a trust with another company as the trustee and the owners of said company are other trustees and other companies. The object of a trust, if set up properly is to keep the money from being income. Why? Bc only \"income events\" are taxable. And, if set up properly, a trust and entities (LLC,LP,INC) can legally avoid \"Income Events\". You make $100 and the governemnt takes 30-40% or $30. A company(LLC, LP,INC) makes $100 and can claim through several avenues a loss(depreciation being a great one on property) of $90, then they pay 30-40% tax on $10, so $3.\n\nEven if you have low bet worth you should use a trust to protect you and your family from taxable events. ",
"I know this isn't really answering your question, but it's worth pointing out that the phrase \"death tax\" was invented by opponents of the legislation.\n\nThe correct name is Estate Tax. Death Tax implies that it is a tax rendered for dying, and also implies that this tax applies to many more people than it actually does.\n\nThe Estate Tax is designed to tax extremely wealthy people only.",
"ughhhhhhhh. Quit with your \"death tax.\" There is no death tax. The claim that the estate tax is best characterized as a \"death tax\" is a myth, and only the richest 0.14% of estates actually owe the tax. The term \"death tax\" is a deliberate and carefully calculated neologism used as a propaganda tactic to aid in efforts to repeal estate taxes. ",
"In my country, not only millionaires but a lot of moderately wealthy people \"gift\" their assets and money to younger family members while they are alive. You have to pay taxes but they are less and it doesn't take time",
"My family moved to a place where there is no inheritance tax. \n\nFrom the UK where inheritance tax goes up to 40%"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5he94v/eli5how_do_millionaires_and_billionaires_avoid/dazouhd/?st=iwi77m9t&sh=f9ebaac4",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5he94v/eli5how_do_millionaires_and_billionaires_avoid/dazp9wj/?st=iwi7ucv0&sh=cf8e40e7"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2itmsd | why do most ceilings have a texture instead of being flat like walls? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2itmsd/eli5_why_do_most_ceilings_have_a_texture_instead/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl5dbmh",
"cl5e3if"
],
"score": [
2,
9
],
"text": [
"Depending on what you are talking about, it may be called a \"popcorn Ceiling\" or \"Artex\".\n\nAnd it can be for a variety of reasons. Sound reduction, easier to clean, or just for aestetic purposes.",
"It reduces echoes. The purpose of that texture is to break up sound waves and absorb some of their energy. A room with all hard, flat, parallel surfaces echoes quite badly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2g2nwb | how come the "biggest loser" contestants can exercise 8 hours a day and be fine but the rest of us need to increase our running distance 10% a week? | Is overtraining really a thing? Could I just start doing 3 hours at the gym a day and be fine as long as I vary my activity (cardio and weights)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g2nwb/eli5_how_come_the_biggest_loser_contestants_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckf25q6",
"ckf3mlf"
],
"score": [
17,
2
],
"text": [
"Those people are engaging in unhealthy and unsustainable weight lost by massive calorific restriction and expenditure.\n\nCorrect, sustainable weight loss is crafted with a long term slight calorific deficit of approx 500cal / day, inducing a 1lb / week weight loss. This is easily achieved, and will result in healthy loss of even large amounts of weight slowly enough that the body doesn't panic.",
"It's TV and not all of it is real. \n\nI think you could get a person to exercise for long periods of time if you provided them motivation (the prize/shame factor) and drive (the trainers). \n\nGenerally most of us have a job and other shit going on in life which changes some of these dynamics.\n\nIt probably helps to realize that a lot of folks who are ill will stop taking their meds if not reminded when you realize that having a good outcome may not be all it takes to build and sustain a long term behaviour"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2dxr8q | how is/was music rated in order to 'make it to the charts?' | In other words, how does Billboard Top 100 (or other music charts) determine how music is rated? I figure albums are based on sales but what about individual songs? How has it changed over the last fifty years? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dxr8q/eli5_how_iswas_music_rated_in_order_to_make_it_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cju4irh",
"cjudyxi"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Billboard uses an algorithm for singles that factors in sales, radio airtime, streaming service plays, and most recently, YouTube views. If I remember correctly, they had to give less weight to YouTube views because trends like the Harlem Shake were throwing the system out of balance.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Back in the day record shops and radio stations used to fill in charts on what they were selling/playing. These were easily fixed. Also keep in mind not all record shops filled in these charts, so there always have been an uncomplete view of what was selling. In the 90s came Nielsen soundscan. Nielsen was a company that monitored television viewing ratings before branching out to the record industry. Nielsen works by registring barcodes on sales directly from the cashregister. These can still be manipulated. Especially in the early days it wasn't uncommon to scan the barcode of a record that a shop wanted to promote instead of the barcode of the actual sale. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/5740625/ask-billboard-how-does-the-hot-100-work"
],
[]
] |
|
5qdeup | how does a tax on imports work? how does this tax shake down to consumers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qdeup/eli5_how_does_a_tax_on_imports_work_how_does_this/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcychbz",
"dcygc8i",
"dcygdnw"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"When you go to the store, the sales tax is *technically* charged against \"the sale,\" not specifically to \"the buyer\". However, the retailer completely and transparently passes this cost onto you.\n\nAn import tax would function very similarly. Companies that import products are charged a tax, say 20% of its retail value. They will recuperate this by increasing the final price of the object by 20%.\n\nThis makes imports more expensive to the end purchaser, and therefore makes them less desirable.",
"I will give two very simplified examples of a Mexican company selling goods to a Walmart in the USA, which in turn sells to a customer. \n\n\n**Example 1 (No import tax):** \n\n* **Mexican Company** - I want to sell a shirt to Walmart in the USA. Mexican company manufactures shirt, imports it to USA and delivers to Walmart for $10. Mexican Company pockets $10 dollars. \n\n* **Walmart** - I will now sell this shirt to a customer for $20. I pocket $10 (after paying $10 to the Mexican company). \n\n* **Customer** - I paid $20 for this shirt. $10 of my money went to the Mexican company. $10 went to Walmart.\n\n\n**Example 2 (20% tax on imports from Mexico):** \n\n* **Mexican Company** - I want to sell a shirt to Walmart in the USA. Mexican company manufactures shirt, imports it to USA. During import they declare the value fo the shirts to be $10. Customs imposes a 20% tariff. Mexican company pays $2 to customs. Mexican company then delivers the shirts to Walmart, but charges them $12 instead of $10, because they want to recuperate the $2 they paid in tarrif. Mexican company still pockets $10, but also paid $2 to customs. \n\n* **Walmart** - I will now sell this shirt to a customer. I still want to make a $10 profit, so I will sell the shirt for $22. I still pocket $10 (after paying $12 to the Mexican company). \n\n* **Customer** - I paid $22 for this shirt. $10 went to the Mexican company. $10 went to Walmart. $2 went to customs via tarrif to pay for a wall. \n\n* **BONUS:** Also, because the price of goods went up, customers in general will buy fewer shirts, meaning that BOTH the Mexican Company and Walmart make less money. Walmart may decide that, because of slumping shirt sales, they need to cut back on hiring sales associates, reducing jobs. Mexican company may decide that it's better to sell shirts to China instead of Walmart in the USA, meaning that the customer gets lets options to buy. In the long term, Mexico recognizes that China is a more important trading partner for its economy than the USA, which means it may start siding with China over USA in international politics and decisions (which is particularly bad for the USA, because Mexico is a geographical neighbor with the USA and you generally want to have strong relations with your neighbors for defense purposes). ",
"An import tax is normally paid on the price paid by the person importing it into the country. The importer will then distribute this to stores. The importer may absorb this additional cost or pass this cost onto the stores. If they pass it on (or some of it) then it's up to the store. The store may absorb it or pass it on to the consumer.\n\nA 20% import tax will mean that many or most goods from\nMexico will raise in price for the end consumer since often these distributors are working on low margins anyway and so can't absorb the cost, but it's complex. \n\nNot everything will go up and not everything from Mexico will go up by 20% since there are more factors to the price than just the cost of the product. But the cost of the product is of course a very major factor in determining the final price.\n\nAlso you might think \"why don't we buy widgets from someone else\" but the product from Mexico might still be the cheapest even with a 20% tax because Mexico is closer, and the transport costs of bringing it from, say, china will outweigh the tariff.\n\nThis is a tax grab. Mexico isn't going to pay for this wall, American consumers are going to pay for this wall."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ulbaa | how were photos transferred from film to paper for developing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ulbaa/eli5_how_were_photos_transferred_from_film_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cej8b5s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"First you develop the film, which gives you the negative. Then you shine a light through the negative onto the photo paper. The photo paper is basically the same as film, only instead of being clear it has a white backing. You develop the photo paper just like you developed the film."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8z8brq | how come we can get used to hot or cold temperatures after minutes, but our blood temp stays the same? like jumping in a cold pool. what is the mechanism that adapts us to the cold so fast? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8z8brq/eli5_how_come_we_can_get_used_to_hot_or_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2guppj"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Your body is really, really good at keeping things constant. When you’re hot, things like sweating or making the tubes that carry blood bigger allow your body to cool down, and when you’re cold your body burns more food because doing do releases heat, which is why we shiver. It’s really fast because when the brain senses a change it makes sending out signals to make things normal a top priority, so you can focus on day to day life.\n\n(This is also called homeostasis, but that isn’t a five yo word so I excluded it. If you want more info though, that’s what to look for)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
70xd7s | why is it that we can hear more ambient and softer noises while wearing earphones rather than listening to something via a speaker. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70xd7s/eli5_why_is_it_that_we_can_hear_more_ambient_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn6l2x4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I assume you mean \"ambient and softer noises\" *from the audio source*, not the background, yes?\n\nIf not, I have no idea what you're talking about. But if so, it's a question of volume contrast.\n\nThose ambient/softer noises are a lot quieter than the other sounds in the same audio track, right? Like, a *lot* quieter. So quiet that if you're listening on a speaker, with your ears 6+ feet away, you have to turn up the speakers *really loud* in order for those very quiet sounds to have enough energy for you to hear them at all. But if you do that, you also boost all the other, much louder, sounds in the same track. To the point that they wind up completely drowning out the quieter ones.\n\nBut with headphones? Those are only an inch or two from your eardrums, yes? So very, very quiet noises can be picked up without having to turn everything up so loud that they get drowned out. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2432y0 | what happens to the money in a cash register at the end of the day? | At, say, McDonald's. After the store closes, there is money in the registers. Where does it go? Does someone come pick it up? Does someone send it somewhere? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2432y0/eli5what_happens_to_the_money_in_a_cash_register/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch342bh",
"ch3436a",
"ch3531o"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It gets counted, then put in the safe. The next day it will go to the bank. \n\nSource: Ex Mc'Ds closing manager. ",
"At the end of the shift, either the cashier and/or their manager (or sometimes it's counted once by the cashier and then by a dedicated cash office person if it's a big box retail store) is responsible for emptying and counting the cash drawer. The amount of money in the drawer is counted to make sure that it matches the amount of money it started the day with plus the balance of the cash transactions performed on that register. \n\nAny variances are recorded (to prevent things like employee theft) and then the money is placed in a deposit bag which is secured with a lock. This bag is then placed into a safe that is emptied periodically (in the restaurant I worked at, it was emptied weekly, some are daily) and the deposit bags taken to the bank.",
"In addition to other people mentioning that the money is put into the safe at the end of the day, money is also put into the safe throughout the day when the register reaches a certain total. So if the store does $2000 in sales in a day, there won't be $2000 in the drawer at the end of the night, a large part of it will already be in the safe."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3l3j3k | why do we need 2 people to reproduce? how did we evolve to be this way? why not 1 or 3? | It seems logical but also random. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l3j3k/eli5_why_do_we_need_2_people_to_reproduce_how_did/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv2vgjm"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Well, you get problems with asexual reproduction (1 member reproducing by itself) because it has very little genetic variability. You don't mix genes around with others so you're more vulnerable to specific threats, like disease, than if you mix your genes around from generation to generation, in which case there's enough variation for some people to be spared. That being said asexual reproduction can be useful for isolated animals (mostly worms) and of course all bacteria use it, because it's fast and it does pass on all your genes, even if it makes your offspring more vulnerable.\n\nAs to why you need two members of an animal species for a coupling, I'm not sure. Some animals mate in groups, like cats, but still you can only mate one to one at a given time. I imagine that this has something to do with efficiency, that the anatomy necessary for multiple partners at once would be too convoluted to be advantageous. \n\nTrees can be fertilized by multiple other trees at the same time since they are pretty receptive to any pollen that drifts along. I also know that fungi and slime molds can have more than two sexes so it's not always rigidly \"male\" and \"female.\" The living world is a very complex place."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
bqoiqx | why is it okay to eat blue cheese, but not other things that are moldy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bqoiqx/eli5_why_is_it_okay_to_eat_blue_cheese_but_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"eo68ngo",
"eo6cml3",
"eo6qxl0",
"eo6t0kw",
"eo6ufnj",
"eo6wsug",
"eo6xnt9",
"eo6ym2h",
"eo7304z",
"eo7vwgm",
"eo81rpe",
"eo83umq",
"eo84zgz",
"eo8mvaq"
],
"score": [
5865,
685,
173,
17,
33,
56,
20,
3,
3,
13,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Different species of mold have make different byproducts as they grow, and not all of them are harmful. Through experience we know some that are safe, like those used in making cheese. (Yeast is also a fungus, but not a mold, and is used for baking and brewing.) When food around the house gets moldy from whatever spores were in the air, it's a bad bet: there's a big risk that whatever mold it is either is generally poisonous or might produce something you're allergic to.\n\nThis why cleanliness is actually very important when working with mold. Get the wrong kind of fungus in your product and it will ruin the whole batch.",
"Just like with bacteria, mold is a very broad term. Some mold is good for you, like penicillin, some mold is bad for you. \n \nJust like how the bacteria on yogurt is good for you, but the bacteria in spoiled milk is bad for you.",
"Almost all fungus produce various types of mycotoxins, mushroom poisons. They do this because it's their way of defending themselves from bacteria.\n\nFunnily enough not all mushroom poisons are effective against humans. Humans are quite resistant to a lot of different toxins, like those in chocolate, onions, tea etc etc. Some of the stuff that's very bad for some of our best friends like cats and dogs. The varieties of Penicillin for example, the mushroom poison in blue cheese, is straight up lethal to guinea pigs. But not to humans, although some have allergic reactions.\n\nIt all depends on the capabilities of our livers, the organ that's primarily responsible for breaking down toxins in our body, and exactly how our cells function inside. Allergic reactions depend on how the immune system identifies threats. Every animal is slightly different in that regard, and some can eat stuff that we would consider poisonous, and to some our every day foods are pure death.",
"Just as some fruit is good to eat, some is poisonous. We can grow molds that are good for us just as we grow berries and mushrooms that are good for us. We do this carefully, with special equipment, so that the molds we grow in cheeses and yogurt and other similar products, and we are careful to keep everything clean so that we only grow the mold we want. \n\nBlue cheese is made by taking a bit wheel of cheese (various sorts) and sticking a very long syringe full of the specially made (cultured) mold (made liquidy) into the cheese. They squeeze the syringe and pull it out (retract it), so the mold is dispersed within the protein an fat of the cheese. This is done again (repeated) so that the cheese is riddled with mold.\n\nThen, the mold is left to grow inside the cheese. When it is ready (time depends on cheese type) the cheese is cut and people eat it.",
"Most people are pointing out that the mold in blue cheese is a specific known quantity that we know is safe. While the chances of actually getting sick from moldy food is very low assuming you don't have an allergy, it is still a possible risk. However, most mold makes food taste absolutely awful. So while the chances of eating moldy bread making you sick are small, you wouldn't want to eat moldy bread anyway because it is absolutely disgusting tasting.",
"Something I’m not seeing in many of the comments, that talk about how not all molds are bad...\n\nThe mold in blue cheese is actually beneficial. In addition to being nontoxic to human- it prevents other, toxic molds from forming, increasing the lifespan of the cheese.",
"Soy sauce is the juice from moldy beans. Moldy beans and rice are popular in Asia (miso, doenjang, gochujang, doubanjiang). Sake (and other rice wines) are fermented with a combination of the same mold and yeast, but we wouldn't call sake \"moldy\".",
"It's yummy mold. \n\nJust like how there's yummy fish and poisonous fish. There's yummy mold.",
"One aspect of your question. It's actually fine to eat many things that are mouldy (although no guarantee they taste good) but it's very difficult for a novice to identify dangerous vs harmless mould and there are some extremely poisonous moulds that it could be so it's generally not worth the risk.",
"You know how there are different kinds of doggies? And some doggies are nice and let you pet them? The same is true for lots of other things, even mold! Blue cheese mold is like a nice doggie in our tummy - it tastes good to lots of people and doesnt make us sick. Other kinds of mold are like mean doggies though and can taste bad or make our tummys upset. Some mold even helps us feel better when we are sick! We should only try moldy things we already know are yummy or helpful though, just to be safe!",
"It does vary. I recall my late brother-in-law, during his lactovegetarian phase, going on about how to store rice in bulk and what colors of mold were safe (red, yellow) and unsafe (blue) to eat.",
"that’s kinda like asking why is it ok to eat Shitake Mushrooms but not other species of Mushrooms. Some stuff is ok to eat and some aren’t.",
"It is usually okay to eat other things that are moldy. The vast majority of molds don't interact with your body and end up getting digested no different than anything else.\n\nThere are a very small number of molds that interact with you beyond getting digested. A small number of those interact with you in a way that results in you being hurt. \n\nUnless you know for sure that a specific mold you see on your food is not one of the harmful ones, you might as well play it safe and avoid it. Your body also has a disgust response for this same reason. \n\nHowever, you know for certain the stuff in the cheese is is not harmful.",
"The simple answer is that the microorganisms that inoculate, or establish, themselves in the cheese wheel are benign to human beings, and once established they actively defend the cheese from other microorganisms which may be harmful. They are the defenders of the cheese! \n\nImagine that you have a sterile wheel of cheese and you leave it out. Whatever microbes happen to be floating through the air and in the environment will randomly come into contact with the cheese and try to establish colonies on the surface. \n\nThink of it like a battlefield with many different armies all vying for the same resource. It's up to chance and the relative genetic strengths of the different microbes as to which one will win the war and defeat the others. If they happen to be harmful to us, we would not be able to eat it. \n\nNow imagine that before we lay that wheel of cheese out, we inoculate it with the mold which gives blue cheese it's flavor and color. It's no longer a free for all. Any microbes attempting to invade cheese land would find themselves battling an entrenched army of Penicillium roqueforti; it's scientific name. And much like penicilin it is also a fungus which can deploy a weapon against bacteria and other fungus and kill them. \n\nHowever it's not as cut and dry as \"fungus wins\" because there are also bacterial colonies (Brevibacterium linens) living in the cheese which were also introduced in order to provide flavor and to enhance the aroma. But much like the roqueforti fungus, it carves out a niche for itself and defends it against other invaders.\n\nMany fungal and bacterial species are not only benign to human beings, but actually helpful. For instance replace the wheel of cheese with your arm pits, or the inside of your mouth and you can see that in addition to your bodies own immune system, having entrenched beneficial fungus and bacteria can help your body fight off and prevent infections by out competing other fungal and bacterial varieties. We also need bacteria in our digestive tract in order to get all of the nutrients from food that give us the vitamins we need to live and grow."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5bgs1z | when one candidate loses to another in an election, what happens to all their unsold memorabilia (hats, t-shirts, etc.)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5bgs1z/eli5_when_one_candidate_loses_to_another_in_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9oc1sb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Well, it's a common practice to make victory memorabilia for both teams in a major sports championship and then donate the losing team's stuff to poor people overseas. I imagine something similar happens. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2day17 | why is blurred lines such a bad song? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2day17/eli5_why_is_blurred_lines_such_a_bad_song/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjnru2n",
"cjnrwia",
"cjns4te"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"Its sounds like its promoting rape and violence against women. Victims often hear those things from their attackers. And objectively, it does fit the idea of a rape in progress. Someone says no, but \"I know you want it\"",
"It infers that it's okay to use alcohol to ply women into sleeping with you when they otherwise would not. It blurs the line between consensual sex and rape. At least that's my interpretation of the situation.",
"The biggest thing is that the song is, quite literally, talking about raping women. When he says \"blurred lines\" he's calling the issue of consent \"blurry\", and saying that when a woman says no, it doesn't really mean no because she has to say no to be a \"good girl\"...secretly she wants it, so it's ok for him to force it, he can't \"let her get past him\" without sleeping with her.\n\nIn reality, no means no, and refusing to \"let her get past you\" when she wants to means rape. Pretending otherwise excuses rape and trivializes the experiences of millions of men and women that are victimized every day.\n\nSecondary issues include consistent degradation of women, referring to them as animals who can't be domesticated, \"bitches\" rather than people, and general objectification. These are continued in the music videos shot, with girls dancing silently in various states of undress, being ogled, spoken to/about but never speaking and even being screwed. \n\nThe rape theme is most clearly demonstrated in the naked version of the video, in which you see a tiny stop sign on a womans butt, with her look of \"mock shock\", while singing about how he's going to ignore that...among similar symbolism. \n\nI hope that helps, but would be happy to clarify/answer additional questions if you want!\n\nAlso: The song portrays anal as something that is \"supposed to hurt\" and talks about \"ripping women in half\". Which is a double nope on top of the rest of the totally not coolness of the rest of the song. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
30vuub | how does a dull object, like a fan, become more akin to a knife or blade when it moves at a high speed? | Title. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30vuub/eli5_how_does_a_dull_object_like_a_fan_become/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpwb4t6",
"cpwc9re"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"it's all about force applied over an area. \n\nif a steel rod is swung fast enough, it'll sever you in two just like a knife. which is usually the case in construction accidents. ",
"I did research this summer on how sharp cutting edges actually have to be to cut through things like titanium and high speed steel. I do not know about you but when I first though of how sharp a cutter for titanium would have to be I thought insanely sharp! Turns out a carbide tip as sharp as your fingernail will do a perfect job. It all has to do with stress (force / area) which causes failure in any object. If you get hit with a knife at slow speeds it cuts you (small force / really small area = big stress). If you get hit with a dull object like a ceiling fan at high speeds it will cut you as well (really large force / large area = big stress). Hope my explanation helps...\n\nsource: Mechanical Engineer\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
506n4z | how are elephants able to swim? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/506n4z/eli5_how_are_elephants_able_to_swim/ | {
"a_id": [
"d71kasf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Elephants do not have stubby extremities, they have pretty long legs and their joint aren't inflexible. An aligator has stubby extremities and inflexible joints. \n\nElephants for one are fat, they're large and fat and round. They actually float pretty well, same kind of design old fashion ships used to have. Their legs just kick and propel them. It's actually not that hard for most mammals to swim."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2vkw35 | why is the understanding of rock formation important in finding oil? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vkw35/eli5_why_is_the_understanding_of_rock_formation/ | {
"a_id": [
"coijyxn",
"coipxun"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Only certain rock formations contain oil. Typically porous rocks with voids. Some of it eventually reaches the surface and seeps out naturally into land or water, but most of it eventually comes up against a layer of rock that it can’t move through. This impermeable rock forms a seal or trap, and slowly, very slowly, the oil builds up. As it does, it forms a reservoir.\n\nReservoirs are rock formations that hold oil, natural gas or both within their pores, like a fossilised sponge.",
"It gets further complicated the you dig into it, but i'll try to give it a simple shot.\n\nBasically you need to look for two types of rock - porous and non-porous. You see - when you pump oil out of the ground, you're not getting it from a \"void\" that happens to be filled with oil. You are actually extracting it from porous rock (so when the oil is gone, you're not left with a big gap in the rock).\n\nThink of a sponge for the moment. You can fill it with water (somewhat), and then wring the water out. Even thought the water is gone, the sponge is still there. It works somewhat this way with oil and oil bearing porous rock.\n\nBut what happens if you don't have non-porous rock? You won't get any oil - because it has no place to pool and settle! You see, geologists look for a layer of non-porous rock first, and then look for a layer of porous rock on top. If you have the right kind of particular kind of rock formation - you'll get oil in the porous rock, and it pools inside a formation of non-porous rock.\n\nThink of a bowl (non-porous rock), with a sponge inside (porous rock), and pouring water (oil) onto the sponge. That's pretty much what happens with oil - so if you know that certain rock formations are likely to contain oil deposits - you go searching in those areas.\n\nPhew - that was longer than i'd expected. Hope that answers your question."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
tex26 | why you need uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb when any atom can be split? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tex26/eli5_why_you_need_uranium_or_plutonium_for_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4m0orr"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"it's easier to split a heavy, unstable radioactive element. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
299zqx | the story of the original planet of the apes franchise | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/299zqx/eli5the_story_of_the_original_planet_of_the_apes/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciiv7l0",
"ciivhm0"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Astronaut goes through wormhole, crashes on planet where apes are the dominant species, it was Earth all along and he's in the future.",
"The same as this one, except this one starts with the beginning of the Ape world, where the original series started near the end."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5dlbin | the unexpected hanging paradox. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5dlbin/eli5_the_unexpected_hanging_paradox/ | {
"a_id": [
"da5fjta",
"da5ftlp",
"da5poac"
],
"score": [
16,
119,
7
],
"text": [
"Basically someone is sentenced to death and the judge says, \"were gonna hang you this week at noon, but I'm not gonna tell you what day cause I want it to be an unpleasant surprise.\" The dead man thinks, well...can't be Friday because come noon Thursday I'll know it's going to be on Friday and won't be surprised. And following that logic it can't be Thursday since Wednesday at noon I'll know it'll be Thursday since it can't be Friday and the dead guy walks this logic all the way back and determines they can't surprise him. But they hang him Wednesday to his surprise. \n\nThere's a logical flaw called *something I can't pull out of my ass at 2 in the morning* (truth) but it boils down to being unable link Thursday to Friday and Wednesday to Thursday and so on due to a contradiction that appears on Thursday. Since the logic comes from an impossible situation walked backwards you cannot get any meaningful information from the conclusion. \n\nEdit: [link](_URL_0_)",
"In the Unexpected Hanging Paradox a judge sentences a man to die by hanging at dawn one of the days in the following week—Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday—but specifies that the condemned will not know what day he will be hanged.\n\nThe prisoner looks at this information and determines that he cannot be hanged on Friday: as soon as Thursday Dawn comes and goes he knows that Friday will be the day. Thus, he eliminates that as a possibility.\n\nHowever, since Friday is out he knows that Thursday cannot be the day either: if Wednesday passes without the hanging then it can only be Thursday or Friday, but he already knows that it cannot be Friday so he would be expecting it on Thursday.\n\nBy similar logic he rules out Wednesday, then Tuesday, then Monday. Having ruled out all possible days he declares that he cannot be hanged, so it is a complete surprise to him when the hangman shows up on Tuesday to take him to his execution.\n\nThe paradox is compelling because every logical step that the prisoner takes is sound. This form of reasoning is completely valid in logic and none of the steps contains an error. Furthermore, it appears that the Judge's requirements have both been met and were reasonable: the prisoner was hanged at one of the possible times and was not expecting it.\n\nClearly something is wrong, though. Starting from a premise of an imminent hanging the prisoner deduced that such a hanging would not occur, which is a contradiction. With such a contradiction you could go on to prove whatever you want; this is the \"principle of explosion.\" For example: \"It is true that he will be executed\" (the premise); \"It is therefore true that *either* he will be executed or Santa Claus is real\" (true OR anything is true); \"It is false that he will be executed\" (what he deduced); \"Therefore, Santa Claus is real\" (that's the only way to make the previous OR statement true).\n\nThe flaw in the setup comes from the Judge's claims. The first part is simple enough: he will be executed by hanging at dawn on M/Tu/W/Th/F. It's the second part that turns out to be impossible to state formally without being recursive (which isn't allowed in formal logic, lest you get things like \"the set of all sets that do not contain themselves\" for which you get a paradox when asking if that set contains itself). If you disallow recursion then the claim becomes \"The prisoner will not be able to deduce the day of execution using just the fact that he will be executed at dawn on M/Tu/W/Th/F.\" This claim is obvious and boring.\n\nIt's also worth pointing out that the judge's claim needn't even come true in the first place. By the prisoner's logic he must be expecting the hanging 100% on Friday if he survives Thursday, must be expecting it 100% on Thursday if he survives Wednesday, and so on. By that approach he expects the hanging each day and the judge is wrong. ",
"Hang him on Monday. boom. \nNo need to further complicate things by over thinking. It is just done.\nedit:\nOk, ok, ok. So some robot moderator just messaged me saying my reply was insufficient.. which was done intentionally to drive a point. \nIt is only a paradox because Man has decided to over think the situation. While he spends time worrying about the situation, he is hung and therefore will not know it is coming.\nThe flip side to that is no time frame or time limit is given for when he will know he is going to be hung. So lets say he is taken out of his prison cell and is told he is going to be hung. Well at that point he will know right? so it cannot happen on that day, or whatever day whatsoever. \n\nLong story short, there are too many variables left out."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://youtu.be/vxlCiV_axQ0"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
24m4f6 | what prevents underage people from buying alcohol online? | I occasionally buy wine over the internet, and it occurred to me the other day I have never been required to provide proof I was of age (I am) to do so. Most retailers require you to enter your date of birth or to tick a box saying you are old enough, but don't require proof of age. So how do they make sure they are not selling to underage buyers? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24m4f6/eli5what_prevents_underage_people_from_buying/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch8gbes"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I bought my GF a wine subscription online; it was pretty much up to the delivery driver to verify that the intended recipient was over 21 and no one but the intended recipient could sign for it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1biwc3 | how does a woman menstruate after undergoing tubal ligation? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1biwc3/how_does_a_woman_menstruate_after_undergoing/ | {
"a_id": [
"c971los",
"c971m36"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Like normal. I'm not sure why you think that tubal ligation would affect menstration. Perhaps you have a misconception either about what tubal ligation is, or how menstration works.",
"The same way she did before but without the egg. The uterus is still there and the ovaries are still there. The ovaries send of hormones that tell the uterus to thicken its lining which then comes off every month."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2vrowu | why did i get multiple nosebleeds every day when i was growing up, but now i don't? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vrowu/eli5_why_did_i_get_multiple_nosebleeds_every_day/ | {
"a_id": [
"cokaxwt",
"cokbiat",
"cokbnco"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Maybe you dropped a coke habit? ;)\n\n\nOr more likely you stopped picking your nose as much?",
"I would get nosebleeds when I was younger after I consumed a lot of salt (I was waaayyyy into salt as a kid dont know why) or if I got too hot ",
"You were developing before and now you aren't. Not a scientist, but probably has something to do with that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
200whb | why is skin so "stretchy"? | For ex...
When a woman becomes pregnant, her skin seems to stretch/grow(?), for the unborn child.
Or when a person loses a lot of weight, has the excess skin, and has a hard time losing it.
Or an old person's skin.. my grandmother used to show me her smooth, delicate skin as she pinched it; it would stay in place, like a gelled mohawk.
Genuinely curious. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/200whb/eli5_why_is_skin_so_stretchy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfyrgnf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine how long our species would last if a pregnant woman's skin didn't stretch."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5pw7f1 | why new smartphones are getting more fragile and more impractical? | New Iphone without P2, new LG without SD and permanent baterry, new screen resolutions that will screw apps.
Where this tendency comes from and why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pw7f1/eli5_why_new_smartphones_are_getting_more_fragile/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcujqha"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If the companies make their products more prone to needing repair/ breaking, people will buy more of them, and the companies will make more money from more sales."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
fsbs83 | can sugar save me from dying of thirst? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fsbs83/eli5_can_sugar_save_me_from_dying_of_thirst/ | {
"a_id": [
"fm0hltu",
"fm0jlo2"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your cellular respiration should be so high that you had to consume tons of sugar.\n\nA human needs at least 1.5 liters of water a day. Water has a molecular weight of about 18g/mol, so you need about 83 moles. You need 1 sugar every 6 water, so you need about 14 moles of sugar to produce that much water. 1 mole of sugar is about 342g/mol, so you net to 4.75Kg.\n\nBut you need more than that: biology chemistry is not perfect, distribution of nutrients is all over the place as well as its usage. You can easily? Need a 25% more than that. \n\nNow, the problem here is the big picture, even in a world in which that much sugar won't kill you. \n\nWhen you drink you get a whole lot of of ions and salts essential for your functioning. What you produce with cellular respiration is pure distilled water.",
"For humans no. We use to much water for it to work. We produce approximately 10% of our water need trough metabolism. That is as long as we do not change large parts of our anatomy.\n\nThere are animals that do that, for example, a [Kangaroo\\_rat](_URL_1_) and [Fennec\\_fox](_URL_0_) they never drink free water, the get it from metabolism and the stuff they eat. \n\nThe adaptation to living in the desert is called [Xerocole](_URL_2_) and it is accomplished by reduce excretion and have concentrated urine, dry feces and to avoid sweating and evaporation.\n\nHumans sweat a lot compared to other animals and out urine is not concentrated and the felsic not dry. So we have to change a lot.\n\nBirds in long-distance flights get their water from metabolism. They have the advantage that they excrete nitrogen, not as urea that dissolved in water but as uric acid as a solid. That reduces water usage a lot.\n\nSo getting a 10x metabolism is hard and it would increase the water need because you need to eat more and that produces more feces that is 75% water by mass. So it would be in the excretion part you need the change and not just increase metabolism.\n\nYou also need to stop sweating and manage to keep cool even at 10x energy production and that would be the hard but then a cool environment or external colling system could help.\n\nBut if you start to use external machines there is another way to stop drinking is to add water as an intravenous fluid. You do not drink but get fluid.\n\n \nYou could likely survive with not drinking of you switched food. Cucumber is 96% water, Watermelon is 91%. Or just eat soup. Stop drinking is not that hard if you just eat food with a huge water percentage."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennec_fox",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_rat",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerocole"
]
] |
||
366obt | why does 720p look fine on my 32 inch tv but noticeably bad on my 23-inch pc monitor? | I never understood why this is, hoping someone with more knowledge can help me understand what's going on here. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/366obt/eli5_why_does_720p_look_fine_on_my_32_inch_tv_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"crb7cut",
"crb86jb"
],
"score": [
8,
7
],
"text": [
"Is 720p the native resolution of the 32 inch TV? It almost certainly isn't the native resolution of the PC display. That could be part of it. Native resolutions will always look better because you don't wind up with \"half pixels\" when trying to scale the image. Also, how close you are to the screen matters. If you're closer, you have an easier time seeing the individual pixels.",
"The most likely reason for this is the difference in viewing distance. With a computer monitor, you are usually about 2 feet (~60 cm) away from the screen. When viewing a TV screen of the same size, you're usually much further way, perhaps as far as 5-10 ft (~1.5-3 m) away.\n\nAt close distances, your eyes are much better equipped to resolve small details and potentially even see individual pixels and/or the space between them. At further distances, however, your eyes lose their ability to resolve these small details and in many cases it will be impossible for you to discriminate individual pixels or the spaces between them.\n\nThe other possible reason relates to scaling operations. When the input resolution does not match the native resolution of the display, the display has to use a software algorithm to scale the image up or down to match the native resolution of the display. Some scaling algorithms are better than others, but none of them are perfect. Some algorithms may result in a clear loss in visual quality though. \n\nFor this reason, you should always try to make sure the input resolution is identical to the native display resolution. If that's not possible, it's better for the input resolution to be higher than for it to be lower than the native resolution because higher resolution video can (using the proper algorithms) be downscaled without any clear loss in visual quality. When you start with a lower resolution input however, you can't really scale it up and fabricate visual information/details out of nowhere (although there are certainly algorithms that use all sorts of clever tricks to try and do just that, such as by automatically detecting edges of objects and interpolating and blending the pixels accordingly)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
23k39a | what is chemically happening in the brain upon eating a marijauna laced brownie? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23k39a/eli5_what_is_chemically_happening_in_the_brain/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgxrtt2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Same thing as if you smoked it. THC is released into the bloodstream, although when you smoke it, it is instantly released. When you eat an edible (a brownie, any food item with THC), it has to go through the digestive tract and such. It thus takes longer to reach the bloodstream, thus making the effects take longer but more intense due to the concentration of the THC. That is why some people smoke \"wax\", which is basically pure THC. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2hjd53 | why can i pour oil into boiling water, but water poured into hot oil explodes into the air? | I was making pasta and sauteeing chicken recently. I poured olive oil into the pasta water and it was totally fine, and then a drop of water fell into the chicken pan and popped up into the air. Why, science, why?
Edit: Thanks for all the responses, people! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hjd53/eli5_why_can_i_pour_oil_into_boiling_water_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckt6pvw",
"ckt6qxf",
"ckt6u3y",
"ckt820d",
"cktbkye"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
41,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"When the oil goes into the pot of water, the temperature of the water is well below the boiling point of the oil. \nWhen the drop of water falls into a pan of hot oil, the temperature of the pan is well above the boiling point of the water. ",
"Water boils at 211 deg F. Oil boils at a MUCH higher temperature.\n\nWhen you pour water in to hot oil, the water immediately boils and flashes in to steam, expanding exponentially outwards (exploding)\n\nWhen you pour oil in to boiling water, the oil just heats up a bit but doesn't change state.",
"The main thing that's going on is that water boils at 100^o Celcius.\n\nHot oil is often much hotter than 100^o C. Typically oils will start to burn, depending on the oil you're using, at around the 200^o C mark, give or take. So when you see smoke coming from the oil you're at those sorts of temperatures.\n\nTypically you don't cook with the oil actually burning (unless you're a bit of a dodgy chef), and you're likely going to be at around the 160-180^o C sort of area.\n\nWhat this means is that when you drop water into hot oil it evaporates pretty much instantly. The temperature of the oil is above the boiling point of water. The explosion is the rapid generation of steam caused by this near-instant evaporation. This steam throws some oil up into the air aswell, just because the gas expands so quickly.\n\nAlso, oils tend to have a relatively high heat capacity, and you've got the heat in the metal of the pot/pan aswell. This means that you can evaporate a fair bit of water without losing too much heat in the oil. So there's some potential for relatively large explosions if you drop a lot of water in.\n\nObviously, in the reverse situation, the water can't be hotter than 100^o C (for pure water anyway - adding salt does change the boiling point a bit). Oils won't evaporate (edit: or decompose) at that temperature, so no gas is being generated, so no explosion happens.",
"Boiling oil is hotter than boiling water.",
"Easy version. Water can't boil oil. Oil instantly vaporized water because its hotter. Taking oil with it into the air"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4i7hpc | how do respective governments pay for free college in other developed countries and why will that not work in the us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4i7hpc/eli5how_do_respective_governments_pay_for_free/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2vr186"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Short answer: American culture is more tax-averse than most of the rest of the developed world. Free college means higher taxes, and Americans are extremely hesitant to support anything that takes money out of their paycheck."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6dfukb | how does dropping things in fluids eg water cause a splash? | Follow up: what are the parameters that affect the shape / height of the splash? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dfukb/eli5_how_does_dropping_things_in_fluids_eg_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"di2covw",
"di2d47p"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"When something hits the water, it pushes the water out of the way. The wave of water can only go so far before gravity starts to pull it back. So then, the water starts to rush back into the void that was created. It gains a lot of speed as it does this so that when it finally reaches the middle the collision forces the water upwards into the splash that you see. ",
"The stuff is pushed out of the way of the thing you dropped. It can't really go much down or to the sides because there's is already other stuff there, but it can be pushed to the sides and up a bit. Once the stuff is going it can sort of keep going due to momentum and go up a long way."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
33grpl | what's the evolutionary purpose of the little triangle of cartilage in front of our ear holes? | [This thing](_URL_0_). Vestigial from an aquatic life? To break up airflow? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33grpl/eli5whats_the_evolutionary_purpose_of_the_little/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqkpw5o",
"cqkrbqt"
],
"score": [
4,
7
],
"text": [
"Sound bounces around your ear and then bounces off of that triangle down your ear canal. Without it, much sound wouldn't actually enter your ear and go into the canal, greatly reducing yoyr ability to hear",
"It's called the [tragus](_URL_0_). It helps you hear sounds coming from behind you."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/mIw8pWl.jpg"
] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragus_(ear\\)"
]
] |
|
3e3vnl | how do people figure out the exact part that caused a catastrophic failure? | For example, when a plane crashes, how do they get the information from a blackbox that says part xyz failed or had this amount of pressure causing it to snap? Do they monitor every stress? Or what about the recent SpaceX rocket failure. How do they find out that it was a strut that failed? It doesn't seem like a strut is something that would be benchmarked. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e3vnl/eli5_how_do_people_figure_out_the_exact_part_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctb8kzy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If you found a glass on the ground in fragments you could reasonably guess it was dropped from a height. If it were next to a ledge you could reasonably guess it fell from there specifically. If you live alone and have a cat, and don't remember dropping any glasses, you can blame the cat for pushing the glass from the ledge with a great degree of certainty.\n\nYou don't need direct measurements if you can work out a reasonable story. Many things have few potential causes that are at all likely. Fewer still if you have many pieces of information to fit together into one story explaining a known outcome."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
k0pjd | college football divisions. there's no playoffs? playoffs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k0pjd/eli5_college_football_divisions_theres_no/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2gmqlr",
"c2gvkiz",
"c2gvkiz",
"c2gmqlr"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Basically think about it this way: you want to see who the best kickballer in the school is. You have a regular season where there are lots of matches, but not everybody plays everybody. So you have records for all of them, but some guys have the same record. So you have the teachers and other players vote on who they think is better. Based upon this voting, then everybody plays a single game after the season so everybody gets included. Kickball is such a tough sport that you wouldn't want the eventual best kickballer to have to play 50 games in the post season and not be able to focus on schoolwork, so you just vote on who you think would probably have made it to the last game and he and another player get to determine in one game which is the best. Oh, and money, it's also about money. Each of those individual postseason matches gets sponsored. If there were a playoff then there'd be no sponsorship and less money, and nobody wants that.",
"There are many, many colleges with football teams, literally hundreds and split into divisions no fewer than 5 divisions: I, II, III, NAIA, NJCAA (junior colleges). Division I is further divided into two sub-divisions, Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS, formerly I-A) with 120 schools and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS, formerly I-AA) with 146 schools. Every division except for the FBS does have a playoff for their respective champions, and few people seem to know this thinking only the schools in the FBS count. The FBS teams started playing each other over a hundred years ago and started rivalries that continue today. They couldn't play everyone else and use a points system, or have a nation-wide tournament because it was hard and expensive to travel for colleges, so teams just played schools they could get to, and the newspaper writers would vote on who was the best team. Over time, teams started joining together into conferences and would play against each other to see who would be best in their particular region for bragging rights; larger conferences like the SEC even have a conference championship game. These conferences started competing against each other by having their conference champions play each other in a single post-season game called a bowl. The Rose Bowl is probably the most famous and one of the oldest, and a team from each the Big Ten conference and Pacific 12 conference would play each other although not necessarily their champions because they can pick whomever they want. The bowls became very popular, more were played, and there are 35 FBS bowl games now where each bowl just basically invites whatever school they want to play. There were arguments over which team was actually the best and the champion for that year, and writers and columnists would disagree resulting in different organizations awarding their respective championship award to different teams. This was too confusing, and many people have been wanting the situation resolved for years, but big organizations like those controlling the bowls don't like changes to the system and have been fighting back. A supposed compromise was made with the formation of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). The compromise was made with 4 of the most popular bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) and the most powerful conferences (Big Ten, Big East, ACC, SEC, Big XII, Pac-12, and Notre Dame which isn't in a conference) to have the best teams play in a single championship that would rotate between the 4 popular bowl sites, the BCS Championship. They used a points and voting system to take the two schools scoring the highest and putting them in a single game for the championship. They said it worked, but in 2003-4, LSU and Oklahoma were in the championship game and LSU won, but USC won the AP vote and split the championship. They changed the BCS formula, USC and Oklahoma were in the BCS title game the next year, USC won, but Auburn was also undefeated and split the championship. They keep changing the BCS formula to keep the sponsors and bowl organizers happy. The bowl organizers don't want change and are against a FBS championship tournament. That is why there isn't a tournament playoff yet.",
"There are many, many colleges with football teams, literally hundreds and split into divisions no fewer than 5 divisions: I, II, III, NAIA, NJCAA (junior colleges). Division I is further divided into two sub-divisions, Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS, formerly I-A) with 120 schools and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS, formerly I-AA) with 146 schools. Every division except for the FBS does have a playoff for their respective champions, and few people seem to know this thinking only the schools in the FBS count. The FBS teams started playing each other over a hundred years ago and started rivalries that continue today. They couldn't play everyone else and use a points system, or have a nation-wide tournament because it was hard and expensive to travel for colleges, so teams just played schools they could get to, and the newspaper writers would vote on who was the best team. Over time, teams started joining together into conferences and would play against each other to see who would be best in their particular region for bragging rights; larger conferences like the SEC even have a conference championship game. These conferences started competing against each other by having their conference champions play each other in a single post-season game called a bowl. The Rose Bowl is probably the most famous and one of the oldest, and a team from each the Big Ten conference and Pacific 12 conference would play each other although not necessarily their champions because they can pick whomever they want. The bowls became very popular, more were played, and there are 35 FBS bowl games now where each bowl just basically invites whatever school they want to play. There were arguments over which team was actually the best and the champion for that year, and writers and columnists would disagree resulting in different organizations awarding their respective championship award to different teams. This was too confusing, and many people have been wanting the situation resolved for years, but big organizations like those controlling the bowls don't like changes to the system and have been fighting back. A supposed compromise was made with the formation of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). The compromise was made with 4 of the most popular bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange) and the most powerful conferences (Big Ten, Big East, ACC, SEC, Big XII, Pac-12, and Notre Dame which isn't in a conference) to have the best teams play in a single championship that would rotate between the 4 popular bowl sites, the BCS Championship. They used a points and voting system to take the two schools scoring the highest and putting them in a single game for the championship. They said it worked, but in 2003-4, LSU and Oklahoma were in the championship game and LSU won, but USC won the AP vote and split the championship. They changed the BCS formula, USC and Oklahoma were in the BCS title game the next year, USC won, but Auburn was also undefeated and split the championship. They keep changing the BCS formula to keep the sponsors and bowl organizers happy. The bowl organizers don't want change and are against a FBS championship tournament. That is why there isn't a tournament playoff yet.",
"Basically think about it this way: you want to see who the best kickballer in the school is. You have a regular season where there are lots of matches, but not everybody plays everybody. So you have records for all of them, but some guys have the same record. So you have the teachers and other players vote on who they think is better. Based upon this voting, then everybody plays a single game after the season so everybody gets included. Kickball is such a tough sport that you wouldn't want the eventual best kickballer to have to play 50 games in the post season and not be able to focus on schoolwork, so you just vote on who you think would probably have made it to the last game and he and another player get to determine in one game which is the best. Oh, and money, it's also about money. Each of those individual postseason matches gets sponsored. If there were a playoff then there'd be no sponsorship and less money, and nobody wants that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1wl41l | why do special effects look so much better in a movie theater than on a computer? | I'm watching Olympus Has Fallen on Netflix and some of the CGI/Green Screen effects look terribly obvious. I never saw it in theaters, but there are other movies that look pretty good in theaters but then when I go watch them on Netflix or something the special effects look terrible.
Is it just the quality is higher when its a hard copy, and you lose some of that quality when you have to compress it and junk in order to stream?
Sorry if this has been asked already, I used the search function and didn't find anything that answered my question on the first page and a half. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wl41l/eli5_why_do_special_effects_look_so_much_better/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf305pr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The funny thing is that the effects look better in a movie theater because the movie theater quality is worse.\n\nA projector cannot project individual pixels as well as a monitor can so the image is very slightly blurred.\n\nNow, think of a picture with a crappy photoshopped face on top of another person. Someone just outlined the other person's face, copied it out and pasted it directly on the other image. The jagged outline completely stands out and looks out of place.\n\nHowever, if you blur the face's outline slightly so that it blends more into the picture, it appears much better than the original copy and paste. This is true of CGI/Green screen because it is adding elements that were originally not in the picture. The blurring from the projector makes these pasted elements blend more realistically to the scene."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
kol2t | eil5: neutrinos | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kol2t/eil5_neutrinos/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2lxwp6",
"c2lxwp6"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They are really, really, REALLY tiny particles. So tiny that they actually go right through ordinary matter without hitting it most of the time. This is hard to wrap your head around, but try to think of the relative sizes and distances of things inside of an atom: If the simplest atom, a hydrogen atom, was the size of a football field, the nucleus would be the size of a grain of sand right in the middle, and the single electron would be out there on the edge of the field going around and around. And in between, NOTHING.\n\nThe neurtino is even smaller than that nucleus or the electron. You can probably imagine how hard it is for that neutrino to actually hit something.",
"They are really, really, REALLY tiny particles. So tiny that they actually go right through ordinary matter without hitting it most of the time. This is hard to wrap your head around, but try to think of the relative sizes and distances of things inside of an atom: If the simplest atom, a hydrogen atom, was the size of a football field, the nucleus would be the size of a grain of sand right in the middle, and the single electron would be out there on the edge of the field going around and around. And in between, NOTHING.\n\nThe neurtino is even smaller than that nucleus or the electron. You can probably imagine how hard it is for that neutrino to actually hit something."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
d5y80o | why shouldn’t rubs such as tigerbalm, vicks, etc touch mucous membranes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d5y80o/elif_why_shouldnt_rubs_such_as_tigerbalm_vicks/ | {
"a_id": [
"f0oof4y"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"These balms contain camphor, an aromatic chemical which is responsible for much of the smell in them (along with menthol). Camphor is safe to put on your skin, and safe to inhale, but highly toxic in large quantities. You will absorb large quantities if you eat the rub... or if you put it on a mucous membrane, in which case the camphor will enter your blood stream directly.\n\nSmall doses of camphor will cause nausea or vomiting, lethargy, loss of coordination and slurred speech. In large doses, it can cause muscle spasms, convulsions, seizures and death.\n\nBesides all that, menthol burns when you put it on a mucous membrane, which can be unpleasant."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4fmz45 | how operating a semi truck transmission differs to that of a manual car. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fmz45/eli5how_operating_a_semi_truck_transmission/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2a84qv",
"d2a8lub",
"d2afpre",
"d2ag2y0",
"d2aj37q",
"d2ajsf0",
"d2al8c1"
],
"score": [
4,
16,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No expert on machanics but here is some info from experience working with trucks. You go through all the gears normally then flip the tab and you have another higher set.\n\nThe reason there isnt just a ton of gears is it would be alot more annoying. Can you imagine, as you said, 18 gears, laid out in a normal manual transmission way, all the way across? It would take up a ton of space and youd have to reach further across. Besides that, lets say you are in 3 high. If you are coming to a stop You can simply shift down 2 positions over back into whatever gear you are going to be starting in. Laid straight out youd be doing alot more moving.\n\nAlso you dont need to be all the way down in gears to get moving especially with no load. As you shift you can also skip gears as under typical conditions you dont need all 18 gears. It is designed to pull a ton of weight but you arent usually doing so.\n\nAs far as getting moving goes, besides maybe the gear you start in (that I would assume depends on the truck and power as well as gear ratio and factors like this), you start moving and can shift pretty much like you would a normal car. Only difference is flipping the tab. Im not sure if this is common, and Im not good enough to do this, but most drivers I have ridden with dont use the clutch to shift most of the time. They \"perfect shift\" like you could with a car ",
"You have a main transmission with three to four speeds, a range box to double your gearings, and a splitter to let you halve each gear again. Generally unless you're hauling heavy loads, you'll be skipping the splitter until you want to fine tune your RPM for cruising. I'll be using a 12-speed for examples.\n\n* No load: 2L - > 3L - > Flip range switch - > 4L - > 5L - > 6L - > Flip splitter, kick the clutch - > 6H.\n\nThe range box is what you call hi lo gears. Basically, with the flick of a switch, shifting to neutral and giving the box a second or two to engage, you can turn the three slots on the gearstick from 1-2-3 to 4-5-6. The splitter has two positions and only requires a kick of the clutch to engage.\n\n* Full load: Gearstick in first slot, splitter down, 1L - > Flip splitter up, kick clutch - > 1H - > Flip splitter down, move gearstick to second slot - > 2L - > Flip splitter up, kick clutch - > 2H. - > - > - > 3H - > Flip splitter down, flip range switch up, clutch and move gearstick to first slot. You are now in 4L. And so on. \n\nThis is a bit of a mess, but I hope it helps.",
"UK answer here, but I imagine it's very similar. Ignoring the high/low and split, say it's just 16 gears regardless of how you access them. With a small load, you might start in 4th, straight to 6, then 8, 10, etc. The split would give you the half gears (odd numbers), but you can get away without using them. Uphill you might start in 3rd, downhill in 5th. Technically, you can get away with driving a light load around town in high range, without using the split gears. 5, 7, 9, 11 would be enough. For normal driving, you jump a gear number regularly. All odds or all evens is normal. So, why so many gears in the first place? All to do with weight. A car might weigh 2 tons. Load it up with people and luggage and you might get to 2 1/2 or even 3 tons, so you might add 30-50% of the overall weight. A tractor unit (the truck bit) weighs around 8 tons. Empty trailer 4, so an empty load might be something like 12 tons. No split gears needed. Fully loaded (here) would be up to 42 tons, so the total weigh of the train is 300% (ish) of unladen, it's a massive difference. Fully loaded is when you really start to need those extra gears. Sometimes it's easier to think of it as a 6 or 8 speed gearbox, with half gears, rather than a 12 or 16 speed. 1st and 2nd are for heavy load hill starts, and are very seldom used in real life. I'll be honest, when you first start truck driving, getting your head around the gears is the biggest obstacle. One gearstick, split and range buttons means it's really easy to try and pull away in 10th rather than 3rd if you get muddled up. In Britain, most truck driving schools do a free appraisal, so you get chance to have a drive for nothing. I'd recommend it, it's great fun!",
"I can help address they \"Why?\" The answer is, physics!\n\nCars are designed with one thing in mind. Carrying a very few people. Even a car load of severely obese people is not that much of a load difference for a passenger car, so one set of gears is appropriate for any use of the vehicle.\n\nA cargo vehicle, such as a Semi, needs to be able to be operating under conditions ranging from no load, to tons of cargo. So, it's going to need a much wider range of gears to account for the differences in loads. So, rather than having 1st through < whatever > , they have multiple sets of gears such as 1H, 1L, etc. How they sets work together is a lesson in gearing I am not going to be capable of adequately explaining. I stay way the hell away from \"Transmission magic\"",
"First off. The only transmissions I've heard of and learned about is a 5speed transmission, with an auxiliary gearbox of 2(8speed) 3(12speed) 4(16?-I would have to look speed) gears. I'm a mechanic not a driver. Due to the gear reduction redundancy in lower gears they are so similar thus why you lose the speeds. \n\n\nA clutch brake is used only to stop the main shaft of the transmission prior to shifting into 1st, or Reverse from a stop. It is an actually a brake pad between the clutch and transmission. \n\nSynchronized transmissions are the only ones i know about to help the driver match transmission speeds while shifting. Using the clutch isn't recommended or practiced while driving due to the clutch brake. You'd have to be very very aware not to push the pedal to the floor or you'd snap that baby off like a twig. \n\nI've actually got all my books out if there was anything else you wanted to know. \n\nEdit: I got sidetracked by comments rather than the question. The reason for shifting as such is for the peak power curve out of every gear while loaded. 4th gear is usually a 1:1 drive while 5 is an overdrive set if recall correctly. By shifting through the range and split gears in your aux trans you get your different combinations allowing you to hold the peak curve throughout the entire range of acceleration/deceleration ",
"10 speed \n1,2,3,4,5 splitter 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.\n\nDouble clutching to shift\nClutch in slightly, pull out of gear, clutch out, clutch in slightly, into next highest or lowest gear, clutch out, apply throttle.\n\nFloat gear shifting\nWait for rpm to hit around 14-1500 rpm, pull gear out and reapply next highest gear. When downshifting around 900-1100 rpm pull out of gear, apply slight throttle to raise rpm before putting back into lower gear. (This if done wrong is very hard on tranny).\n\nHi and low apply for 13/18 speeds (most common). There are videos that can explain them alot better than text ever can on YouTube.\n\n18 speeds are really overkill on most highway trucks. They are typically used by heavy haulers. Synchro mesh in the US, do not know why other than maybe cost.",
"I can't go into the mechanics of the transmission but I can go through the steps of shifting. \nFor my truck on the shifter there is 2 switches one for super low and the other is the high / low. With a load I engage the super low switch push the clutch in and put it in 1 gear this is the only time you use the clutch. you get the truck rolling to the right speed and rpm then shift to the next gear, continue shifting up to 5th gear then disengage the super low switch and shift back into 1st gear when speed and rpm are right flick the high/low switch to high and let off the gas and it will shift to 1st high, then when you need to shift put the high/low switch back to low and shift to 2nd gear continue up through the gears.\n\nif the truck is empty for the most part you skip the super low and start out in 1st normal and most of the time you can skip switching the high/low and just leave it in high or low as you shift through the gears "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6hp40i | why do remote controlled helicopters usually have multiple sets of blades while real life helicopters have only one set? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hp40i/eli5_why_do_remote_controlled_helicopters_usually/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj00m78"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The quad-blade setup can be easily stabilized by a computer, but is more failure-prone than a single blade since there's way more moving parts. With modern computer tech, the hardware and sensors required to balance a four blade setup is super cheap.\n\nSince the small craft don't carry people, there's less stress about the vehicle crashing. Since the big 'uns carry humans, they want to remove anything breakable that doesn't have to be there."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9wurvn | a lot of companies have contests where you enter for a chance to win something. does anyone actually win anything and, if so, how is it audited to ensure a level playing field or if someone did in fact win the contest? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9wurvn/eli5_a_lot_of_companies_have_contests_where_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9ngegw",
"e9ngfaj",
"e9nk7ny",
"e9o6faa"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is all detailed within the rules and terms of the contest. One of the main things is that, at least in the US, you can't require people to pay money to enter a contest, so part of the rules will include how to enter for free.\n\nAnother part of the rules will cover who is allowed to enter, as usually employees of the company are restricted from entering.\n\nFinally there will be a section dealing with how and when winners are determined. Usually companies don't disclose the name of the winner for privacy reasons, though some companies require you agree to your name, picture, and city you live in being used as part of promotional materials. ",
"A few months ago I won a $500 prepaid visa on Twitter from 5 Gum. They had a contest where you just had to tweet how you’d use $500 and I believe they had like 50 winners. They used a third party to verify info and take care of paperwork and stuff. I received a DM from the 5 Gum Twitter saying I was a potential winner and that I needed to fill out some info with a link. I did so and a couple days later I was contacted by the third party that seemed to be a PR firm of some sort. They handled the rest. I read some info and digitally signed an agreement that they wouldn’t be responsible for any problems I encountered once I received my prize. A few weeks later I received a $500 visa. card. Already used it with zero issues. So in my experience, at least with large companies, these contests are 100% legit.",
"A couple of things about contests in the U.S.: \n\nFor contests with really expensive prizes, most but [Prize Insurance](_URL_0_), so if someone does win, the insurance company pays for it. So not every contest produces a winner. Like those \"make a basket from half court and win $1 million\" contests.\n\nThe other thing is radio station contests with significant prizes are usually \"national\" contests now. For instance, Clear Channel. If you listen closely to the contest promo, they will say something like \n\"...in this national contest.\" Those contests do produce winners, but there may be only a single prize for 100s of stations across the country. \n\nMay not have answered your question fully, but that's all I've got.",
"The prize is already budgeted into marketing expenses, and compared to the cost of potential lawsuits and PR damage, whatever they're giving away is peanuts. They'd sooner give a smaller/cheaper prize or cancel the entire contest than have a fake one.\n\nThat said, contests are way harder to run than you think. The sheer number of cheaters, and cheaters who have the balls to contact the company when they didn't win because they got disqualified for obviously cheating, makes you lose faith in humanity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.interactivepromotions.com/"
],
[]
] |
||
6ugtrl | in an egg boiler, why is less water needed for more eggs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ugtrl/eli5_in_an_egg_boiler_why_is_less_water_needed/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlsk1bx",
"dlsk54r"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Just a question of clarification. What is an egg boiler? ",
"The eggs displace a certain amount of liquid. Say you have 15cm diameter pan and you put one egg in it. You fill it 3cm high to cover the egg. That means you have just over 530 cubic cm of water in the pan, which equates to 530ml.\n\nAssuming a standard 34ml egg, that's 34 cubic cm. Therefore you reduce the amount of water you need to achieve the same cylinder of water by 34ml each time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
17karo | how did humans first begin communicating? | Like how did people know what someone meant when somebody else said "water" or something? And what about adjectives? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17karo/eli5_how_did_humans_first_begin_communicating/ | {
"a_id": [
"c86ahh8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Language probably evolved slowly within small groups of human's evolutionary ancestors. \n\nIf you've ever had a dog then you know even they have a form of vocal speech and different noises can mean different things, from \"pay attention to me\" to \"stay back\". They can also understand quite a few human words (up to several hundred for some breeds) after repetition causes an association between some noise and a thing, idea, or action. \n\nHumans (or their ancestors) probably started the same way and eventually developed language. If someone in your group starts saying something like \"ungha\" while indicating something to do with water (like your dog might whine while bringing you a toy to show it wants to play), then others in the group will catch on that that noise refers to water. Words or noises would be passed on to the next generation as they were raised, who would likely further develop the language. After developing some vocabulary, you can start to describe words with other words, making it easier to expand the language. Eventually languages evolved to contain a complex grammar and structure, standardizing communication, which we are left with today. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.