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
sequence | selftext_urls
sequence | answers_urls
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1vn7rg | why do we do stupid things when we are young even though we have an idea that they are not right? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vn7rg/eli5_why_do_we_do_stupid_things_when_we_are_young/ | {
"a_id": [
"cetxj5m",
"cetxt5k",
"cetyw62"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Undeveloped prefrontal cortexes ",
"Curiosity. When you are young you may be aware of the thing but not the consequence. Also, when you are young your mind is set to not care about what will happen to your family if something happens and curiosity does the rest of the work.",
"Brain development. Brains don't fully develop, especially in males, until early to mid 20s. One of the last things to develop is automatic consideration of the consequences of one's actions. It's not that they can't think about it if prompted, they fully understand, their brains just aren't wired to do it automatically. \n\nIt may be due to an evolutionary benefit in proving oneself in youth by doing dangerous things and then the survivors settled down and had families and so then needed to consider the consequences. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
enldro | how is the b-2 spirit mostly undetectable by radar? | Does the polygonal design of the plane itself play a role in this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/enldro/eli5_how_is_the_b2_spirit_mostly_undetectable_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"fe0ytzf",
"fe1u4j9",
"fe2257p",
"fe22i7b",
"fe2lozc"
],
"score": [
20,
4,
271,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes, because of the footprint shape and the sleek design there are very few parts of the plane where a radar signal would be bounced back to its source. Radar works by sending out a signal and then waiting for it to bounce off something and come back.",
"You are probably thinking of the F-117 which looks like a plan from a 1990's video game as opposed to the B-2 which looks like a very nicely rounded boomerang. \n\nThe answer to the question though is that we understand how radar waves bounce off objects at a theoretical level and can thus engineer shapes with the objective of bouncing back as little of the signal as possible. Radar absorbent materials, and other strategies, are employed as well.",
"Imagine you're in a room with the floor walls and ceiling painted black. \n\nNow turn the lights out and imagine you have to find a mirror somewhere in this room with nothing but a headlamp. You'd think it'd be easy, just shine the flashlight around the floor walls and ceiling until you see it, however you will soon discover that you can't see anything on the floor walls or ceiling because the mirror bounces the light from your flashlight away from you. All you see is the black reflection blended in with the black background. You will only be able to see the mirror when it's facing directly towards you and you can see your flashlight in the reflection.\n\nNow take the same concept, except instead of a mirror, it's a pinball polished to a mirror finish. You should be able to find it almost immediately because there's always some part of the ball bearing that will reflect you and your flashlight back to you. As soon as you shine your headlamp on it, you'll see a twinkle from the reflection.\n\nThis is the basic concept behind stealth; certain shapes reflect electromagnetic waves back to their source better than others. Flat shapes are typically the best at avoiding this, while spherical shapes and edges will almost always cause a return.\n\n*Edited for clarity/simplicity",
"In the USAF I maintained the avionics on both the F-117A and the F-22 Raptor. The stealth characteristics of these aircraft are determined by shape and RAM (Radar absorbent material, F-117 terminology) / LO (Low observable material, F22 terminology). There are measures taken to reduce thermal footprint like exhaust. Any other answers that go deeper then that are guesses because even with the security clearance I had there are things that just aren’t discussed.",
"I was driving to St. Louis on Thursday and one of those big bastard flew over the highway at a relatively low altitude. We also see them flying very high over KC (where I live) occasionally."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
dh8kg5 | can anyone explain to me what are those tubes for? | I dont know how to explain what I mean that's why here's a link to it: _URL_0_
It's a tube on a cable that's holding shopping mall logo above the entrance- there are several cables all of them connected to the ceiling above
Do you guys have an idea what those tubes are? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dh8kg5/eli5_can_anyone_explain_to_me_what_are_those/ | {
"a_id": [
"f3k0b1w"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"They are used to tighten the cable. It's not one cable, but two and they are linked by that thing that can screw closer and make sure it has the required structural integrity"
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/a/mE7UkvJ"
] | [
[]
] |
|
28625m | what allows humans to "think" intelligently while other animals cannot? could other lifeforms develop this intelligence like us? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28625m/eli5_what_allows_humans_to_think_intelligently/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci7r2si",
"ci7rhuv",
"ci7s17t",
"ci7tjso",
"ci7twh8",
"ci7uax6",
"ci7ub9a",
"ci7xe26",
"ci7xf1u",
"ci7xulw",
"ci7y39e",
"ci7yxk0",
"ci7yyp3",
"ci7zkif",
"ci7zqsf",
"ci80c2k",
"ci80k8s",
"ci80rcj",
"ci80twg",
"ci819bg",
"ci81bpu",
"ci81ia2",
"ci81vsl",
"ci82grl",
"ci83esw",
"ci8af69",
"ci8ej6g"
],
"score": [
37,
2,
22,
120,
2,
46,
5,
3,
12,
2,
16,
2,
3,
4,
9,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Also, it was our niche to be intelligent in order to survive. Other animals didn't need intelligence to survive because they had speed, or strength, or better vision on their side. Our ability to think was our strength that allowed us to survive. \r\rSure another animal might develop our level intelligence *only* of it becomes necessary to their survival, and even then, evolution takes millions of years. The chances of that animal going extinct before its brain develop that much is way higher. ",
"\nWhat allows humans to \"think\" is language. \n_URL_0_\n",
"Not a neurologist, nor am I sure how current this information is, but one theory suggests that a major physiological player in human sentience, social interaction, etc. are von Economo neurons. These are neurons that are multiple times larger than regular neurons, and relative to other animals, humans frontal cortices have a high concentration of them. Perhaps unsurprisingly to some, elephant brains have also been found to contain a relatively large number of von Economo neurons.\n\nIf someone who actually knows what they're talking about wants to take it from here, that's pretty much all I've got for you.",
"Be careful with this label. To say other animals cannot think but that other humans can is a strong statement to make. I can not know with certainty that anyone but myself can think. Humans have developed the ability to verbally report \"thinking\" but that does not mean we all think the same. \n\nI have worked in an animal psychology lab and to say that rats do not think would seem absurd. An organism adapts and evolves to its environment. If that environment requires what you call thinking then those who have the ability to think should survive. \n\nThat being said, one of the current theories is that we developed \"thinking\" as a result of social interaction. Also humans have a larger prefrontal cortex (the front part of the brain) relative to other species. That is what is thought to be part of there reason for our \"superior intelligence\". But again, be careful what you define intelligence as. Even the brightest people can seem unintelligent in the wrong context. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nLook at the cartoon for an idea of what I mean. ",
"Sorry going out for the night but I'll try to explain this....\nThere are two main drivers for survival, intelligence, and instinct. Think of it as a spectrum with instinct on one end, intelligence on the other. Animals such as reptiles use instinct, when they're born they're programmed through their DNA with inherent knowledge, ie a baby snake can hatch out of it's egg and go off and survive populate feed etc all on it's own. Mammals on the other hand rely on intelligence. They are born and are dependent on others, father, mother, social community to teach them the survival skills the young mammal needs. Learning new things requires intelligence. If you look at the most intelligent animals aside from humans, it shouldn't be surprising that 90% of them are all mammals. For another species of animal to develop an intelligence in similar level to ours they would have to go through years of evolution with driving factors towards intelligence, such as needing to adapt to rapidly changing scenarios, greater cohesion and cooperation amongst social community etc. Have a good night hope that helped and was simplified down for ELI5 :) ",
"Probably one of the most common explanations in evolutionary neuroscience is the [social brain hypothesis](_URL_0_). Across animals, it seems to be the case that more social animals (so, animals that chit-chat more with other animals in their species) seem to have bigger brains. Obviously, bigger isn't always better (and \"bigger\" more refers to \"bigger with respect to the size of the body\"), but, at least within mammals, more social animals also do better on various tests of intelligence than other mammals, even closely related ones. Apparently hyenas are a good test group for this... spotted hyenas, who have a complex social hierarchy and tend to gather in groups, are way smarter than brown and striped hyenas. Also, spotted hyena females have pseudo-penises, and in their hierarchy every single male is below every single female. Fun times!\n\nAnyway, the reasoning goes, social animals have bigger and better brains because we (yes, \"we\"; humans, even redditors, are exceedingly social by most animals' standards!) have to try to reason about each other's intentions and motivations much more than solitary animals. This takes a lot to do. Have you ever actually tried to ELI5 to a 5 year old? Yeah.\n\nAs far as what makes *humans* different, well, that's another pickle. Language is one idea - like I said, not so much because it \"causes\" thought, but because it allows us to share information much more effectively than we could otherwise. Another idea is that we have \"theory of mind\"; basically, we can not only guess others' *actions*, but guess others' *states of mind*. So we can have knowledge about what other people know, not just what they do. That way we can both deceive and enlighten. An idea that would merge the two would be gossip, basically; thanks to these abilities, I can now tell you that I think that Barack Obama thinks that Vladimir Putin is a jerk, and that might be useful information if I see them interacting in the future.\n\nThe social brain hypothesis, and the ideas sketched above, predict that any aliens we met that were capable of interstellar space would also enjoy gossip and could probably reason about the minds of others. Hopefully we could convince them we were of sound enough mind that we should be counted as people capable of such things ourselves.\n\ntl;dr: The gossip of teenage girls is a very good demonstration of why humans are so smart.",
"Animals are exceptionally intelligent.",
"We can abstract, and we can communicate abstractions to others, but this is a quantitative, rather than a qualitative difference from animals. We just do more of it than they do. \n\nOur family has always had 3 or 4 dogs. We used to have a german shepherd cross who was kind of the pack leader. He was older than the rest of the dogs, slower because he was older, and going deaf. We were having barbecue one day, and we would often give the bones to the dogs in the yard (We lived on a farm then). We called the dogs, they all came except for the pack leader (he was sleeping and deaf, so whats he gonna do?). We tossed them the bones, all the dogs grabbed one or two. The pack leader eventually wakes up, trots over, and notices that all the other dogs have bones, he tries to take one from a younger dog, but she would just bounce away with it, and he was too old/slow to deal with it. \n\nHe starts walking over to the open field behind the yard (there are sometimes rabbits they chase there). He would go a few metres, stop and look back at the other dogs, go a few metres more, look back, until he got to the next field. Then he starts barking like crazy, pausing and looking back at the other dogs, and then barking again. All the other dogs drop what they're doing and run like mad to the field. While this is happening, the german shepherd cross takes a different, kinda hidden route back to the yard, and as all the other dogs are running around trying to find whatever the hell it was that he was barking at, he grabs ALL the bones, and goes to hide somewhere. \n\nThe other dogs eventually come back a few minutes later and sniff around where their bones were. Of course can't find them, and eventually just lie down, tired and without bones. We were all dumbfounded, having watched the whole sequence. \n\nTell me animals aren't intelligent.... ",
"There are various answers to this question. Anatomically we do have some advantageous that make way for certain things that other animal species can't. However, that alone doesn't explain for our intelligence and our developments. \n\nThere is a lot I could go into this, but I will give you a short summary. If anything needs more explanation, feel free to ask. One major thing that makes us different from animals is our non-kinship based dependency. In ELI5 version, this means our ability to rely and depend on others who are not related to us by blood.\n\nWhen a person has to work to make his shelter, defend his territory, and hunt his food everyday (like how animals live), it leaves very little time to be curious and explore new fields. You can't develop and expand when you are barely surviving day-to-day. Mankind created societies because we realized that sticking together as a group benefited everyone, as it would make it harder for thieves to rob a person who is defended by a group than a person who was living on his own. \n\nSlowly this reliance on others led to other greater things. Once certain people didn't have to worry about food or shelter, they were able to explore new fields such as science. Science was initially considered as a rich person's hobby because no one really had the free time in the past to sit around and be curious about how the world works. So in many ways the global family is what gave us the ability to develop. Remember, mankind is not great because each one of us is more intelligent than all others on the planet, but because we are intelligent collectively than all other species. \n\nThat being said, there are many intelligent animals out there like crows, dolphins, etc, but I don't think they can get very far as long as they are still competing with each other in their own species and barely surviving as such. \n\nEinstein actually believed that everyone was able to be a genius but that we had to figure out what we were good at. But that ability to \"figure out\" is a luxury for many still when you are surviving, and it does still hinder us from what we could be. \n\nDunbar's number is the number of people that one person can have close connections with i.e. can be friends with. For monkey's the number is 50. For human beings, the number is 150. Dunbar's number has been found to also increase with increase in intelligence, and so that further supports the idea that higher intelligence is related with groups, rather than one person's brain power. Mankind builds on top of each other's ideas and that's what allows us to reach greater heights than what one could have done alone in a life time. Our food, clothes, etc are all generally made by others outside of our family.\n\nI actually created a sub /r/UnitedWeStand to discuss how to create stronger bonds with others around us, and continue growing in the way that made our species so capable and intelligent. The more we create divisions and the more we force ourselves to survive /compete with one another, the longer it will be for us to progress. \n\n",
"I'm unware of many humans that \"think\" intelligently...\n\nI jest, but in seriousness from a philosophy perspective, we would have no clue if they do or not. Hypothetically, the \"base\" programming language of our brains could be 100% unique for each brain, which is entirely likely. By that logic, think of the variation of brain mechanics that would exist between species.\n\nDoes a dog who has seen and recognized himself of the mirror become sentient (self aware) in that instant, or was he already aware of the fact he existed? If he is sentient, then his brain is about on par with ours, minus a few glossy touches we have (verbal communication takes a higher brain priority, etc). The rest is just social memory. Let a child live his life in 100% isolation from the time of being a baby, and see by what measure you can find to even discover if he \"thinks\". The only thing that makes us more intelligent than chimpanzees is the step between communicating *intent* and communicating *ideas*.\n\nEvery animal can communicate when it's aroused, it's intent is to have sex. However, it's social lexicon stops short of what position. If they were able to communicate with *half* of the vocabulary of the smallest language in the world, you would see them develop war and improved tools quite rapidly, as they could question and explain things that don't exist *at the moment* (IE: it's hard to explain how an engine works to a 5 year old without having any object to *show* what an engine even is, using nothing more than grunts and nods)",
"Relevant \n\n“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” \n― Albert Einstein",
"Other animals think too. They also communicate in ways that we might not understand. Obviously humans probably have the most advanced thoughts and language compared to other animals, but yes, I believe other species *may* have the capability to eventually develop similar complex thoughts and communication, given that the ideal environmental conditions exist. ",
"Other animals *can* think intelligently. There are plenty of examples of this. Our intelligence seems to be of a different degree, not kind. \n\nAlso, some of the things people classify as \"intelligent\" for example, speech - are not available to other animals because they lack the apparatus. Yet, given the chance (For example,. sign language) gorillas can learn to communicate, though not speak.\n\nNo-one seems to think that other lifeforms could not also develop intelligence like ours, indeed some already seem to be heading down that path (social cooperation, tool use, etc.)\n",
"Almost all animals 'think' in the same manner humans do. What sets humans apart (the 'intelligently' qualifier in the question) is corroboration.\n\nwe verbally pass on the lessons we learn, as a society. Cave drawings, story telling, and then to books, and eventually, the internet. We store knowledge up as a society, and share it publicly.\n\ntechnically, you could say that what sets humans apart as being the only species to think intelligently is reddit ;-)\n\n",
"_URL_0_\n\nIt's not that animals cannot think intelligently, it's that humans tend to be resistant to the idea that not only do they already, but that in many cases, they may make better long-term survival decisions than we do. What's surprising is how strongly humans will try to reshape the edges of the definition of \"intelligence\" to argue that only humans have it.",
"I subscribe to the [stoned ape theory](_URL_0_).",
"Animals have different brains, evolved for different functions. A blanket of mental superiority completely disregards the superior spacial and working memory of the elephant, the faster problem-solving of the crow, and the [superior working memory](_URL_3_) of the child chimpanzee. If you want to see how limited some aspects of our working memory is, consider the [seven plus or minus two](_URL_2_) rule of thumb.\n\nLets not forget sensory processing, also an integral part of the nervous system - Consider the electroreception in fish, the polarised chromatic vision of the mantis shrimp, the range and sensitivity of a fly's compound eyes... We see nothing of the world some animals see.\n\nWhat we do have is a good range of cognitive adaptations, enabled by our [high encephalization quotient](_URL_1_). But brains are different, satisfying different roles. Most/ or at least many, of our individual mental abilities are beat by something else in the animal kingdom, and a lot of animals have mental abilities that we can't learn. So it's without basis to conclude 'humans 'think' intelligently while other animals cannot'.\n\n^(This post assumes we don't live in a world populated by p-zombies) [.](_URL_0_)",
"\"Intelligence\" the word is somewhat overloaded, so in discussions like this, I like to include the words \"sentience\" and \"sapience\". Neither exactly has a widely accepted, rigorously defined definition, but we can at least approach the concept:\n\nSentience is like 'awareness'. It separates things like goats and cats from viruses, microbes, plants, fungi, and computer programs. The definition I like most is \"maintains an internal representation of the surrounding environment, including a representation of themselves as an actor.\" Debate is still ongoing as to which insects and crustaceans fit this definition; or whether this neural phenomenon is exactly what we internally experience as subjective consciousness. One popular way to test for sentience was showing an animal a mirror with a speck on it. When the creature reaches for that position on themselves, you can tell they've recognized themselves and the representation of themselves.\n\nSapience comes from the Latin word for \"wisdom\", you can recognize it in the word for our species: homo sapien. A word (that sees more use in sci-fi than elsewhere) for 'sapient being' is \"sophont\". Fundamentally, no matter what definitions people have reached for, it means \"Smart like people is smart.\" That will forever remain what we mean by sapience, but some have tried out definitions to help us recognize it when we see it:\n\n* \"Tool use,\" (pretty widely deprecated now because there are plenty of tool using animals out there that don't seem to be capable of applying that generally, or just aren't very smart).\n* \"Capable in theory of planning for the future,\" (has problems with separating what's \"planning\" and what's \"instinct\").\n* \"Capable of learning new skills and communicating them to other sophonts in a persistent way.\" (Has problems from genetically ingrained talents for mimicry. Could perhaps be expanded with something about \"encoding via language\", but that gets into another can of worms).\n* \"Their internal map of the world includes recursion on their own map, separating out 'the world' from 'beliefs about the world',\" (one I like since for practical purposes it includes language as a subset, and is fundamental to reasoning; but isn't exclusive of whatever weird aliens we encounter that might be sapient but not social or planners—might just be my sci-fi bias showing).\n\nI'll also lob out there that I think it's mostly a matter of scale; quantity versus quality (though quality is in there too). We simply have *so many* neural interconnections (billions of neurons, each connected to several other neurons, each of them having separate weightings, creates a number of potential connections hard to express even in scientific notation; many orders of magnitude more than even animals with similar sized brains) that there is plenty of room to store all of the layers and layers of connotations and representations and future models predicting outcomes that underlie the behavior we recognize as sapience in people. We almost certainly don't have a magical brain fairy or a super special quantum gravity singularity neuron (almost synonyms :P) or whatever that presents a sharp dividing line between us and ravens or dolphins or elephants.\n\nApologies in advance for any factual errors. This isn't, like, my field of study. I'm simply an enthusiast.\n\nOh hey! I almost forgot a silly relevant quote: “If our brains were simple enough for us to understand them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't.” —Ian Stewart (according to the top google result)\n\nBut don't listen, it's ridiculous. Obviously one brain could not completely comprehend an entire other brain all at once (you could probably get a mathematical proof via pigeonhole principle). But at the very least there's time and space domain shifting. Different people study different individual parts over time, study their interactions, eventually we get a good enough picture of how the parts interact that we could build our own out of rubber bands and toothpicks. HP Lovecraft not withstanding, we have yet to find any special rule of cognition that says there's an upper limit to what people in general can mentally grasp because of the brain's structure; and if there were, the human brain is probably not above it. Look at general relativity, and then look at quantum dynamics. There was a time when maybe six people in the entire world fully grasped one, and then the other. Fast forward enough decades and parts show up in high school textbooks.",
"Here's a TED talk that convincingly puts it down to number of neurons, and the ability to cook food.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Here's the thing. Life is nothing more than a race to pass on your genes before something kills you.\n\nThere are many ways to run this race. Human intelligence is just one of them. The way you phrase your question makes it sound like our way is some kind of evolutionary prize. The thing all life should strive for.\n\nHumans have been around for a few thousand years. Nothing compared to say the humble roach who is going strong for millions of years without any of the mental complexity we're so proud of.\n\nOur intelligence is a gimmick. One that is working for us so far but a gimmick none the less. One among many for that matter.\n\nThere are many other animals that evolved intelligence, even if they do apply it differently than we do. There's even more life that had been succeeding for much longer than we have without any need for intelligence at all.\n\nSo could more intelligent species evolve? Sure it's always possible but it's a very, very specific trick in an enormous box of tricks so don't hold your breath.",
"I was just thinking the other day that maybe the thing that sets humans apart is not intelligence so much as creativity. Most animals seem quite content as long as their physical and social needs are met, yet we don't stop there. Our creativity allows us to imagine the \"impossible\" and our intelligence allows us to make it happen. I think creativity is really the basis of our dominance.",
"The definition of intelligence!!\n\nEvery animal see the world differently. \n\n\nEvery animal has the intelligence to thrive in it's own world. Whether that world is ours or not. \n\n\nIt comes down to how you define intelligence. \n\n\nA dog sees the world in terms of smell and sound, at a level of complexity we can't imagine. but when you look at the world from their perspective, a lot of times, \"woof\" is all there is to say!!",
"I saw a dolphin yesterday using a dead fish as a fleshlight, so I guess other animals can think intelligently. ",
"Ray Kurzweil currently has a TED talk about the development and future of the neocortex within mammals. Might be worth checking out",
"How is the top comment not NEOCORTEX? The advanced neocortex found in humans is credited with most of our capability to reason, think abstractly and process sensory inputs into episodic (timeline-bound) streams, and all kinds of other higher functionality. \n\nWhile we cannot know for certain whether animals that have a less developed neocortex (all mammals), or no neocortex (non-mammalian vertebrates) are able to think, the kind of intelligent thinking you're describing seems nearly impossible without the associated brain mass.\n\nThere are a handful of extinct hominids and hominoids that had very large cranial volume (H Neanderthalensis was ~1900 ccs vs modern humans at ~1200), although we can't examine their actual brains - or ask them.",
"Linguistics student here. For what I've researched, humans have a skill that no other creature has: language. We are the only species with the ability to ask questions; even other beings with language learning skills (parrots, apes, many mammals) can repeat and even answer questions, but they can't ask them. Humans have developed the unique ability to look for new knowledge in a non-empiric way, and that created a collective intelligence. Imagine it as the internet: every brain is a server, and some have certain information but not other. Our language skills are the Google we use to research in other servers. Other animals can't do this, though: at the very most they might just yell the information they possess and others will catch it, like Youtube ads, but if they want to obtain new knowledge they have to generate it themselves.\n\nOur intelligence, contrary to most species, is not what is in our brains, but what is in the brains of everyone around us. We can use it and process it, then refine it and return it improved.\n\nTL;DR Humans have the ability to ask.",
"It looks like the ability to take in and use information about the world (think) might be an \"emergent property\" of life as things get more and more complex. Emergence is all about allowing new, and interesting things to come out of older, more boring things. It looks like human brains are just a bit more complex, and able to combine a bit more of those older, boring things, and the part of the brain that's right behind our eyes, called the prefrontal cortex, seems to be the part that gives us that extra level of thinking. Other species don't have this part of the brain.\n\nAlso, it looks like we might be able to classify the ability to think using a fairly thorough system that includes the number of dimensions we can be aware of at a given time. Matter can only be aware of itself, and what it \"senses\" about it's own experience, or possibly the experience of itself and it's immediate environment (the stuff it's touching at the time). So a table or chair things only \"think\" in 0 or 1 dimension. But all living things can at least experience goals \"I want food!\" or \"RUN AWAY!\", and so living things can have two dimensions of thinking, with \"this is what it's like to be me right now\" as well as \"If I go over there, I might find food.\" or even \"when I went over there before there was food.\" Then social animals have at least third dimension, where they can think about three different experiences (perspectives) at a time. The social animals (like humans, other mammals, birds, and who knows who else!) have the ability to think of our own current experiences, our own goals, and the goals or current states as well, and combine these three sets of information into a sort of triangular shape of reality (like a map on a page). Finally, we humans, if we're lucky, eventually gain the ability to think about things in all four dimensions of reality (space and time), so we can create a fully three dimensional map of things in our minds, made up of four different individual experiences (in the past, present, or future) at a time. That's that special ability that allows us to design complex technology."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism"
],
[],
[
"http://apuffofabsurdity.blogspot.com/2013/05/animal-testing-whats-wrong-with.html?m=1"
],
[],
[
"http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/2007/dunbar2007a.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTtDbyQTQV0"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxKrskPyBuI"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two",
"http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2807%2902088-X"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
24ajsx | how does accents work? shouldn't you be able to reproduce the sounds you hear? | i am fluent in three languages without any "foreign" accent.
i only started learning english when i was 12 and i speak with a neutral accent.
how is it, let's say, so hard for someone to speak another language without a foreign accent if they can clearly hear what the words are supposed to sound like?
i've also been told by my friends from different places that when i try to say some of their words (korean, french, italian) i sound fluent and don't have any accents. so why do so many others have this problem? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24ajsx/eli5_how_does_accents_work_shouldnt_you_be_able/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch576xt",
"ch57etv",
"ch57gji"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"some people can sing , others are tone deaf. same applies to languages.",
"This is a recognized linguistic phenomenon. It's called \"code switching\" and you probably learned to do it at a young age. Over time, the brain loses its ability to distinguish subtle differences between phonemes (letter sounds), but in childhood, the flexibility of the human mind allows people to pick up different languages or accents more easily. African-Americans often become particularly good at this as they realize they must disguise the speech patterns of their ethnic group in order to succeed in a larger world.\n\nYou probably learned a broader range of phonemes than most people who only grow up hearing one language. Did you grow up in a multilingual home? ",
"You probably have a natural aptitude for this kind of thing, which most people don't. I'm British, but I speak German -- which I also only started learning at 12 -- with only a trace of an accent. However, when I started learning Russian at the age of 19, my teachers couldn't help laughing because I was speaking Russian with a German accent.\n\nThe truth is that getting an accent perfectly right isn't a simple matter of listening to sounds and repeating them. It's a very, very complicated process that's involved in generating speech. You have to very precisely control several things with absolute and split-second accuracy: your breathing, your vocal cords, your jaw, your tongue, your lips and so on. Tongue twisters are fun precisely because it is nearly impossible to get all those things co-ordinated properly: just the right string of consonants and vowels can cause real problems for most people. It takes a baby some months of practice to get the basic sounds right.\n\nYour ability to learn a new language normally diminishes after puberty, although that's not the case for everyone. It usually is, though. Learning a new sound requires learning a whole new set of \"settings\" for the various parts of speech production; once you get past a certain age, and this can be very early for most people, all the \"settings\" for the sounds in the native tongue are well established and practiced, and all the unneeded \"settings\" are forgotten about. And over time, it normally becomes increasingly difficult to learn new \"settings\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7rl2w2 | as you grow from an infant to a teenager how do new teeth form in your gums? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7rl2w2/eli5_as_you_grow_from_an_infant_to_a_teenager_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsxp7t6"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Those teeth also develop during the embryonic stage. They erupt at a later date. This is why child skulls can be rather [spooky](_URL_0_) looking. Well, that and it's a child's skull. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://i.pinimg.com/736x/51/ae/aa/51aeaaa315309ad6f87a592eb99811b0.jpg"
]
] |
||
70hlr5 | what effect do north korea's missiles have on marine life? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70hlr5/eli5_what_effect_do_north_koreas_missiles_have_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn3942x",
"dn39rti",
"dn3e6zc"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
4
],
"text": [
"Pretty darn small as long as they aren't exploding. Assuming their fuel was actually burned out completely, the missiles will be a good substrate for crustaceans.",
"Not much. \n\nThe ocean is very large, missiles, not so much. Oceans typically only suffer from pollution as the result of long-term human activity. Missile sized hazardous materials are quickly diluted to save levels.",
" > I am curious about what damage all these missiles going into the ocean is doing.\n\nTo make an analogy it is like flicking spit balls into the woods and wondering if the deer will possibly be able to cope."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2elquk | how come scientists haven't created a device that notices a heart attack and sends a distress signal to the authorties? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2elquk/eli5_how_come_scientists_havent_created_a_device/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck0owld",
"ck0oxui"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They have. It's a little bulky and uncomfortable so you wouldn't wear one if you're healthy.",
"They do have these features in most new heart monitors / pace makers. \nA friend of mines' father has a pretty cool one in his pacemaker that also e-mails his cardiologist daily updates."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
jhu5y | can someone explain to me what the spectrum is and how we are using it (4g wireless and stuff)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jhu5y/can_someone_explain_to_me_what_the_spectrum_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2c8efy",
"c2c8efy"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Spectrum is “the range of electromagnetic radiation from the highest frequency to the lowest. It encompasses everything from X-rays and gamma rays to visible light and radio waves”\n\nit is measured in hertz which is the SI unit of frequency defined as the number of cycles per second of a periodic phenomenon.\n\nA radio wave of 3 hertz abbreviated 3Hz would repeat its wave 3 times every second. \n\nAll items on the spectrum travel at the speed of light.\n\nThe physics of spectrum play a part in the type of services that can be offered. For example the lower the frequency, generally the farther the signal will travel and the better it can penetrate obstacles. A good thing when we are talking about most wireless devices, particularly those that are mobile. Cell phones, radios, broadcasting, and wireless communications operate in a relatively low radio frequency. Lower frequencies also mean cheaper network build-outs and infrastructure. Thus, most of the commercial activity takes place from 30 MHz to 3 GHz. \nFor reference \n10^6 Hz = 1,000,000 hertz = MHz pronounced megahertz\n10^9 Hz = 1,000,000,000 hertz = GHz \tgigahertz\n\nWho owns the Spectrum?\n\nTechnically, the U.S. airwaves (bands) are a publicly owned resource. Like our national parks however, they are regulated by government namely the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC oversees and grants licenses for companies and or entities to use specific bands/chunks in specific geographic areas. They also regulated in how it may be used.\n\nIn years past, the government distributed licenses through a lottery system. But obviously with the rise of cellular/digital services and ever increasing demands the spectrum and more specifically bands became more valuable. Thus many of those recipients started selling their licenses for millions.\n\nEventually the government caught on and in 1993, Congress authorized the FCC to sell parts of the radio spectrum. As the communications industry grew, so did the demand for spectrum. Remember, that only a small portion of the spectrum is viable for use, particularly from a commercial perspective. The demand for spectrum far exceeds availability. \n\nto see what a specific frequency band is used for and who owns the rights check out this site\n_URL_0_",
"Spectrum is “the range of electromagnetic radiation from the highest frequency to the lowest. It encompasses everything from X-rays and gamma rays to visible light and radio waves”\n\nit is measured in hertz which is the SI unit of frequency defined as the number of cycles per second of a periodic phenomenon.\n\nA radio wave of 3 hertz abbreviated 3Hz would repeat its wave 3 times every second. \n\nAll items on the spectrum travel at the speed of light.\n\nThe physics of spectrum play a part in the type of services that can be offered. For example the lower the frequency, generally the farther the signal will travel and the better it can penetrate obstacles. A good thing when we are talking about most wireless devices, particularly those that are mobile. Cell phones, radios, broadcasting, and wireless communications operate in a relatively low radio frequency. Lower frequencies also mean cheaper network build-outs and infrastructure. Thus, most of the commercial activity takes place from 30 MHz to 3 GHz. \nFor reference \n10^6 Hz = 1,000,000 hertz = MHz pronounced megahertz\n10^9 Hz = 1,000,000,000 hertz = GHz \tgigahertz\n\nWho owns the Spectrum?\n\nTechnically, the U.S. airwaves (bands) are a publicly owned resource. Like our national parks however, they are regulated by government namely the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC oversees and grants licenses for companies and or entities to use specific bands/chunks in specific geographic areas. They also regulated in how it may be used.\n\nIn years past, the government distributed licenses through a lottery system. But obviously with the rise of cellular/digital services and ever increasing demands the spectrum and more specifically bands became more valuable. Thus many of those recipients started selling their licenses for millions.\n\nEventually the government caught on and in 1993, Congress authorized the FCC to sell parts of the radio spectrum. As the communications industry grew, so did the demand for spectrum. Remember, that only a small portion of the spectrum is viable for use, particularly from a commercial perspective. The demand for spectrum far exceeds availability. \n\nto see what a specific frequency band is used for and who owns the rights check out this site\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://reboot.fcc.gov/reform/systems/spectrum-dashboard"
],
[
"http://reboot.fcc.gov/reform/systems/spectrum-dashboard"
]
] |
||
1kqqgh | why is the scotus chosen by the senate and president and not the american people? | Aren't most matters brought before the court about issues that arise when the senate and pres can't agree on something? Why wouldn't the American people elect these positions since they are making final judgement calls on important issues pertaining to everyday life? BONUS QUESTION: Why are these positions life-long when others have 2 or 4 year term limits? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kqqgh/why_is_the_scotus_chosen_by_the_senate_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbrn338",
"cbrnz8c"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the justices of the Supreme Court are the highest justices in the land. Once they decide something, it's *decided,* and that decision can only be modified or reversed by the justices themselves. That means their jobs have very high stakes. We insulate them from the political process by making them appointed rather than elected (their appointments, of course, are made and confirmed by elected representatives) and by appointing them for life. That means they don't have to *care* what the people want and don't want. They're free to make decisions based on the law and on fundamental principles, even if those decisions are unpopular.",
" > Aren't most matters brought before the court about issues that arise when the senate and pres can't agree on something? \n\nNot that I know of. Most of the matters before the Supreme Court arise because a law - written and ratified by the Congress and President - is challenged as unconstitutional.\n\n > Why wouldn't the American people elect these positions since they are making final judgement calls on important issues pertaining to everyday life? \n\nBecause they're making final judgment calls on important issues pertaining to everyday life. Specifically, issues of a constitutional dimension, which is to say issues involving the most immutable set of rights that exist in our nation. Their allegiance is to the law - not the people.\n\nSCOTUS is a countermajoritarian authority. Its purpose is to uphold the rule of law, *not* the will of the people - that's what Congress is for. Consequently, it wouldn't make sense to have them elected. The people would just elect judges to serve their own political desires, as they do their representatives. It would be like a stadium of fans electing referees for a football game. It defeats the purpose of having a neutral, objective authority decide disputes.\n\n > Why are these positions life-long when others have 2 or 4 year term limits?\n\nThe rule of law needs to be predictable and consistent. If you have a high turnover rate in the judiciary, you'll have numerous, disparate opinions among your justices, and risk having unpredictable, inconsistent rulings.\n\nFurthermore, if a justice is up for reappointment/relection regularly, that might distort his/her decisions. If she wants to keep her job, it's in her best interest to make rulings favorable to a certain political party or constituency ahead of an election cycle. Which again defeats the purpose. Lifetime appointments pretty much remove self-interest from the decision making process.\n\nI know several states elect various members of the judiciary - even supreme court justices in some cases. It's an inferior method, in my opinion, for the reasons stated above. Source: I practice law in such a state."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
63tl9x | the senate "nuclear option" today. what this mean? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63tl9x/eli5the_senate_nuclear_option_today_what_this_mean/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfwurgr",
"dfwv2i7",
"dfwyh6f",
"dfx0xbj",
"dfxevt0"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
5,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"It is a rules change that allows a simple majority to end debate regarding the confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees.\n\nThe Status Quo is that any motion put before the US senate is subject to indefinite debate until a \"cloture\" vote is passed that ends debate and allows the motion (in this case: the motion is confirm the appointment of Gorsuch to the SCotUS) to come up for a formal yay/nay vote. \n\nThe threshhold for a cloture vote has been 60 votes, rather than a simple majority. Because Cloture *must* be passed prior to the formal yay/nay vote, it effectively allowed the minority party (democrats in this case) to block any given motion as long as they have at least 41 votes against cloture.\n\nThe new rules would allow a Cloture vote to pass with only simple majority, effectively gutting the minority party's ability to block the motion.",
"Current System: The Senate is made up of 100 members. They debate about the judge nominated for the Supreme Court until 60 of them agree that it's time to vote. \n\nNuclear Option: If invoked, only 51 senators need to agree it's time to vote in order to force debate to end and voting to begin.\n\nImmediate Relevance: Democrats don't want a vote on the current Supreme Court nominee because it looks like he will probably be approved if a vote occurs. Under the current system, they can prevent the vote from occurring. ",
"In addition to what's been said, because the Democrats employed the nuclear option previously to confirm Obama's cabinet nominations, this is kinda the last filibuster left in place. They took the chance because they were absolutely positive a Democrat would win in 2016. They didn't, though, and now the Democrats find themselves in a position (of their own making) to lose the legislative filibuster 4 months into Trump's term. ",
"You're 8 years old at a kids party with 99 other 8 yro children and a decision has to be made about what kinds of games, boy games or girl games, everyone must play. While parties usually have a near even mix of boys and girls, some parties have more boys than girls, while others have more girls than boys. This sometimes leads to cases where 51 boys force 49 girls to play \"War\" and others where 51 girls force 49 boys to play \"Tea Party\". So your community has a party rule that 60 children at the party must agree on the game, which causes more mutually acceptable games like \"Tag\" to be picked a lot more often.\n\nWhichever group has the majority of members has the ability to change the party rules. Changing this particular rule that functionally requires at least some of the opposite group to agree on the game choice is called the \"nuclear option\" because, like a nuclear bomb you cannot beat it. Whenever there are 51 boys at the party the game is going to be \"War\" and whenever there are 51 girls the game will be \"Tea Party\". This means no more \"Tag\", or \"Red Rover\", or other compromise games.\n\n/u/Sand_Trout has an excellent reply using a more formal terminology [here in the thread](_URL_0_)",
"Generally speaking you need a simple majority to confirm a Supreme Court nominee or to pass legislation Congress, including the Senate. However, there are procedural moves that can be used to bring about debate and prevent a vote. These are generally called filibusters. Because Republicans and Democrats can't get along it's common for \"controversial\" decisions and legislation to go through this filibuster process which basically prevents a vote. You can only end the filibuster in the Senate through a process called cloture which basically means you need 60 senators to agree to end the filibuster/debate so you can move on to a vote.\n\nWhen Harry Reid was running the Senate for the Democrats the Republicans filibustered a lot to prevent their proposed legislation from going through. This is largely because our political system has become so toxic that the party in charge doesn't really work with the other party anymore. They just ram through their own policy proposals which goes against the opposing party's views and the views of their constituents so they can't support the legislation/processes of the majority party.\n\nHarry Reid had enough of Republicans forcing them to constantly get 60 votes to move forward with Senate matters so he got a simple majority to change the rules of the Senate to make it so that basically anything could be voted on with a simple majority, except Supreme Court nominations meaning they'd only need 51 votes and since they had 51+ Democrat senators they could do whatever they wanted. They purposely left off Supreme Court nominations because this move was highly controversial at the time and to be quite honest, Democrats didn't need to. Republicans *at that point* were actually more reasonable. For example, one of Obama's nominees was Justice Sotomayor. The Senate confirmed her despite her history of saying things like she hoped that being a latina female made her a better judge than a white male. The Republicans didn't filibuster her and she only needed 51 votes to be confirmed. She was easily confirmed with 68 votes and some Republicans actually voted for her.\n\nIn the final year of Obama's presidency we had a vacancy on the Supreme Court and Obama nominated Garland for the position. By this point Obamacare Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) had passed and due to that the Democrats lost their majorities and their power in Congress to the Republicans. So Republicans said they would not hold any further judicial nominees during an election year and they would allow the outcome of the election to determine any judicial appointments. This isn't necessarily uncommon, in fact when Obama's vice president Joe Biden ran the Senate he withheld hearings and votes on judicial nominees far more often and for far longer than Republicans did with Garland during an election year citing the same reasons as Republicans.\n\nThis miffed Democrats a bit, but they didn't care too much because they were all extremely confident that Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidency and when she did she'd either push for Garland or put someone more liberal or an activist on the Supreme Court and then they could rub it in the faces of the Republicans for being obstinate. \n\nBut then the unthinkable happened for Democrats. Donald Trump won the election. Garland's nomination was basically rescinded and Trump would get to nominate a \"conservative\" judge to the Supreme Court. Now Democrats were furious. They feel as though the Republicans \"stole\" the nomination from them because the vacancy occurred when a Democrat was president and now a Republican is going to get to fill the role. They have been demanding Garland be confirmed by the Senate and say they will filibuster any Trump nominee. Republicans don't have 60 seats in the Senate which means they can't bring cloture end the filibuster. So today, Republicans took what Reid did the final step and made it so that the rules he put in place also extend to Supreme Court nominees. This means that Democrats can no longer filibuster Trump's choice for the court and Republicans shouldn't have a problem confirming him with a simple majority of 51 votes.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63tl9x/eli5the_senate_nuclear_option_today_what_this_mean/dfwurgr/"
],
[]
] |
||
477k9d | what is the problem with marijuana? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/477k9d/eli5_what_is_the_problem_with_marijuana/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0ars9m",
"d0arwkd",
"d0ask0o",
"d0asvtm",
"d0asyu3",
"d0avhht",
"d0avody",
"d0avxy5",
"d0axkrr"
],
"score": [
6,
10,
50,
17,
2,
4,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"My knowledge of this is a bit dated, but the initial criminalization of drugs was part of racist efforts across the country. Opium was criminalized to attack the Chinese. Marijuana to attack blacks and Mexicans. Racists created the false narrative a kin to the lotus eaters. Industries that saw hemp as a threat to their own backed some of these initiatives. The population at large was lied to heavily by the government, press, and so on so long they believed these lies. The fuss is based on lies the public has swallowed. As those lies and myths are debunked in this modern era we are seeing laws changing.\n\nTLDR: racism.",
"really only old people are against pot. Everyone else either smokes or doesn't care much either way. the problem is that old people VOTE. In Florida we had a vote to legalize medical Marijuana we ended up with 57% yes but it still didn't pass because we needed a 60% majority....sigh...please vote..",
"in 1930, Harry J. Anslinger was named as the first director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He was in charge of the war on opiates and cocaine. He realized that he would have more power and a better career if he had more drugs to \"fight\". He popularized the idea that marijuana was dangerous and led to crazed behavior and crime sprees. The press, public and Congress bought what he was selling and marijuana was made illegal at the federal level in the absence of any scientific research or findings - it was later discovered that most if not all of Anslinger's \"reefer madness\" stories were fictional or grossly distorted.\n",
"I think there's more than one. \n\nNylon and paper industry didn't want competition from hemp, which is now outdated because we've found ways to produce these things cheaper than we ever would with hemp.\n\nThe pharmaceutical industry worries about a potentially free to produce drug that can alleviate headaches, nausea, aches and pains. There are hundreds of different drugs that are sold for these things. Then you also have the occasional scientific study that says marijuana can help with more serious things like cancer and PTSD. There's a lot of money to be made from cancer treatment.\n\nThe alcohol/tobacco industry doesn't want to see a cheap drug replace the ones they are peddling.\n\nPolice departments and police unions- marijuana accounts for a LOT of crime. That's more police jobs, more funding (both federal and from civil forfeiture). If marijuana were legalized many police might be out of a job.\n\nPrivate prisons- like I said, marijuana accounts for a lot of crime. Prisons get money from the state for each prisoner, not to mention free labor from the inmates. They lobby to make sure that there are lots of laws, and that the state is tough on drug dealers and traffickers.\n\nPoliticians like to have high levels of incarceration when they're in office because many Americans think they are \"tough on crime\" and \"getting the bad guys\"\n\nSo pretty much everybody that matters in the US doesn't want to see legalization. Which is why I think the legalization efforts in many states are so interesting because you can see democracy in America at work. It's a triumph of the people over corporate power.",
"Because marijuana is used by hippies and hippies are Communists and Communists are Nazis. That means marijuana is Nazis. Jeeze, how hard is that to understand?",
"Nothing. It's just cultural bias based on ignorance.\n\nAs a society, if you're banning drugs, you need to ban all of them on principle. I could accept that. But devilizing marijuana and other drugs while selling cheap alcohol is so hypocritical, I can just laugh.\n\nAtm, I stand that all drugs should be legalized or at least decriminalized. If we accept alcohol and trust in each other to consume it moderately, then we should do it for everything else...because, lets face it, alcohol is the most dangerous drug out there.",
"All of these answers that focus on U.S. companies and industries seem to overlook the fact that marijuana is widely illegal the world over, too. American influence is strong, but not THAT strong. Purely American-focused answers can't possibly be correct.\n\nSo let's consider a more basic answer: generally speaking, substances that alter your consciousness and behavior for solely recreational purposes--i.e., \"get you high\"---are illegal. Society has historically disapproved of such substances and has used a variety of excuses, some valid, some not, to ban them. Among those excuses is the idea that people with altered consciousnesses can be dangerous to themselves or others. It's uncertain to me whether this \"utilitarian\" excuse is at the root of criminalization or whether it's whether it's more of a \"moral\" thing.\n\n\"What about alcohol?\" is the common retort. Fair enough. But alcohol has a much longer, deep-in-the-race history than marijuana. And even then, alcohol is highly regulated in most countries, outright illegal in some, and has gone through periods of heavy disapproval even in places where it has been legal-- again either because of the \"moral\" issue or the \"dangerous\" issue.\n\n\"But marijuana isn't solely recreational--it's also medical!\" Again, fair point, but medical drugs are also highly regulated and generally speaking we don't legalize them for recreational purposes. For years, people argued and still argue that there are plenty of substitutes for marijuana in medicine, so it's had a harder time gaining traction than, say, opium in medical usage.\n\nTL;DR: Marijuana makes you high, and historically societies have disapproved of that either because they find it immoral or dangerous.",
"In my opinion, you can become dependent on marijuana. When you get high and do things, you just want to do things high simply because its pleasurable. Also, if you're experiencing failure or negative emotions, marijuana provides an escape from all of it. Smoking marijuana doesn't really solve the problem, its still there.\n\nSource: I'm a pothead.",
"Stan: I've been told a lot of things about pot, but I've come to find out a lot of those things aren't true! So I don't know what to believe!\n\nRandy: Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but, well son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored, and it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3unspb | why is notre dame not in a conference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3unspb/eli5_why_is_notre_dame_not_in_a_conference/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxgbrsy",
"cxgc347",
"cxgejmz"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Money - they are a 'national team' with a tremendous tradition - they cut their own deals and don't need to share with others - ",
"Supposedly it's because they have a contract with NBC for television rights on their games. Every analyst who has commented on this has stated that they could include wording with any conference to allow whatever current deal they have to be completed. Basically they feel they are above needing a conference affiliation but in the long run this will hurt them. Your average football fan believes they should be penalized and not allowed into any form of playoffs system until they are competing at the same level with the same expectations as every other team in the nation.\n",
"Most of there sports are in national conferences. The main exemption is football. Most schools football programs join a conference for financial gain, but notre dame is a completely different animal. Most conferences have a deal where they share all of the money that the teams make every year with each other, but Notre Dame makes so much more money than any other team, so if they did join one they would lose millions of dollars each year splitting there revenue with ten other teams."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
30jsau | if distracted driving is being cracked down upon more and more then how are car companies allowed to add big, distracting touch screen systems? | And further more, what's up with all these accident prevention warning systems and proximity censors? It's like they're implying that it's ok to be a shitty driver because now you don't have to pay attention as much. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30jsau/eli5_if_distracted_driving_is_being_cracked_down/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpt34o2",
"cpt3x7a",
"cpt4ssz"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Those are built-in, hands-free devices. Sure, they're just as distracting but they're hands-free!",
"I think the difference between the touchscreens in cars and what people are doing to get in accidents is the amount of attention required. Those touchscreens are primarily used for gps (which has voice directions) and pandora, which requires at most a few swipes if you're switching songs, if you're good enough about it you wouldn't even need to take your eyes off the road. \n\nThe problem with distracted driving is that it's not only taking your eyes off the road, but your hands, and to some extent, your mind. Taking your hand off the wheel to reply to a text, even if the response is short means you're focusing on that reply instead of what's going on, in turn slowing down your reaction time to put your hands back on the wheel and swerve/do whatever you need to avoid an accident. Think of the touchscreens as knobs on the radio or the AC. If you can fiddle while still keeping your attention, you're fine.\n\nAs for the accident prevention, I think you're looking at it from the wrong mindset. It's not that it's saying that we're inherently just gonna screw up, so we might as well get told in advance, it's that as it is there are still some gaps in which we won't be able to detect when there's danger. Humans have blindspots, censors do not, therefore if there's a method to detect danger that we might have missed, it's an improvement, not an enabler.",
"What I don't understand is how it is perfectly legal for me to be holding a folded up piece of paper with Google Maps directions printed out on it, but illegal for me to be holding my phone with the same directions displayed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
a5m2ka | how does paper chromatography work? | In my science book it explains how to separate dyes in a sample of ink using chromatography but it doesn’t explain why it works. I ended up losing marks in my last exam because of this lack of detail. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a5m2ka/elif_how_does_paper_chromatography_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebnk3qq",
"ebnke10"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Paper chromatography work by selection size. Lighter dyes that are soluble get carried further up the paper by the solvent. So the heavier dyes stay near the origin point and the lighter ones go further. ",
"Because the different dyes have different affinity's for both the water (that would carry the dye with it) and the paper (that does not move the dye).\n\nThis makes it so that the dyes that like to be on the paper more than in the water (higher affinity for paper) will move slower across the paper. While dyes that like to be in the water more (higher affinity for water) move faster across the paper.\n\nThe difference in this so called migration speed causes the different dyes to separate."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
c1jx1v | how are leds brighter and more powerful, yet use so little energy? | Ex: Police Lightbars, they're so bright but use so little of the cars battery. Much less than the classic rotating lights. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1jx1v/eli5_how_are_leds_brighter_and_more_powerful_yet/ | {
"a_id": [
"erdplsc",
"erdpv38",
"erdswy5"
],
"score": [
5,
26,
2
],
"text": [
"Old style lights work by heating up a something so it glows, giving off light. But glowing things will always give off most of their light as infra red, or, if you make it really, really hot, ultra-violet. Visible light makes up a small part of the spectrum of lights, so you can't make these type of lights efficient.\n\nEfficient lights, like fluorescent, sodium or mercury vapour, metal halide, high intensity discharge or LED, use methods other than just 'something really hot', to create only light that is in the visible spectrum. When you look at it this way, even these light sources are not really that efficient - turning less than 50% of the energy they use into light. But this handily beats 'hot thing' lights which are 5 to 10% efficient.",
"You know a lot of light is invisible, right? Infrared, for example. You can't see it, but you can feel it on your skin with your eyes closed when you're standing near something really hot.\n\nTake two lightbulbs that consume exactly the same amount of electric energy, but one produces only visible light, and the other products half visible light and half invisible. The second one will look much dimmer.\n\nThe old-timey incandescent filament lightbulbs, the ones that burn your fingers to the touch, they produce mostly infrareds! To the tune of 90%!\n\nThat's why so much progress has been done. Because there was so much room for progress.\n\nLED lights produce mostly visible light. Do this is it. There won't be much progress anymore. We're there. We can focus on other things now. Cool, hey?",
"Incandescent lights work by black body radiation. Essentially, they get a piece of metal hot. Some heat gets radiated as energy. The hotter (and more energetic) the object, the more energy it radiates, and the more of that energy gets radiated at higher frequencies. So if you pump enough electrons into a piece of metal, it'll get hot enough to glow in the visible light spectrum. But you're wasting a bunch of energy by radiating in the infrared spectrum as well.\n\nLEDs emit light in a much more straightforward manner. Basically, when electrons need to lose energy, they jettison it in the form of a photon. LED materials have \"electron holes\" of a certain \"depth\" so that electrons that \"fall down\" the hole emit energy in the desired wavelength. You're basically directly converting electricity into the wavelength of light you want, instead of heating up metal to get light as a side effect.\n\nLight gets emitted by electrons when they drop energy levels, emitting a packet of energy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8kt2tr | what happens to a splinter/glass shard/metal fiber/etc that's been in your foot so long that it stops hurting eventually? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8kt2tr/eli5_what_happens_to_a_splinterglass_shardmetal/ | {
"a_id": [
"dza9u9z"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"When a foreign entity enters your body in this manner, the body will attempt to \"wall\" it off. As a side note, wood splinters tend to have oil on them which may intefere with this process and has an increased chance of infection. You should always remove wooden splinters when you can. Had a splinter in my hand for almost 5 months before I noticed it there (estimate of when it was possible to have gotten it), and I was lucky that it did not get infected.\n\nBiological entities may be slowly broken down, although it will still take a long time. If the entity is encased enough that it does not agitate it's surroundings, it should not cause pain."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1x1f23 | what is the difference between hardees and carl's jr? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1x1f23/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_hardees_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf79g5t",
"cf7a50t",
"cf7a9mo",
"cf7j43x",
"cf7lru5",
"cf7lzhg"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is no difference. It's the same company, just different names.",
"Carl's Jr operates out West. Hardee's operates in the East.\n\nA lot of time local/regional companies will merge but keep multiple store names. People grow up with a particular brand & they have a certain attachment to & trust in it. The business can combine the behind-the-scenese bits like distribution and menu planning, while letting everyone keep eating the cheeseburgers they grew up with.\n\nFor an extreme example, look at the list of [grocery stores operated by Kroger](_URL_0_). It's one giant company running all the stores pretty much the same but people like to think of their food as coming from a local store with roots in the community.\n\nBakeries are often the same way - a giant company will buy out the operations of a local company & keep using their name.",
"Carl's Jr. is supposedly based on a western tradition of hamburgers while Hardees is based on a southern tradition. Hardees also totally sucks. ",
"[Hardees](_URL_0_) and [Carl's Jr](_URL_1_) has the same ingredients but different menu items. \n\nYou want The Western Bacon Six Dollar Burger at Hardees? Tough shit, they don't have it. But what you can do is order a side of onion rings and a side of BBQ sauce and make your own out of a cheese burger. Tastes the exact same.\n\nSouce: I travel back and forth from the west coast to mid west and have tried both.\n\nedit: AFAIK, Hardees has very limited offerings.",
"I asked myself the same question when I moved from Florida to California. Just like what is Breakstone's in Florida (East) is called Knudsen's (West). Also, Edy's ice cream is called Dreyer's in California. Same packaging and everything.",
"Hardees is Carl's Jr.'s dad"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kroger#Chains"
],
[],
[
"http://lawaonline.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/hardees/img_0760.jpg",
"https://c758759.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/large/50615.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
8al9wl | what is a covariance matrix | OK, it is a matrix.
BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8al9wl/eli5what_is_a_covariance_matrix/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwzuo9f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The curves of equal probability density for a 2D Gaussian distribution are ellipses, as shown in your images. The diagonal elements of the covariance matrix give the widths of the ellipse (related to the major and minor axes), and the off-diagonal elements give the correlations between the variables."
]
} | [] | [
"https://imgur.com/a/9Enkg"
] | [
[]
] |
|
1sfzl9 | the debate over shakespeare's existence. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sfzl9/eli5_the_debate_over_shakespeares_existence/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdx82t4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's hard for people to imagine that someone could be so prolific in writing a huge number of stories in western canon without being so utterly brilliant as to be noticed in all sorts of fields (everyone can imagine a Newton or Bacon type intellect writing them but not someone who entirely escaped notice in other fields it's much easier to imagine a group writing them). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6qni3u | when flying on a plane the pressure can cause the volume of my music/headphones to be reduced. if i turn it up to a "normal" volume, am i causing higher than normal damage to my ears or is the pressure actually blocking sound and reducing the impact to my eardrums? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qni3u/eli5_when_flying_on_a_plane_the_pressure_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkylr1h",
"dkz4qz3",
"dkz5kwr",
"dkzb7n2",
"dkzh1p0"
],
"score": [
251,
43,
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Passenger aircraft are usually pressurized to about 8000' equivalent altitude. Three things can be happening here. The first is that the slightly reduced pressure causes your eardrums to flex outward, and if you have a blocked eustachian tube or otherwise do not fully equalize your middle ear space, the increased tension on the eardrum will reduce its sensitivity. Secondly, sound attenuates with distance to a greater extent when the air pressure is lower. This is probably not an issue with headphones, but could be if you were trying to speak to someone at the far end of the cabin. Finally, the noise floor on a plane is significant, with engine, wind and cabin noises all contributing. As the apparent loudness of your program material is the difference between the signal level and the noise floor, it will seem less loud than if you were listening in a quiet room.\n",
"Probably ear damage. As previously mentioned, if your eardrums are pushed out due to the pressure, then hypothetically no. But you probably equalized the pressure without thinking about it, and your \"normal\" volume is relative to a quiet room, so there is a good chance you're just going louder. For me, I either use Etymotic MC5's or Shure 215's which both have amazing noise isolation so I don't have to crank up the volume. But if you use Apple earbuds that don't make a seal, normal volume relative to the plane is just extra loud.",
"When air pressure is reduced, sounds lose their intensity more quickly as they travel through air (this is due to the air molecules being further apart). The amount the volume is reduced by this effect depends on the distance between the source and your ear, as well as the pressure.\n\nIn your case of an airline passenger wearing headphones, the pressure difference is not extreme and the distance between your headphones and your ear drums is very small. The effect of the pressure difference is barely, if at all, noticeable. \n\nThe reason your music seems quieter is that the plane's engines are very loud. Turning up your music to be heard over the plane's engines is in fact likely to cause hearing damage, especially if you listen at that volume for extended periods of time.",
"Good question, I was wondering the same during my last flight. However I own a pair of Bose qc35 with noise cancelling, would the waves to cancel noise damage my ears as much as louder music?",
"As everybody is saying, there's a lot of reasons, and pressure is definitely huge- but it's more the pressure in your ear making your eardrums flex less. IDK if this is at all useful for me, but they make special earplugs you can wear during ascent that allows the air pressure inside your ear to change much more slowly, making it a lot easier to pop your ears. I've found it eliminates that pressure issue and I can listen to my earbuds at a more normal volume since the pressure isn't straining my eardrums. They're called earplanes or something- if you struggle with popping your ears, they've been a lifesaver for me."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a8j56y | “gulag archipelago” question. what was the reason they imprisoned a huge amount of people in russia 1920s-1950s? | I’m halfway through Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn and have a pretty good understanding of everything so far except the reason so people were imprisoned. Alexandr wrote the blue caps were even given “quotas” of imprisonments they needed to reach. It was chaos and they were even grabbing randoms.
What was the reason for the desire to imprison the huge amount of people?
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a8j56y/eli5_gulag_archipelago_question_what_was_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecb8llc",
"ecblbi2"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The gulags were slave labor camps that actually produced things of value that were sold into the economy much like Hitlers concentration camps\n\nThe Soviet system was corrupt and quotas of people were required to maintain production of material out of these camps whether it was timber or a mined material.\n\nMost camps were in Siberia and other inhospitable areas where it was difficult to get voluntary labor.\n\nThe money produced from the camps went into many others pockets apart from the State",
"The Gulag system started in its earliest days as \"merely\" a prison system for perceived enemies of the USSR and \"true\" criminals. The \"enemies\" was even from the beginning very wide-ranging category, but especially after the extremely brutal Russian Civil War, questions of loyalty, especially class loyalty (e.g., do you identify more as a Soviet citizen or do you identify more as, say, a member of a religion, a member of a profession, a member of a national or ethnic group, and so on?) became paramount. But it was not as arbitrary as it would become by the 1930s.\n\nAs it expanded however two things occurred:\n\n1. Stalin began demanding the purges expand under a quota system. If the \"organs\" weren't working hard enough, maybe they themselves were suspicious? This became a self-driving system under Stalin: every quota you met meant the quota was raised. This was a problem in general in the USSR's quota system — there was no end to it. If you failed your quota, you were a failure/saboteur. If you just met your quota, you were showing that you had inadequate zeal. If you beat your quota, you were showing the quota was set too low in the first place, and so you could expand the quota even more next time. The consequences of this kind of system, where failure could mean imprisonment itself, meant that in every sector there was rampant fraud, including the NKVD's arrest system. (If the Soviet economy did not have large oil reserves to fall back on, this totally counterproductive approach would have failed early on. As it was, it faltered at the first attempt at realistic reform, in the 1980s.)\n\n2. They started to realize that the economic labor they could extract from prisoners was quite high. So instead of just having them stand around (as in a \"concentration camp\") waiting to live or die, they started using them to dig canals, cut lumber, expand railways, mine minerals, and so on. The idea of using Gulag labor for economic purposes was known from the beginning (they could be a \"free\" labor pool for tasks that would otherwise be cost prohibitive or difficult), but the true extent of that expanded over time. The White Sea Canal was the first of the true Gulag megaprojects (1931-1933); Solzhenitsyn describes it well in Book III.\n\nThe combinations of these two factors meant that the criteria for being put into the Gulag dropped to practically nothing (you just needed someone to say your name to the wrong person, and they may be forced to just name many names anyway under torture or threat of death; sometimes it was literally random, e.g., \"go grab someone from this apartment block\"), and that the Soviet state itself became heavily invested in the endless expansion of the Gulag. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
ywjgm | why is the consumption of alcohol so widespread(historically and geographically)? | The consumption of alcohol basically damages your body. Why have people throughout history and all around the world in different cultures etc always ended up consuming alcohol?
It seems like other drugs aren't as widespread and/or readily accepted into communities and cultures throughout the world/history | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ywjgm/eli5_why_is_the_consumption_of_alcohol_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5zfsco",
"c5zfxvh",
"c5zfz23",
"c5zj1k6",
"c5zk5yl",
"c5zkwpa",
"c5zljkg",
"c5zoid9",
"c5zp6r8",
"c5zq4yi",
"c5zv8ik"
],
"score": [
70,
22,
12,
5,
15,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A few reasons. You see, alcohol is fairly easy to make, so it can be invented in many different areas all over the world, unlike complicated designs or techniques which did not leave their area of origin in the ancient world. In the ancient world there were very few effective water purification systems like we have today. Because of this water would sometimes have lots of bad stuff in it that would make the person who drinks it get very sick and sometimes die. So before people could drink the water, they needed to kill the bad stuff in the water, and the easiest way they knew how to do that was by mixing it with alcohol, thus making alcohol a very popular drink despite not being very healthy. So while alcohol did cause lots of problems such as liver disease and others, it was much safer compared to the dirty water.\nThe reason drugs aren't as widespress is because unlike alcohol, drugs require specific environments in order to grow them, thus limiting their availability in the ancient world.",
"In recent years, medical and microbiological understanding has allowed humans to live relatively disease free. Historically, humans would die of diseases. These were often waterborne diseases, like diphtheria and cholera. \n\nBrewing alcoholic beverages allowed drinking water to be safely stored and helped limit the possibility of getting sick. It allowed humans to travel long distances by ship or dry land. It also meant larger populations could be sustained in a dense area and towns could develop. \n\nEvery man, woman and child would drink ale, stout, wines etc. The damage caused by a lifetime of drinking would not be so significant since life expectancy was much lower. Compared to loosing 5 liters a day of fluid from cholera, and quickly dying, the effects of excessive drinking are quite acceptable. \n\nBBC Horizon did a great documentary on how brewing led to the advance of or species, but I can't remember the name at all.",
"You might find this \"documentary\" called [\"How Beer Saved the World\"](_URL_0_) pretty interesting. Take the whole saved the world part with a grain of salt, but it's got some interesting and fun history in there.",
"There's been evidence of beer and wine drinking dating back thousands and thousands of years, if I remember right alcoholic drinks predate any other drink (besides water). It's something that just stuck with culture/civilization as it expanded. It's also super easy to make, it's just yeast (which not only exists in the wild, but can also be saved from previous batches), sugar and water. How you get the sugar into the mixture determines what kind of alcohol it is, but you can use anything from barley, oats, rice, grapes, corn, wheat, potatoes.. basically any mass produced crop. \n\nIn addition to the water purification that others mentioned, it's also a great source of calories. This causes beer bellies now that we sit in chairs all day burning < 2000 calories a day, but if you were a peasant working in the field for 16 hours a day burning 3000+ calories when food was scarce, beer gave you a lot of extra calories so you didnt pass out from starvation. Belgian monks still use beer as a source of calories during fasts (which is why Belgian monasteries brew such great beer).\n\n\nDrugs aren't widespread because so many of them require a lot of chemistry to produce, either by adding complex chemicals or a lot of complicated procedures/equipment. Plants have been used for a long time, especially for religious rituals, but that's only local to where those plants are from. ",
"* Beer was a lot weaker, when it was first invented. So people could drink it throughout the day and not get hammered.\n* In its \"natural\" state (without filtration and pasteurization), beer was a lot more nutritious than it is today - it would have contained live yeast culture, as well as more of the original grain left in it. So the term \"empty calories\" didn't apply the way it does for modern alcoholic drinks.\n* Beer keeps longer than stored grain, allowing grain surpluses to be saved for the future longer than simply siloing the grain.\n* It makes you feel good.\n",
"Thank god I'm not in AskScience, because I'm about to go on an evolutionary biology speculation tangent:\n\nMaybe it's popularity is self-reenforced because it encourages fucking, which creates babies predisposed to the enjoyable effects of alcohol.",
"[this book has a great beer history section, and recipes](_URL_0_)",
"In early civilizations alcohol was used to purify water-hence \"watering down the wine\".\n\nIt has the added benefit that people like to get together and get wasted. Alcohol is more legal than anything else so that's what people do. Many people enjoy being trashed on something or another. \n\nIt's easy to tax and easy to produce. ",
"Since its already been answered, I'll and something else to this discussion. There's a novel called \"The history of the world in six glasses\". It explains the impact of various drinks on society, and alcohol is one. It's a good read. ",
"Well you can ferment just about anything, and face it life's tough and people wanna get falling down drunk now and again.\n\nAs for \"damaging your body\" keep in mind that while anxiety over our own mortality is a fairly universal idea through out the world, the concept of being able to radically increase lifespan through conscious effort is actually a fairly new obsession which sprung up mostly along with medicine becoming scientific perhaps only a scant two hundred years or so ago. Up until then most everyone could agree that life is short and brutal, and anything that really takes the edge off might be a welcome reprieve. That alcohol was detrimental to health in more than just a temporary sense was either ignored, or not even known, so it was, and frankly continues to be for many, a marginal concern at best.\n\nThat said, it does sound as if you may need to chill out and have a drink, man. I know you're only five years old, but you sound wound real tight. Everything is fine in moderation. . . well not everything, but most things, alcohol included.",
"Alcohol production is not equal across cultures. There is nothing like the diversity of beers, wine and spirits of Europe.\n\nThere are possible genetic reasons behind this. European have effective copies of the ALDH2 gene, which aids in creating an enzyme that processes alcohol. Asians, and by extension aborigines are generally not extremely effective at processing alcohol. Thus the well-documented alcoholism issues and Asian \"flushing\" after imbibing. Wiki:\n\n An estimated one out of three people in East Asian countries have an alcohol flush reaction, colloquially known as \"Asian Glow\", a condition where the body cannot break down ingested alcohol completely because it lacks the genetically coded enzyme that performs this function in the bodies of drinkers with \"European\" tolerance levels. Flushing, or blushing, is associated with the erythema (reddening caused by dilation of capillaries) of the face, neck, and shoulder, after consumption of alcohol. \n\nBiological reasons may very well account for the European discrepancy in the variety of alcohol consumption and culture."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://vimeo.com/23278902"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Herbal-Healing-Beers-Fermentation/dp/0937381667/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&qid=1346098737&sr=8-23&keywords=beer+history"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
37fu3o | why is the public release of my emails 'illegal' but hillary clinton's publicly supported? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37fu3o/eli5_why_is_the_public_release_of_my_emails/ | {
"a_id": [
"crmblv1",
"crmbt8y",
"crmbu2k",
"crmc3gq"
],
"score": [
7,
7,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"I think Hillary Clinton's position as Secretary of State creates an overarching duty of candor, if not a full duty to disclose these emails (freedom of information act perhaps on the full disclosure). This is especially so considering that she is now running for POTUS. Your emails differ in that you as a private citizen have an expectation of privacy in those emails, whereas Hillary Clinton arguably does not have much of one in hers.",
"Public figure in a position of public service, therefore any emails relating to said public service belong to the public.",
"The difference is that, by law due to her position as SecState, all e-mail has to go through government servers for archiving. This is actually fairly important for a multitude of reasons not the least of which is transparency and the protection of classified information.\n\nYOU, as a private citizen, have a right to keep your e-mails private. Hillary Clinton was not a private citizen -- she was a public servant; therefore, her emails for the period of her service are a matter of public record as is the law.\n\nShe knowingly circumvented and broke the law.",
"So back when Clinton was in office, all top level government employees get a secure email account. Something uncrackable, hosted locally. So there is a government data center(s) which securely houses classified email, rather than rely on a service like Gmail and whose infrastructure could be prone to hacking. Well Bill Clinton was president back in the day, so he had his own secure network for email set up at his house. \n\nNow a few years ago. Hilary was probably busy with running her department (or consp theories argue trying to hide something), and decided that the \"new\" email system was going to be too hard to migrate too, and she would just use her personal email (secured at her house on servers) for non classified talks, and her government one for classified. \n\n\nSo Benghazi happens and rumors come out they knew it was an attack earlier than stated, etc. \n\nWell the Freedom of Information Act says that we as citizens have a right to see government documents after X amount of time from being declassified. \n\nSo there's this huge scandal that could be solved with a simple check of her email. Did she or did she not receive/send emails knowing about these threats. \n\nAs per freedom of information act, it should be simple. Just download the emails from her government email account. But remember. She used her personal home network email. And all the Benghazi emails were lost in a data corruption. \n\nSo now here me and you are, the average citizen. If Hilary were to abide by typical standards and practices of her high ranking job and use the government email account, we would all know how this happened. Except now there are dead ambassadors, and the only place that has am answer to \"why\" is stored on Hilary's computer. \n\n\nSince you are a private citizen, your rights are protected against this by the 4th amendment. \n\nTl-dr/WrapUp: We have a right via the patriot act to see government documents. Clinton used her personal email for official duties of her office, and now something bad went down and we don't have the answers legally we deserve. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
11gavq | why did cell phone companies develop so many different kinds of chargers? even within the same brand. was it really that financially beneficial? | so frustrating. I've had 5 samsung phones and every one has a different plug | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11gavq/eli5_why_did_cell_phone_companies_develop_so_many/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6m8i5k",
"c6m93pt"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"It's generally because they didn't care about making them the same. Typically, if you don't have a requirement like using the same plug, they start by choosing a chipset, then design the rest of the board for compatibility with that chipset as first priority, availability of parts second, and cost of parts third. Using the same connector is something they don't care about at all and the bosses don't care about. They care about getting it to market quickly so they can be the first phone with the new xyz feature that someone will pay a premium for, even if the overall design of the phone sucks. ",
"Its starting to get better. Android has been a driver for this, and the EU has passed laws related to this too.\n\nGoogle's compatibility standards for Android (that manufacturers have to follow if they want to use Google's app store) say that android phones \"SHOULD use the micro USB form factor on the device side\" and \"MUST be connectable to a USB host with a standard USB-A port\"\n\nSo pretty much every android phone I can think of off the top of my head use the exact same cable for charging.\n\nAdditionally from January 2011 the EU passed a policy that requires that all mobile phones to adopt the standard Micro USB charging connector."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
swvlv | cpu, gpu, ram, and swap | What are the differences between them, both in role and function? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/swvlv/eli5_cpu_gpu_ram_and_swap/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4hnmd0",
"c4hrrc6"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"**CPU** - Central processing unit. Your Intels and AMDs. It is the brain of your computer or device. It processes the instructions that it gets and it sends signals to everything else in the computer. \n\n**GPU** - Graphics processing unit. Your Nvidias and AMDs. They are processors whose only job is to draw the graphics that you need. When you play a game, you *could* get the CPU to do everything but that would severely overload it and you would get quite annoyed. You can thus benefit from having a processor dedicated solely to this purpose, and that is a GPU. Similarly, there are sound cards, physics cards, etc.\n\n**RAM** - Your 4GB and 8GB and similar sizes. When you run an application on a computer, the operating system is running it from the RAM. The operating system is managing the program as well as the memory required by the program in the RAM. RAM is the computer's memory. It is faster to work with than a hard disk. It is only temporary. When you turn the computer off, whatever was in RAM will go away. It is called 'volatile memory'. The RAM does not calculate or process anything. It just sits there and waits for stuff to be put in. Note that some GPUs have their own 'RAM' which the GPU uses for its calculations and number crunching. \n\n**Swap** - If you are using a lot of heavy applications that fill up your RAM, your operating system starts using the hard disk to temporarily store some of the data. Suppose you have App1 and App2 open and they are very heavy - they use up all 4GB of your RAM. Now you open App3. The operating system has nowhere to put App3, but you want App3. So it puts App1 in a temporary location on your hard disk, clears that bit of RAM and puts App3 there. You then go back to App1. The operating system now needs to put App1 back from disk into memory and *swap out* something else. That space used for the swapping is called swap space. Swap is a term I generally hear with Linux/Unix operating systems. In Windows, you would call it a pagefile. ",
"**ELI5:** Sometimes people need to do very complicated math problems that take a long time to even do on paper. So, if this was your problem, what would you do? Well, to replace the person we need something to do the thinking, and to replace the paper we need a place to put the question. We found a way to solve complicated math problems by storing them in a place (RAM, Swap) and using a thinking machine (CPU, GPU) to solve them using electricity.\n\n**ELI15:** A few decades ago, the Integrated Circuit was developed, which took a bunch of components and shrunk them down into a chip with a very specific set of functions that was meant to be mass-produceable and space-saving. These ICs were/are a combination of resistors and transistors that could do any number of things, but the relevant ones were called \"logic gates\"; that is, they perform a very specific role in combining values of \"true\" and \"false\", or in electric signals, \"1\" (5V) and \"0\" (0V). \n\nLong story short, we also found out that with the proper application of NAND gates, we could solve virtually any problem we needed to logically (NAND gates can act as any other kind of gate, they're *universal*). CPUs and GPUs are certain configurations of NAND gates built to solve very specific problems, GPUs are specifically geared towards the types of problems that appear when calculating lots (and lots and lots) of vector transformations.\n\nWe need, though, a way to store the information that they need to act on. We could read stuff directly from the HDD (Hard Disk Drive), but that would take a while. RAM is a much faster form of memory storage that has essentially a direct, wide, rapid data pipeline to the CPU. The Swap file (normally implemented on Linux systems, it's called Paging for Windows) is used for things that would normally be stored in the RAM, but haven't been accessed in a while, and are being pushed out by newer, more active data. Access to the Swap file/partition is noticeably slower than access to RAM, but it gets the job done.\n\nSource: Computer Engineering student."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7scy1a | why is listerine not corrosive for the teeth but the chemicals in coke is? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7scy1a/eli5_why_is_listerine_not_corrosive_for_the_teeth/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt3sysi"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Listerine contains no acids. Mainly ethanol, which may feel like it \n\"burns\" but isn't doing any damage to your teeth. \n\n It's the highly acidic content of coke (and orange juice) that's harmful to teeth, along with high sugar content that promotes bacterial growth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3x3j3m | how does youtube decide which video needs an user to sign-in? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x3j3m/eli5_how_does_youtube_decide_which_video_needs_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy15lkz"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"If it has explicit content. If the uploader checks the \"Contains 18+ material\" box (not the exact phrasing) when uploading or when YouTube gets user submitted complaints/reports, then YouTube applies the age restriction."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
dvasxz | how do we develop tolerance to things (e.g. pain medication, caffeine)? is there anyway to prevent this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dvasxz/eli5_how_do_we_develop_tolerance_to_things_eg/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7bl74w",
"f7blsl6"
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text": [
"Our bodies try to keep our internal body chemistry within a pretty narrow window for things to work optimally. Not too much of this or too little of that...etc. If something gets outside that range, it takes steps to bring it back. Drugs change this balance, so the body tries to restore balance.\n\nDrugs work by binding to receptors in the brain, which causes some chemical changes to happen that throws off that balance your body prefers. Your brain goes \"oh, there's too much stuff happening at these receptors, so I'm going to turn some of them off, or make them less sensitive\". Basically, it's ignoring some of the input. The result is that you need more to get the same output (the desired effect).\n\nIt's sort of like if your neighbors are throwing a loud party while you're trying to sleep, you might put in ear plugs so you don't hear them. In order for you to hear it again with the earplugs in, your neighbors would have to be even louder than they were before. Now you put on noise-cancelling headphones. In order to counter that, your neighbors would have to yell into a bullhorn aimed directly at you, and it just keeps going like that.\n\nThe only way to prevent a tolerance is to limit how much of the tolerance-forming substance you consume, or to not use it all of the time.",
"Imagine you're outside on a cloudy day. All of a sudden, the sun comes out from behind the clouds and is shining bright in your eyes. You immediately are like \"Woah!! Too much!\" As a response, you pull on your sunglasses to block the overstimulating rays from the sun.\n\nYour brain does basically the same thing. Your brain really does not like change from its baseline and tries to maintain a \"normal\" as best as it can. When you take certain drugs that act in the brain, the brain changes to minimize unwanted effects (unwanted as determined by the brain). When you take caffeine, opioids, cocaine, etc., it causes an increase in the \"happy\" messengers in the brain (dopamine, serotonin, etc). However, the brain doesn't like this change and says \"woah! Too much!\" and changes itself to reduce the effect. Let's say that you take heroin and it causes an increase in dopamine, over time your brain reduces the number of dopamine receptors so that it doesn't get over-stimulated by the excessive dopamine. It's a process called homeostasis."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
e67yoq | when you roll your “r”s while looking at a digital clock why do the digits vibrate? | If you look at a digital clock or any other display like that and roll your Rs or vibrates your lips, the digits seem to vibrate violently as well while nothing else in your vision moves. Why does that happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e67yoq/eli5_when_you_roll_your_rs_while_looking_at_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9odw40"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Your brain does a bunch of correcting of your eye's sensory input, and 2 in particular that come into play and kind of conflict here.\n\nFirst is that when your head or eyes are vibrating your brain compensates to steady the picture a little bit.\n\nSecond is that an LCD clock doesn't display all of the lit segments at the same time, but rather it cycles between powering the ones that should be lit really quickly (this has to do with maintaining brightness out of a limited number of circuits); normally, like the refresh rate on a TV or monitor, this happens too quickly for you to detect, so you typically just see a uniformly lit LCD display.\n\nWhen you combine the two effects, you see them light up when the clock is in a slightly different part of your brain and it can't quite keep up, and it corrects wrong (because LCD clocks aren't common in nature)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
a9l9mi | how do heat pumps find heat in the air on a cold day? what kind of thermodymagick is this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9l9mi/eli5_how_do_heat_pumps_find_heat_in_the_air_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecke3tt",
"eckgpef",
"eckh0or"
],
"score": [
4,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"There’s no such thing as “cold” just less warm. Temperature is a measure of energy. There is still plenty of energy in this above absolute zero. \n\nCan you give more context about what you mean though, like an example?",
"If you compress air, all of the energy that was in the air still exists. Now that air takes up less space, but has the same energy, so it is warmer. Now you blow different air across a radiator filled with that compressed hot air. The air that is blowing across it picks up that heat. \n\nEventually, you blow enough air across it and the compressed air is now the same temperature as the air blowing across it. When you decompress that air, it goes back to its normal size, but without as much energy (which you took out of it by blowing other non-compressed air across its container). That newly decompressed air is super cold, so you blow it back outside, and grab new air to compress (and thereby get more hot compressed air) and blow other air over.\n\nYou have literally pulled energy out of the outside air and transferred it to the air blowing into your house.\n\nUnless the original air was at absolute 0 (-273.15° Celsius) it has energy in it, and if you compress it enough, that energy is enough to be warm. Obviously, it probably becomes very inefficient below certain temps.",
"Heat pumps are refrigerators and air conditioners just that we're capturing the hot side not the cold\n\nYou take a refrigerant like Freon, and squish it into a liquid. This brings it well above room temperature. You then pass some air over it to take some energy (heat) out of it to move to the room. Then you pump it outside and let it expand which causes it to get really cold, far colder than normal outside temperatures so it absorbs some energy. Then you compress it back into a hot liquid and the cycle repeats.\n\nThe energy is captured in the phase change and the compression/expansion which is what let's us move energy in seemingly the wrong direction\n\nThe efficiency of a heat pump drops as the temperature difference increases so below a certain outside temperature you won't be able to collect enough outside energy to heat your house and have to rely on the auxiliary heat which is often electric baseboards or gas heating"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5k13y1 | is "tolerance" psychological, or is there a physical basis for it (alcohol,pain,etc)? | Two people (of the same weight) consume the same amount of alcohol. One remains competent while the other can barely stand. Is the first person producing something in their body which allows them to take in more alcohol before acting drunk, or is their mind somehow trained to deal with it? Same thing with pain. What exactly is "tolerance"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5k13y1/eli5_is_tolerance_psychological_or_is_there_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbkk8ma",
"dbklqaf",
"dbkoax1",
"dbkptoh",
"dbkrklc",
"dbkryvf",
"dbks070",
"dbktna6",
"dbkvuha",
"dbkxkmd",
"dbkxsh9",
"dbkz1l0",
"dbl02s8",
"dbl14dn",
"dbl1dgh",
"dbl1xvc",
"dbl4cpr",
"dbl5qsu",
"dbl65l0",
"dblcytd",
"dblgbw2"
],
"score": [
11952,
39,
359,
25,
66,
2,
314,
11,
14,
2,
9,
2,
9,
23,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a physical thing.\n\nThere's this idea in biology called \"homeostasis\". Basically, your body has an idea of chemical balance, and it adjusts to stay balanced. Like: it's hot out, so you sweat, so you cool down, then you stop sweating. Or you eat candy, which raises your blood sugar. Your body will release insulin, which will lower your blood sugar. As it gets back to normal, insulin release tapers off.\n\nThis applies to everything. If you drink alcohol once, it'll make you drunk. If you drink it every day, your body will start adjusting to compensate for it, and you'll have a harder and harder time getting drunk. Soon alcohol just brings you up to normal. If you then stop drinking, your body will now be off-balance in the other direction, and you'll go into withdrawal until homeostasis can be restored.\n\nPain? Similar deal. Your brain tries to maintain homeostasis. Acute, agonized misery is only sustainable for so long. If the pain itself can't be dulled down, your emotional reaction to it can be. The emergency shutoff switch is when this doesn't work, and *all* your emotions are cranked down as far as they can go. That includes distress, pleasure, and fear: basically, it causes apathetic depression. This is why you can't just expect people to \"get used\" to severe pain. \n\nWhen I say this applies to everything, I mean it. Sex, gambling, sugar, background noise, *everything* is filtered through your perceptions in this way. Why aren't rich people all happy? Because that level of prosperity is their new normal. What's up with Stockholm syndrome? Victims become desensitized to abuse, and their expectations for \"kindness\" are steadily reduced. Why aren't teenagers overwhelmed by the pace of the internet? Because it's normal for them. Why don't better football helmets reduce the number of concussions? Because people just do dumber things in order to maintain the same sense of acceptable risk.\n\nThis one principle explains quite a bit about why people act the way they do.\n\nEdit: Minor correction, plus some comma wrangling.",
"It is both.\n\nAs with most poisons (alcohol is a poison) your body can build up a tolerance to alcohol. This is done by being able to metabolize it more efficiently. It is similar to being able to digest foods you eat a lot vs getting an upset stomach because you ate something new.\n\nAt the same time an experienced drinker knows how their body reacts to being drunk and can compensate for it in most circumstances. \n\nThey can walk like they are sober and talk like they are sober because all that requires I knowing you aren't actually on a slope and knowing to enunciate, but they can't drive (no matter what someone says) and they won't have fine motor control as if they aren't drunk. Those require greater perception rather than corrective perception.",
"Physical\n\n\"The liver does this by producing larger amounts of the enzymes which break down alcohol. Because the liver has become more efficient at breaking down alcohol, drinkers need to drink more alcohol in order to get the same effect. This is the role that the liver plays in the development of alcohol tolerance.\"\n\n_URL_1_\n\nWhat the liver does in more detail:\n\n\"Alcohol is metabolized by several processes or pathways. The most common of these pathways involves two enzymes—alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) and aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH). These enzymes help break apart the alcohol molecule, making it possible to eliminate it from the body. First, ADH metabolizes alcohol to acetaldehyde. Then, in a second step, acetaldehyde is further metabolized down to another, less active byproduct called acetate, which then is broken down into water and carbon dioxide for easy elimination \"\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"The brain also has a role in the development of alcohol tolerance. When the neurotransmitter systems in the brain are regularly exposed to large amounts of alcohol they begin to adapt to the presence of alcohol. The alcohol works to suppress the functioning of the neurotransmitter systems. For example alcohol affects the GABA system causing sleepiness and a reduction in anxiety and alertness. With long term exposure to alcohol the GABA system adapts so that the alcohol causes less relaxation, sleepiness, and dulling of alertness. Because of this adaption to the presence of alcohol by the brain heavy drinkers begin to require more alcohol to get the same effect.\"\n\n_URL_1_\n\nTLdr: The liver eliminates alcohol more effeciently. The brain adjusts so that alcohol doesn't affect it as much.",
"It's both because those two things are connected very closely. \n\nGenetics is always going to place the foundation with what you can work with. But epigenetics is what is going to make it what it actually is. Psychologically you can be triggered or with high levels of training activated to resist pain better.\n\nThere is the concept of the 40% that marines talk about in training. It's basically the point where the body says STOP YOUR DESTROYING ME!!! It is possible to overcome but intensely difficult and very few ever will. \n\nSo tolerance is your existence's (mental, emotional, and physiological) combinations to resist a certain stimuli. Some things like alcohol resistance is more based on physical/physiological factors while pain for example is much more psychologically based. For example there have been times where I've worked in really extreme conditions (hot/cold) where initially I was very preoccupied but said conditions. After sometime I psychologically entered a flow state and completely disregarded these stimuli because they were not productive to accomplishing my flow state's goal. ",
"It's both, I think there are enough answers here on the physical side. On the Psychological side, if you think you are getting drunk then you will display symptoms of becoming drunk. This can also mean that if you're drinking alcohol, you may feel the symptoms \"early\", so to speak. You're mind expects the effect, so it produces the effect itself. \n \nHere's an [article](_URL_0_) on how your mind can trick you into thinking you're becoming drunk (there's many more articles on this too). Essentially, it's just a placebo effect (if you're not using real alcohol). If you take this concept of psychological \"drunkenness\" and combine it with the physical component described in the other answers, you get the case of two people being the same body weight and same alcohol being on completely different levels of inebriation.",
"Well, pain is based on both. You can had just less tactile feeling or response to pain, males have a higher threshold to pain than females for instance (Yes, that includes pregnancy which releases endorphins etc to numbs the pain of childbirth mildly).\n\nMentally, oh boy. In the first place, pain and pleasure are exhibited in the same area's of your brain, but mentally a person can begin to substitute pain for pleasure if it is the stimuli they receive on a regular basis. This can condition a person to have a positive response to pain. The repeated exposure to pain can also just simply numb the mind to the stimuli of pain.\n\nAnother thing can be mental conditioning to basically... \"The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts.\" The human mind is an amazing thing, you can literally condition yourself to the point where despite being in great pain, you can block it out. Males are often conditioned from birth to \"Suck it up\" and such, which begins the macho method men respond to pain. Other conditioning is the military which is an example of both male and female conditioning to being more tolerant to pain and stress, martial monkhood, Buddhist monks, general martial arts both physically damages nerve endings and conditions you to better handle and deal with pain, and other situations.\n\nThen there is nerve damage which causes pain in a sense, repeated tingling or numbing pains etc like that, but actually causes a lack of tactile feeling etc at nerve ends that have either been damaged or severed.\n\nNow Alcohol, again... Mixture, BUT it is more based on your bodies response to you basically poisoning the shit out of your liver. You don't so much of build a \"tolerance\" per say like... Some people here are saying... You literally are killing your bodies ability to try and save your liver and brain from the damage you are doing when you over-drink. When you are drinking in the same place over and over again you condition yourself mentally so that your brain basically goes \"Okay, its time to get prepped\" and it will put you in a state of expectancy to become drunk. This is also why narcotic users will overdose on the exact same dose in an unfamiliar location, there's a mental bit to it.\n\nBody and mind.",
"I got caught smoking pot in the dorms and had to attend a session led by a psychologist at my university, and he actually talked a little about this. Most people here are hitting the head on the physical aspect but one thing I didn't see is a certain, interesting (to me) psychological aspect. Let's say you drink if and only if you're in your room, and you need 12 beers to get drunk. Well, two things happen - when you enter your room your body primes you for alcohol consumption, since your brain is associating your room to drinking. Secondly, let's say one night you mix things things up and decide to drink at a friend's house. Well your brain doesn't associate your friend's house with drinking, so you don't have that priming, and those 12 beers will actually get you more drunk than if you were in your room. He also brought up the fact that most heroin overdoses occur in a new area from where the junkie usually shoots up. I don't have his sources for this stuff, I'm just writing what I remember from the lecture. ",
"Unless we are referring to Cartesian philosophy, there is no \"physical\" versus \"psychological\" (i.e. mind-body dualism). Everything psychological is based in neurobiology and follows the laws of physics.\"Tolerance\" is both the effects of plasticity (changes in brain network connectivity) and varying sensitivities/availability of neurotransmitters. \n",
"It's psychological and physical. I know more about the psychological side of this, so that's what I'll focus on. There are certain variables that affect your tolerance such as amount, setting, time since last usage and method of use.\n\nLet's take heroin for example. Many overdoses from this drug aren't caused because that person took more than normal. When those people overdose, they either are in a brand new setting (different location or with different people) or haven't used the drug in a while so their tolerance has lowered. \n\nUsing psychedelics really helps you understand this effect. If you trip in a familiar setting with people you trust, then you are more likely to have a good trip. However, if you trip in an unfamiliar setting with people you don't trust or know well, then you'll likely have a bad trip. \n\nAlso the method of consumption makes a huge difference. If you smoke crack compared to snorting it then your body with become more addicted and tolerant accordingly. Smoking a substance allows the chemicals to reach your brain much faster than snorting so your body has less time to prepare itself for the influence of the substance.\n\nTLDR: Your body is greatly affected by the setting of your substance usage. If you are in a familiar environment with people you know, consuming the substance like you normally do, then you will show higher tolerance. If you do it in an unfamiliar setting with new people in a novel way, then you'll have a lower tolerance ",
"How does this work with temperature? When I was younger I walked home from school every day. I grew up in upstate N.Y., so it could get quite cold in the winters, like -30f with wind chill. I would usually just wear jeans and t shirt when it was 20-40. It wasn't really a big deal and I didn't feel very cold between 20-40f unless it was terribly windy. Meanwhile everyone else would be freezing their ass off even with multiple layers and a winter coat.\n\nNow I've lived in Thailand for a couple years and I'm back in Korea. It's about 25-35 degrees Fahrenheit and I can still go outside and I'm generally still able to tolerate it in a t shirt without feeling really cold, while everyone else is freezing, even people who live here. My hands and stuff do actually get cold, but most of my body doesn't.\n\nAm I an Android? Or can someone explain this? P.S. I'm not fat. I only weigh like 60kgs/130~ pounds.",
"You've gotten a lot of good answers, but I will add some texture to the explanations by saying that psychological experiences shape biology (as do actual biological ones). This is especially so in childhood when stress or eustress affect brain development and prime people for weaker or stronger distress tolerance.\n\nIf you are exposed to a lot of stress during formative years, your brain will be flooded with cortisol (a stress hormone) and it will change the number and type of receptors to adapt. This change is, as far as we know, relatively permanent. The same sort of thing happens when you take certain drugs (e.g., cocaine) and overwhelm dopamine receptors. \n\nKids who experience this sort of brain change in response to excess cortisol are literally overwhelmed by stress and have lifelong weak distress tolerance. They often turn to substances or other types of vice (gambling, sex, etc.) in order to moderate their reactions because they don't have the same internal chemistry that other people who didn't experience their life situation did. Obviously, what you are born with biologically also factors into this, but bad stress (as opposed to \"good stress\" or eustress) is going to increase the chances that you will have tolerance issues for emotional tasks in the future. This is why people can't just \"get over\" a bad upbringing when they are adults. Their capacity to adapt is much poorer - their body is akin to a house built on a very shaky foundation. You can't replace the foundation, though you can learn to embrace healthier tools to moderate your distress, but such tools are slow to act on the body relative to substances.\n\nedit: typo",
"It's very odd that none of the top replies mentions the conscious psychological aspects of physical pain tolerance.\n\nIt is very possible for two candidates to have a perceived equal amount of pain, yet one of them can \"tolerate\" the pain for greater lengths.\n\nSubjects that have received amble motivation can also tolerate more pain even if they've had lower tolerance in previous unmotivated tests.\n\nOf course this is all regarding to PAIN, not alcohol. Pain is completely different than alcohol intoxication.",
"I'm late to the party, but I'd like to present the ~~medical~~ pharmacological side of tolerance.\nPut it simply, Tolerance is the need for larger doses of a drug to produce a given response.\n\nThere are a couple types of tolerance really ;there's species tolerance, where some species are tolerant to certain drugs.(Rabbits can handle a lot of atropine); and there's acquired tolerance, which is what most of us mean by \"Tolerance\".\nThere's also genetic factors, gender factors etc.\n\nThe mechanism for tolerance is complex and debatable, but here's what most people seem to agree on:\n\nThere's ***Pharmacokinetic tolerance***, which means there's a reduced concentration of drug at the site of action. (Seen with rifampicin and oral contraceptives)\n\nNext is ***Pharmacodynamic tolerance***, which is due to decreased sensitivity of the receptors for a drug or decreased signals from the said receptors. (Seen with Opioids and Barbiturates)\n\nYet another common thing is ***Cross Tolerance***, which is development of tolerance to some Drug X because it's too similar to Drug Y. (Seen with Opioids and Nitrates)\n\nAnd lastly there's something called ***Tachyphylaxis*** which is definitely not ELI5-material. It's seen with Ephedrine and Tyramines.\n\nI'd actually say that tolerance is neither Physical or Psychological, rather I'd say it's ***Physiological***. \n\nSource: Have finals on Monday.\n\nHope this answers your question, and still is understandable.\n\n",
"I have a chronic pain disorder that most people get when they are older if they get it but I started having symptoms when I was 14 and it kicked in fully by 17-18. I'm able to handle the pain a lot better (as in not showing others that I'm in pain and not letting it run my life ) than most others with the same illness and that is probably because they spent a large portion of their life without pain where as I didn't have much of one before hand. Of course I went through depression periods and I still do but on the whole I basically had to except that life is painful but that doesn't mean I have to be sad too. The pain isn't getting better but I'm able to not let it affect my mood most of the time. I've found things that let me not think too much about the pain and that's the biggest thing that's helped. Its pretty cool that even if you're in a lot of pain if you find something that really interests you and makes you concentrate the pain doesn't seem like its there until I stop doing that thing. For me it was videogames, books, and art those are my best pain killers.",
"Are mind and body separate?",
"Pain and alcohol are very different in this situation. Pain is enterpreted electrical signals between your muscles and brain, alcohol is a neurotoxic poision technically. You can't really ignore drunkenness, but you can sure as hell ignore pain. ",
"It's physical.\n\nCalluses on your hands are a great analogy of tolerances. Calluses are a result of excess use of the skin in those areas. Your skin becomes tolerant to use. Your once soft, sensitive skin dies because of the excess use. This builds up a thick layer of dead skin which protects the soft new skin underneath from the excess use.\n\nThe same basic idea can be applied to your neurons when excess chemicals are applied. You start with many sensitive receptors, but if you flood them with a chemical, they will start to ignore that chemical or even die off. Causing you to not react to that chemical as much.",
"It is physical, but you can train yourself to ignore/transcend fear and pain. To give an example in fiction: Paul Atreides in Frank Herbert's \"Dune\" repeated this to himself while facing the Gom Jabbar trial of the Bene Gesserit. \n\n“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.” ",
"Basically I just didn't give a fuck when I broke my finger in 2 and I put it back on again while it was hanging by skin. I continued playing in the snow for another 5 mins then I got hit by the shock. I was 9 at the time. Thereafter I had to have reconstructive surgery and took 6 months for my hand to recover. I was upset that I couldn't play video games for a long time. \nAnother time I tore the ligaments in my foot. Only reason why I had to get a wheel chair was because my foot kept twisting backwards when I tried to walk. Sure it hurt like hell but was more annoying having to move my foot around after every step. \nHowever... when I get period pains, it's so bad I have to take hardcore pain meds just to get out of bed ;__; ",
"In terms of alcohol, it's called \"metabolic induction.\" Or hepatic enzyme induction.\nEverything that you take into the body must be processed and excreted. There are metabolic pathways, for alcohol the liver, that process alcohol. Cytochrome P450 is something to look up. Some people who drink may mess up the levels of certain medicines because they change how fast something is processed and removed from the body.\nSo if someone drinks alcohol more readily, the tolerance factor that comes into play is that they can excrete alcohol slightly faster than someone who rarely drinks. That's the physical aspect of your question.\nPeople also get accustomed to the effects of alcohol and don't \"feel drunk\" even if their BAC is .08 and seem to speak clearly and could possibly pass a field sobriety test. Where other people could have a couple drinks and have a .04 BAC and start acting goofy.\nSource: advanced anatomy and physiology education, masters degree in health science\n\nIn terms of pain, there are genetic factors others mentioned. Redheads reportedly feel less pain. In my experience practicing medicine in orthopedic pain tolerance is more more mental fortitude and physical/life experience based. Someone's who has \"been through a lot,\" for example a traumatic car accident with multiple fractures, though there are exceptions, those patients typically have a higher pain tolerance and minor things bother them less. Pain is much more subjective. Perhaps someone else can speak more to pain tolerance. I did learn however that \"pain threshold\" is inaccurate as a term and pain tolerance is more accurate.",
"For all those posting about their depression and chronic pain for many years; take a look at the links I've provided below. \n\nWhen you have chronic pain your body is constantly sending those signals to your spinal cords \"dorsal horn\" I believe they called it. And that sends a signal to figure out what's happening and then sends it to the brain to answer the history questions such as, have I felt this before? Is it better or worse? And then signals are sent to your limbic system in which gives your emotional response. If it was a new pain and you just got paid, you may act differently than if you just had a fight with your gf/wife/husband/bf. The first article I posted is how chronic pain causes depression more often times than not. This is because, again, those signals are constantly being sent to your brain causing stress and your body goes into \"fight or flight\" state of mind and without a break from that, you don't really have other emotions to tend to. It's basically as if your brain only cares about getting you out of that painful state in which, it won't without proper medication. As for the depression, depression alone causes aches and pains, lack of enjoyment in previously enjoyable activities such as, being in love, hunting, being with friends, having sex - those activities that we enjoy are all are important in a healthy emotional state. However, with CLINICAL DEPRESSION that coincides with chronic pain, needs to be treated along with the pain management in which you should seek conseling, a pain management doctor, and a psychiatrist or mental health nurse practitioner to manage psych medications. \n\nI hope this helps! Please excuse the grammar errors I just needed to get this out before I had Christmas Eve things to attend! \n\nI have a masters in Applied Behavior Analysis and am a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. \n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa72/aa72.htm",
"http://hams.cc/tolerance/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2002/pr021224.cfm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.verywell.com/how-we-feel-pain-2564638",
"https://www.verywell.com/depression-and-chronic-pain-2564443"
]
] |
|
j3llo | how does the tape adapter that you plug into the headphone jack of an mp3 player work (li5) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j3llo/how_does_the_tape_adapter_that_you_plug_into_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28un72"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The tape head works by having a magnet inside a metal coil. As a magnetic field passes under the head, it makes the magnet move and induces a current in the metal coil.\n\nHow you put a magnetic field doesn't massively matter. It can either be the magnetic field from the tape, or you can just make a coil, which produces a magnetic field when a current is passed through it.\n\nSo the audio signal is passed to a coil, which produces a magnetic field, which pushes the magnet instead the pickup head to produce a matching signal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
30gk51 | how does obama get the money to spend for his campaign / ideas? | Like, who funds these campaigns? Are the Feds involved, or Obama can ask some guy to print the dollars and they will get it done. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30gk51/eli5_how_does_obama_get_the_money_to_spend_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cps8g2x",
"cps8mmt"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Do you mean the election campaigns, or the policies of his office?",
"Campaigns are funded by many sources. Individual donors, companies, Political Action Committees (PACs), really big PACs (Super-PACs), etc. \n\nFederal programs he's funded get their money from Federal taxes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
astgi7 | what are concrete benefits to nose-breathing and are humans designed to mainly nose-breathe instead of mouth-breathing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/astgi7/eli5_what_are_concrete_benefits_to_nosebreathing/ | {
"a_id": [
"egwkb57",
"egwkcbr"
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text": [
"I know of one benefit to nose-breathing: your nose acts a filter, removing small particulates from the air before it's passed down into your lungs.",
"Your nose is effectively an air filter. It has a bunch of hairs in it and mucus which trap and encapsulate particulate matter in the air for removal before it reaches the lungs. Your mouth does not have such a filtering mechanism."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
a2b9qr | can the non dominant hand ever be as dextrous as the dominant hand? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2b9qr/eli5_can_the_non_dominant_hand_ever_be_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"eawp677",
"eaxjlb8"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. The non dominant hand can be, you just have to start at a young age practicing or practice really hard now. \n\nThe brain has a preference towards your dominant hand, making you ignore your non dominant. Since you ignore it, it’ll never get better and only make you use your dominant more.",
"My father is a leftie and remembers back when he was in grade school some teachers would not find it acceptable writing with the \"wrong\" hand so he learned to write with both."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1mhoyf | what makes a person shy? | I have always wondered this.
EDIT: Thanks for all the good answers, I enjoyed reading them all! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mhoyf/eli5_what_makes_a_person_shy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc9ckq2",
"cc9dpor",
"cc9dttn",
"cc9duze",
"cc9dw22",
"cc9dwx2",
"cc9e3bi",
"cc9e4ze",
"cc9e56h",
"cc9ebhg",
"cc9ecbr",
"cc9edi3",
"cc9edqy",
"cc9emip",
"cc9erq6",
"cc9ewbs",
"cc9f2s1",
"cc9fang",
"cc9fash",
"cc9fevo",
"cc9ffcd",
"cc9fj7z",
"cc9fko3",
"cc9ftqs",
"cc9fuls",
"cc9fvxm",
"cc9fwsw",
"cc9g6ho",
"cc9g7j9",
"cc9g8jt",
"cc9geuj",
"cc9gfoj",
"cc9gkuu",
"cc9gqym",
"cc9h4ly",
"cc9h897",
"cc9hebn",
"cc9hffb",
"cc9hlav",
"cc9htcn",
"cc9i8bj",
"cc9i8gn",
"cc9ikwn",
"cc9imes",
"cc9iw5j",
"cc9jv9x",
"cc9khp5",
"cc9l30m",
"cc9ljyg",
"cc9llg2",
"cc9m5ik",
"cc9m5j5",
"cc9meui",
"cc9mhs2",
"cc9mk4s",
"cc9msii",
"cc9n2gm",
"cc9ob21",
"cc9opzb",
"cc9p8u2",
"cc9pjgk",
"cc9pq0v",
"cc9t6nv",
"cc9tzop",
"cc9vmvr",
"cc9w5jq",
"cc9wbrr",
"cc9wtwt",
"cc9xfca",
"cc9zmuc"
],
"score": [
771,
3,
7,
6,
1105,
47,
8,
2,
20,
5,
3,
4,
17,
7,
2,
74,
2,
3,
3,
3,
15,
3,
3,
2,
3,
4,
51,
2,
2,
3,
2,
9,
3,
37,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
458,
3,
2,
4,
3,
12,
10,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"First, there needs to be a clear distinction between \"shyness\" and \"introversion\".\n\nBeing introverted simply means you don't get 'a buzz' from partying/socialising, etc, and so you don't do it often. It has nothing to do with feeling anxious or uncomfortable; you simply don't find it emotionally/mentally rewarding. You tend to spend more time in quiet atmospheres, thinking about things. Ongoing research suggests that it has a [strong biological link](_URL_1_).\n\nShyness, on the other hand, is when those things actually make you feel awkward and nervous, and you struggle to integrate with new people or new environments. While it also has a number of [potential biological links](_URL_0_), it is more commonly assumed to be a result of a 'sheltered' or 'disruptive' or even 'fearful' childhood, where kids are not encouraged to interact with others positively, and don't learn the relevant social cues. [*EDIT: Please don't misinterpret this sentence. I'm not claiming that \"all shy people have bad childhoods\" or anything like that. It's merely one small facet of a rich and complex set of hypotheses*] In extreme cases, shyness turns into an social phobia where people cannot function normally in society. This is just a guess on my part, but I'm assuming that such severe examples are probably caused by harmful experiences, such as physical abuse, emotional trauma, etc.",
"Being confronted with strangers or conversation topics that make one feel uncomfortable and reluctant.",
"An extrovert would quickly overcome shyness because of the want to interact; so shyness and introversion go hand in hand sometimes because an introvert doesn't mind being alone",
"People confuse introverts for simply being shy. That's not always the case. I'm am definitely an introvert, but I am not shy. Anti social? Maybe. Shy , no.",
"I'm shy when I'm around new people, and I even get shy sometimes when I know someone but haven't seen them in a long time. For me, I think it comes down to trust. I don't know if I can trust this person to accept me for who I am, to be kind to me even though I come off as a weirdo. I know that they say it's best to always be yourself and all that, but with people I don't know, I feel safer just keeping myself to myself. Now, if I get to know a person and feel comfortable with that person, the shyness melts away and that lucky person can finally really get to know me. And most people are surprised, and that's fun to see.",
"From personal experience of shyness for majority of my young life, it's usually caused by an incident or two when at the impressionable ages. For instance, as a child just starting school, the child might try to make friends with a crowd and is either (metaphorically) pushed away or is made fun of. This scars the child making them think since that crowd pushed them away so will other crowds. ",
"Shyness = fear. If you live in fear, you are already dead. \n\n\nSource- recovering shy person. ",
"the fear to act stupid",
"I'm definitly an introvert and in highschool I had some pretty severe social anxiety/shyness. In college I worked hard to get over the anxiety and become more open which involved joining a fraternity, making friends, and putting real effort into my relationships. I was very succesful and went from the pledge that barely talked to running philanthropy events and becoming president of my fraternity. My ability to open up and feel comfortable in social situations has not; however, changed my nature as an introvert. Even if I enjoy other people's company and have a great time going out. The entire experience is taxing and saps my energy.\n\n**TL;DR** - I conquered my shyness, but being an introvert is part of who I am.",
"The fact that we act or make decisions by choosing what we prefer -- our inertial state where we continue to do whatever we are doing (like if you are reading a book you continue reading), or do something which challenged this inertial state (make a remark to this stranger who just passed by). An introvert would in most cases choose the inertial state and an extrovert would choose otherwise. I guess an introvert would think in his mind that if I make a chit-chat most likely I would not get an information which would be of use or interest for me, and in that sense it would be optimal for me to continue and put effort in whatever I am doing. An extrovert on the other hand would think that 'the little banter could lead to much more useful outcome than me continuing to do whatever I am doing'. I wonder if the role of the extroverts is diffusion of knowledge and that of introverts processing of knowledge. \n\\\\\n\n**In short is there a correlation between procrastination and being introvert or extrovert ?**\n",
"For me I can always feel when I'm going to be able to cope with a social event. I can be driving in my car towards the event and something inside me says 'tonight you aren't going to be in the mood for this.' Other times I can be in the mood for social events and feel I will enjoy myself. The problem arises when I am forced to go to an event and I'm not in the mood. I never make anyone do anything they don't want to do... I never understand the benefits a person is achieving from making an introvert attend a social event. If an introvert goes to a social event they will probably just be in a bad mood and not enjoy themselves... So why bother making them?\n\nMy aunt tried to get me to come join some adults around a table to chat and drink coffee. She knows I'm quiet and not into that sort of thing. If I do join the social group I won't contribute to idle chit chat so no ones gaining anything in the first place... Yet every time a social event comes up the same process is repeated. Why can't people just let others do what they want and stop taking every thing so personally...",
"I live in Japan where being shy is the norm. The average person hides their true feelings and any social interaction, outside of family members, is stressful for them. \n\nI'm not shy and love meeting new people. Before I came here, I really never met anyone that was as shy as they are. From my point of view, it seems like a cultural thing. \n\nAn example of my childhood, when I was growing up and my parents were talking to a friend that I didn't know and felt a bit scared of, they would tell me to say hello. This person would say hello back and ask me some stuff and I would answer. I think these kind of things helped me get over my shyness of talking to strangers.\n\nIn Japan, when you say hello to someone's kid and they hide behind their Mum/Dad, they would make excuses for them and tell you he/she's shy and the kid wouldn't have to say a thing. \n\nThis could be the difference between being shy and introverted. An introverted person in the same situation wouldn't get used a situation like this but a shy kid could. ",
"As a shy person myself, I believe it comes from the fear of rejection. Like if you be yourself, they will see who you really are and reject you.\n\nI have to get drunk in order to not feel awkward around people I don't really know. And I am even shy/awkward around my family and friends sometimes.\n\nI think for me anyway, it's a mixture of social anxiety and low confidence. It sucks, but you learn to deal with it. ",
"I transitioned from shy to introvert. I used to be terrified of talking to new people. Now, I just don't want to talk to anyone. It is amazing that I can work in a field that requires extensive customer interaction and have no issues until I clock out for the day.",
"Loneliness seems to make you much more sensitive to rejection and ridicule and therefore cause anxiety and more loneliness. Also shy people get less social experience which makes them more likely to behave in an awkward way causing a negative reaction.",
"Fear of rejection.",
"I am a very shy person and while a am a little bit introverted I often find myself longing for social encounters.\nI think my problem comes down to nerves, I never really no what to say, I have no idea how to flirt and I am utterly terrible at breaking the ice. I am more like the Titanic, the ice breaks me.\nThis has meant that I haven't had much luck in meeting girls and I have had even less luck in girls being interested in me. I am also fairly plain looking, not good looking but not unattractive either so people easily forget me.\n\nI do have one method of meeting people that has been successful which is joining in on a group conversation made up of new people and people I already know and then gradually directing things I say towards a specific person. But most of my very few friends are much older than me which doesn't help in meeting girls, or even just making friends my own age. \n\nIronically, I am perfectly comfortable speking in front of people. I can quite happily speak in front of large groups without freaking out. I think it is because I see it as speaking at people rather than to people. I also find when speaking up front that it is more like a performance in which I am acting as whoever is giving said speech/presentation or whatever. But a conversation involves talking to someone and you can't hide behind a character. \n\nAnother problem I have is that a number of my female friends see me as the advice guy, so I get to talk to them when they have a massive problem but I hardly exist when they don't need me. \n\ntl;dr: nervous, nit knowing how to flirt",
"It's being afraid to take risks. It's like how maybe you get nervous before you ask a girl out or something. It's like that for shy people except before they say everything. The stuff that would make less shy people nervous will also make shy people even more nervous than most of the nervousness they already encounter.",
"Lemme give you a rather dispassionate interpretation, as a therapist and former shy person. First of all, shyness is a symptom of being too concerned with your own person. Shy people often feel that all eyes are on them because they are unable to step back from their own ego and look at the big picture. You could jokingly say that inside every shy person lives a tiny egomaniac. Second factor in shyness is low self esteem. This gives shyness it's avoidant characteristic. That awkwardness that shy people experience is the squirm of a frail ego trying to protect itself from imagined threats and in the process doing more damage to itself. Good news is that shyness disappears with constant exposure to nurturing life experiences. Note that I said nurturing, not positive. Sometimes a little adversity does wonders. ",
"The fear of not belonging.",
"I'm a shy person, which people consider strange, as I run a busy pub, and meeting and greeting is one of my most important roles. Over the years, I have developed a persona which enables me, within the context of work, to force myself to chat to customers. I'm a larger than life, confident character. But inside, I die a little each time I walk through those doors. Outside of work, I struggle with most social situations, parties, dates, general small talk. Personally, I would much prefer my own company. I feel this stems from my childhood. I was an intelligent and overweight kid, who was bullied and abused from a young age. I drifted the playground alone, right up until the age of about 11 when I started high school. This coincided with some weight loss, and I saw the opportunity to make people laugh, and they would enjoy my company. I guess it's all just originated from there. ",
"To add on to what everyone else is saying, I know I can be shy alot of times which doesn't make sense to most people when I open up to them, but for me it's about being confident in myself. If I'm not confident in myself or what I'm saying, I tend to speak really soft and or not at all. However, in areas or situations where i'm a bit more confident of what I know and who I'm with, I speak up a bit more, interrupt a bit more, and speak more loudly. I'm saying all of this because when I was young I think I was told I was wrong on a lot of things, so when it comes to saying something I tended to second guess myself, and paralyze myself from opening up. Now that I've learned to be more confident in more areas I speakup a bit more.",
"Negative experiences. Social skills are acquired at an early age. I was adopted and often ridiculed for it as a child and before that I was passed around from several homes and identified several people as my parents before I was adopted. Socialization is not something you learn how to do as an adult.",
"What I find fascinating is how there are so many people in this post who feel comfortable talking *with complete strangers* about how shy or introverted they are. I'm not saying their stories are bogus, but it makes me think that shyness is *situational*.",
"Having been a very nervous child, I wrote this short piece on dealing with shyness and nerves, hope it might help someone _URL_0_",
"**A fear of vulnerability and not being worthy of connection with one or more individuals**. Please watch this [TED video](_URL_0_) if you are curious, it changed my views in ways I still havent really understood. It is such a fundamental difference whether or not you believe yourself to be worthy of connection. ",
"Why has no one mentioned that maybe, some people are just born that way? I'm shy and introverted, but I never had any childhood abuses. I feel kind of annoyed that all of you think there's something wrong with me. Fucks sake, this is why people like me are made fun of. I was just born this way, I had as much control over it as you did, which is none. Goddamnit.\n\n/rant/",
"With this many comments, I'm sure someone touched base on the neurotransmitter process that goes on in a shy person's brain. \n\nI really like The_Helper's reply. Very spot on contrasting. When it comes to the brain, shyness operates on a continuum. It ranges from sheet terror of social interaction to a normal level of shyness that requires exposure (just bitting the bullet and communicating with others)\n\nThe chemical processes in the brain are responsible for the involuntary/voluntary responses a shy person will have in any social situation- be it internal thoughts (this person looks fun, will they find me interesting? ...or....OMG THESE PEOPLE WILL HATE ME) or physical responses (difficulty speaking, sweating...)\n\nThe brain's neuro-network operates much like an advanced computer would, attempting to solve the same equation over and over again. Sometimes the computer would make errors and without correction, it will continuously follow the same patterns (or find shortcuts) that will lead to the same miscalculation or worse (continuously bring shy or becoming anxious). But there is a caveat...\n\nThis pattern the brain follows could have been learned subconsciously from past experiences, or it can be a disorder that must be dealt with. \n\nI fit the confines of the latter. I didn't grow up in a harsh environment. I had friends, but I would always find myself worrying about what I said, or what others will think of me.\n\nI didn't know what to do, so I turned to a professional. I was diagnosed with a minor anxiety disorder that combined obsessive thinking (OCD) with worrying (social/generalized anxiety).\n\nThrough special training I have come to realize that people are shy for the two reasons I listed above. It is a learned predisposition to act Ina certain way given the external stimuli present at a certain time. Or it is completely involuntary.\n\n",
"Although I know this isn't all of it, I think that a reason a lot of children are shy is because their dumbass parents raise them saying \"oh, he's just shy\" or \"oh, she's just a little shy today\" when their kids won't talk. If a child hears this his/her whole life, then naturally one will grow up thinking \"yeah, I guess I am shy.\" I cannot stand it when parents do this. ",
"I'm an introvert. I guess sometimes I'm 'shy'. I just don't like to be the center of any attention. I don't have a fear of rejection, I'm just a listener/observer. If I can figure out what you're about in the first few minutes of you talking to me, I can decide how much I feel comfortable sharing. I like to keep my personal life to myself. Small talk is exhausting. And gossip...I'll literally walk away. I'd much rather grab a drink with a friend or two in a small bar than go out to the club. ",
"I used to be shy. In some respects I still am, but I've gotten over it for most social situations. People don't realize that social skills are *skills* and can be learned or taught. A person is shy because they have no confidence in these skills. The last time they tried to be social, they embarrassed themselves, which they do not forget easily. It's the same as never learning to use a computer because you imagine that if you try to do things on it, you'll break it, so you never learn computer skills.\n\nYou can't learn unless you try it and make some mistakes, and therein lies the problem. Mistakes in the social world are less forgiving. And it's not just a matter of gaining confidence either. I knew a guy who was very shy. We all encouraged him to \"come out of his shell\" so to speak. Eventually he did! And then we couldn't get him to shut the hell up. He always talked over people, interrupted people, said the most inappropriate things, etc. We wanted him to go back to being shy.\n\nI lost my shyness gradually, not all at once.",
"I consider myself shy (all through school and beyond it has been noted that I 'lack confidence').\n\n\nFor me it is extremely simple. I feel like I must make sure my contribution is valid. I spend so much time doing this that on one of the, maybe 30/70 occasions that I deem it to be so; the conversation has moved on. Making what I'm about to say not just lacking in value but completely irrelevant. This means I rarely open my mouth, because I'm spending too much time thinking about what I'm about to say.\n\n\nPeople have commented a lot that I am very witty. Really, this is just because when I do open my mouth you can be sure what I'm about to say is cutting, relevant and thoughtful. Plus I am sarcastic, for a Brit!",
"Shyness really boils down to fear of rejection. (Real or perceived). Shy people may have been sensitive and/or had critical or negative parents. Maybe they perceived negative feedback from others or were afraid to step on people's toes. Shyness correlates with a conscientious, cautious personality type. So while others may have no problem being the life of the party (putting themselves up for rejection) shy people might be more fearful about the consequences. \n\nThere was another description in a sociology class I took that I never cared for but is possibly true: shyness is an intense preoccupation with oneself; an extreme inward focus that makes it difficult to act natural for fear of being judged, usually incorrectly. It's very hard to overcome.",
"Is it my time to shine? I mean if it's not it's ok...",
"Probably different reasons for different people.",
"Pulling down their pants in public.",
"My shyness comes from the feeling that people are more confident and know what they're doing. I never feel like I know what I'm doing and I don't want to have the gall to assume I do.",
"As a longtime shyperson, I mostly agree with the \"trust\" theory, it's sort of a fear of rejection, fear of failure, fear of embarrassment. I've been told \"just forget the fear and put yourself out there\" which I've done before, and going up to it I was fairly optimistic. I was like \"I'm somewhat smart, I can handle witty banter, I'm just gonna jump into a social situation\" the next time I did just that, but then came up with absolutely nothing to say for hours on end. The whole evening was just awkward silences with co-workers and acquaintances. Brutal. I went with a co-worker who is pretty outgoing, and he just jumped in not knowing anyone at all and within an hour had phone numbers and camping plans with half of them, WTF....\nI read somewhere that circumcision at birth can lead to shyness and trust issues, I should set up a poll and graph the results. ",
"There are two things people tend to do in social situations. Self-monitoring, and monitoring of others. Some people do both.\nIn healthy amounts, this monitoring is normal. But shy people like me sometimes do it excessively, to the point that every word and movement is analyzed to see if it's positive or negative, and this seriously impacts my ability to have a natural conversation sometimes.\n\nOnce I know people, I'm normally a lot more open and the monitoring is reduced.",
"I'll give a shot at explaining what shyness was/is for me.\n\nImagine taking a few years of a foreign language and then being put in a group of people all fluent in that language. They are speaking normally and naturally to each other, but so quickly that it is taking all your concentration just to follow along. There's no brain power left over for you to actually participate. If someone asks you a question, you can answer, but it takes you longer because you need to process what they said, come up with your answer, and then figure out how to say it. Oh, and fairly often you get it wrong. So you spend most of the time just listening and watching.\n\nAt the end of the group, you've said very little, but had a good time since you were able to follow along and you actually understood some of the jokes and so-and-so is a really funny guy. Sadly, no one else can tell you had a good time, since you didn't act like it. Then later on when you get time to yourself, you think about what went on and try to absorb it so that you'll have an easier time next go 'round - even so, it will take years.\n\nNow, if you're talking with just one person it's a lot easier because you only have to concentrate on understanding them, while at the same time they should be paying attention to you and tailoring what they say and how they say it to you. This may confuse your second-language friends, since they know you as a talkative person, but you are suddenly very quiet and awkward in a group.\n\nWell, that's the best case scenario. Then you have to add in the anxiety of being put on the spot to participate in something you're not really understanding, at least, not as well as everyone else is. And by the way, you aren't getting the practice everyone else is at being social, instead you get more and more comfortable being quiet and listening, and no more comfortable participating and so the anxiety remains.\n\nI don't know if this is true for other shy people, but I know that I have a low tolerance for anxiety, so I don't/didn't seek out situations that would make me anxious, including big groups or speaking in public. The rewards were minuscule compared to the cost. ",
"Personally: I consider myself to be an shy person that loves being out maybe one on one with someone. I get overwhelmed by huge social events if I'm there alone, but if I am with someone somehow that rush of nervous energy is alleviated. Sometimes when I'm out, I feel \"different\" when I'm alone and around other people having a steady conversation. I would consider myself a shy extrovert in some ways...\n\nTo answer your question more specifically, I would say that that person is CONTENT being more quiet or thrives creatively while keeping to themselves. Shy people may have hesitations or feel they can't relate to people who are more into social. They may lack the \"visual\" confidence that people who are more outgoing exude in conversation...\n\nI think people who have shy characteristics just need to find people they relate to...Once they do this, they will soon see that they are really not as shy as they think they are. Everyone needs someone to talk to. A lot of people who are shy feel as if they are their own best friend, and don't really look outward socially. I am in no way saying that shy people need to get out there and SEARCH for friends, but if you open up just a little bit, those doors will open. I've learned over the years that if I had not initiated conversation in whatever situation I was in, that I would not have the friendships I have if I didn't just say \"hey\". Oh, and that is another thing...Many shy people appear unapproachable. I know that if I don't initiate conversation, smile, or go to an event where people will probably initiate conversation with me, that people will most likely not walk up and talk to me. \n\nThose are just a few of the things I've noticed about myself and other shy folks out there. :)",
"I think it is trying too hard to fit in. I am socially awkward because I'm constantly thinking \"where am I supposed to look? Do I look them in the eye constantly or do I look around every now and then? If so how often do i look around and where do I look? What should I do with my arms? I must look stupid just having them dangled at my sides so I'll cross them. Now I look pissed off but all I can do is put them at my side again.\" It's stuff like this all the time and I can't help it. ",
"As a socially-inhibited person myself, the main reason is anxiety.\nIt's called social-anxiety disorder for a reason, its about the fear of potentially saying something or doing something that would cause someone else to judge you in a bad light.\n\nIf I meet someone I'm constantly freaking out. I have about 20 simultaneous conversations going on in my head, revolving around my hand gestures, my mouth, my face, the words coming out of my mouth, my eyes, my legs, people who are in the same proximity and who might hear what I'm saying, it goes on and on.\n\nAs a result I freeze up. I'm so afraid to do anything that I end up doing nothing, and come off as 'shy'. It's horrendous really, and in general I have anxiety about a lot of things in my life but socially is the worst.\n\nThings that help - Drinking, being around friends, being spontaneous, having a shared activity, anything that is a 'controlled variable' and I can eliminate a few of those simultaneous conversations in my head.",
"Fear of rejection. I think it's usually that simple.",
"Anxiety. Plain and simple. Trust issues, anxiety. Judgment issues, anxiety. It all boils down to anxiety. ",
"If you are someone that doesn't talk, you might often notice interesting things about your environment in brief flashes. Your observations happen in a micro second, and once the information is processed and that micro second is up, it is gone. Then someone ELSE makes a simple comment about it and gets the credit for it. Why did you observe it and discard it in a micro second if it was worthy of credit from the group? Because you have little confidence in your conversational skills to express the observation. As conversational skills improve, you will be able to catch some of these things and act on them, and as you get more confident fewer of them will slip by.\n\n\n\n\nSo why shyness? Fear and a lack of experience.\n\nMy parents never talked to me when I was growing up. If I said \"I like turtles\" my mom would parrot it back and say \"Oh, you like turtles.\" My dad would not even respond. My mom would \"ask\" questions like \"do you want to take a bath?\" and I would say \"no\" and she would look at me like I did something bad and say \"Nooooo... watery_stooool...\" so I would change my answer to \"yes\". By asking me a question about how I think or feel, but only one choice is correct, she was dictating my thinking. She shouldn't have asked a question if my opinion didn't matter, she should have made a statement \"go take a bath\". These things I have just described to you sum up the only conversation I had with my parents during my childhood.\n\nThis is important: Conversation skills are 100% LEARNED. It is mostly about how many hours you log. We live in the era of birth control. Many children do not have siblings. Their hours are cut MASSIVELY short as only children. This slack in hours can only be picked up by parents that realize this and interact, or by watching TV (yes, the thing that \"makes you stupid and lazy\" is invaluable as a conversation learning tool). The slack in hours can not be picked up by school alone and here is why: In order to do well socially in school, you have to bring something new to the table (new to school, not the world). Otherwise you are just copying or repeating what other students have already brought to the table. You will never catch up. To bring something new to the table, you have to to have a lot of exposure to sources outside of school. The three main sources are parents, siblings, and TV. Thinking back, all of the most popular boys in grade school had older brothers.\n\nI had no siblings. My parents never talked to me. And they didn't let me watch very much TV. Just the same hand full of VHS tapes over and over. And yet SOMEHOW they expected me to be perfectly socially competent so that one day I could be the manager, and not the guy on the bottom. This is just not how reality works. Sure people may come up with some truly original witty remark, but 99.9% of conversation, even the clever sounding stuff, is built on material that has been learned and repeated or recombined. You can't recombine anything if you have nothing to work with. No one proves a hard math theorem by first deriving everything that has been done before them. Conversation is the same way.\n\nIt is better learn social skills at a young age so you can get in a cycle of positive reinforcement. A cycle of negative reinforcement might seem like a death sentence, but once you learn the \"secret\" that social skills are learned, and the main reason you suck is because you never learned them, it's not too hard to catch up. TV is your ally, pay close attention as you watch. Maybe even try to predict what will happen.\n\nLife is about knowing little (and some not so little) secrets.\n\nA secret: If you want to be a top math student, you have to first know that things like the IMO exist. Most people don't know about it, so it is a secret. Then you have to know how to study for it specifically, and how to study for math in general. For example, there is a list of of about 15 things one needs to know to solve inequalities on the IMO. Recently there have been level 2 and 3 inequalities on the IMO that are easy as piss once you know these 15 or so things (and have some experience using them). Secrets.\n\nAnother secret: You want to realistically draw what's in from of you. Imagine taking a photograph of it and using a ruler to measure distances from different points of the image. Now treat your own vision as a photograph and use an imaginary ruler. Then it's like \"AHA! The width of the banana is 2/3 the width of the apple. So in my drawing it needs to be the same. You can even hold up a ruler to your drawing to check, but eventually you need to do all of this measuring in your head with an imaginary ruler. This might seem obvious but most people don't know it and their drawing of something in front of their face looks like shit because they draw what they naturally PERCEIVE and not what they SEE.\n\nAnother secret: Want to throw a baseball faster? Most people probably throw a baseball like they would throw a spear. It's what's natural. Cavemen didn't hunt deer with baseball sized rocks. But a baseball is much lighter. It's kind of hard to explain, but imagine treating your arm like that of a rag-doll, and pop your shoulder forward quickly to make your arm follow. Your arm will move at a faster velocity following your shoulder simply because its connected than it will otherwise. To turn this poping motion into a throw takes a lot of practice and flexibility, but its the early stages of throwing faster. But since most people would throw a baseball like a spear, then this poping trick is another secret.\n\nAnother secret: When doing creative writing or short stories for English class, don't start off trying to think up a story. Start off by thinking about a profound or unique emotion, and build a story around that. The point of creative writing is to generate an emotional response, just like art and paintings. You are not conveying information, you are making someone feel an emotion. Also surprise is often an important element. I never had an English teacher explain this. I'm sure many people have, but many haven't which makes it kind of a secret.\n\nThe simple fact that conversation is LEARNED and the avenues by which one can learn it is not common knowledge. This makes it kind of like a secret. The children of parents who don't know this secret are at a grave disadvantage.",
"Social anxiety and shyness are closely linked. Some consider them synonymous. I've been reading a book lately to help me overcome my shyness and social anxiety. Here are some of the key points from they shyness chapter of that book: \n\n*Shyness is almost universal, although about half the people who suffer from it in childhood overcome the problem as adults.\n\n*The symptoms of shyness are similar to those of social anxiety.\n\n*Shyness is different from introversion. Introverted people have a less sociable style than extroverted ones, and shy people may be either introverts or extroverts.\n\n*The effects of shyness are wide-ranging, similar to those of social anxiety, and extend to all aspects of life, professional as well as personal.\n\n*Shyness has advantages as well as disadvantages, and can be an attractive characteristic. Our social life probably benefits from having the full range of people in it: shy or inhibited as well as bold or disinhibited.\n\n*Shy people often fear being rude, or giving offence, and are careful not to do this by mistake.\n\n*There are probably some cultural differences in shyness, but few differences between the frequency of the problem in men and in women.\n",
"Most people that are shy are just built that way. I've been a very reserved and quiet person my whole life. I feel awkward in most social situations. That being said, its a matter of just pushing through that feeling to be able to communicate with others. \n\nFunny thing is, as shy as I am, grown ass people that are REALLY shy and pretty much whisper when they're talking to you and don't make any sort of eye contact, piss me off lol (not literally, it's just annoying). But I'd definitely enjoy my own company over others any day of the week. ",
"Sometimes I just literally have nothing to say to someone, and prefer to sit in intuitive silence. This makes other people uncomfortable, and they pass me off as shy, when in fact, I just identify more as an introvert. I know I've made a friend when I can feel comfortable in a silence with them without feeling like I have to make idle chat. ",
"What is the cause of shyness when you've had a \"normal happy\" childhood? I've been wondering this for a long time. I've read that it can be genetic though too which might be a possibility, but I'm the only one in my family who is shy. They had always said that I would out grow it too, but I really don't think that's going to happen as I am 27 years old and still act this way and do silly, eccentric behavior to avoid people. ",
"I was extremely extroverted and witty for the first 16 years of my life. Eventually I said a few things that got me into so much trouble I ended up having to switch schools. When I moved, I decided that socializing and maintaining friendships in school wasn't nearly as important as finishing school.\n\nI still had a few friends at the new school but I had totally reprogrammed myself to think extremely hard before I said something that could be considered controversial. Of course, this caused a significant retardation of my 'small talk' conversation skills and I get asked why I'm shy by everyone now as an adult. The thing is, I'm not shy. Not at all. I'm just still programmed to think hard before speaking which makes normal conversation extremely tiring.\n\nOn the internet I've found that I can totally be myself without restriction and I do not think about what I say, since if someone doesn't like it I can just hit the ignore button on wherever I'm talking at. I actually only realized this is why everyone asks me if I'm shy in the past couple of weeks and I'm really hoping I can convince myself to open up again since I've also finally reached that true point of \"you don't like it? I don't give a shit.\"",
"the beauty of the internet you don't have to worry about being shy, say what your thinking and watch the responses. its lovely.",
"I was bullied throughout school, had very few friends, had a very passive, frightened mother and a very dominant, overprotective father. Add to that my natural tendency towards introversion, and you have a recipe for disaster.",
"TL;DR: There are many reasons someone can be shy",
"I think a lot of people are confusing legitimate social anxiety/phobia, an anxiety disorder, with shyness/introversion. \n\nIt's like saying every extroverted, outgoing person is essentially histrionic, or something. They aren't the same or even related :/. \n\nIt's actually offensive, and I am not easily offended.",
"As a shy person, I sometimes imagine what it would be like to be the next Steve Jobs. People would be like \"Wow, _BreakingGood_ is awkward as hell\" then people would respond like \"Who gives a shit?! He's a genius!\" ",
"I think most people blur the differences between shy, introverted, and socially awkward. When in my opinion, the 3 are very different things and aren't mutually exclusive.\n\nTo make this easy to understand, I'll create a figurative \"party\", a crowded and rich social environment.\n\nShy person: Will *want* to be at the party, and will enjoy himself/herself at this party. But will be quiet and probably not interact with new people, unless they (the new people) initiate the contact first. \n\nIntroverted person: Would rather be at home, than be at the Party. This isn't to say they can't enjoy themselves, sure they can. But when they got *invited*, their first inclination would probably have been to stay home instead, and they only went to perhaps appease the person who invited them. \n\nSocially awkward person: This is just how you describe someone whose social interactions and/or body language is just *off* They say things that are strange, or at the wrong time. A socially awkward person can be quite talkative, but if they just say things that are weird or irrelevant to the conversation, people's eyebrows will go up.\n\nTo digress, social awkwardness can be changed; with practice, maturity, or being forced to (a job requiring lots of human interaction, for example) \n\nShyness / introversion can't. I believe these 2 traits are genetic. ",
"I have always been shy, as a kid, as a teenager, as an adult now. \n\nFor me, I think my shyness is due to my lack of power behind my voice. It seems to me that, when in a group setting, everyone is in a big circle talking and sharing stories, whenever I try to chime in, someone just talks right over me. If this happens once or twice depending on the scenario, I will just shut down and not say another thing the entire night even though I am dying to be a part of the conversation. I don't know if it's like that for everyone, but that's how it feels for me in a group setting. \n\nWhen it comes to a complete stranger and myself alone, I find it very difficult to just spark up a conversation with someone, be it a cute girl, a random guy, or just anybody I don't know on a personal level. \n\nIt really is strange, not being able to talk in a crowd. It forces me to shut down and just stand there listening to people talk and gives off a vibe that I'm too good for them. In high school (which was like 8 years ago now) I had a class with a girl I thought I had been friends with for years. Turns out, in class when we really got to know each other, she told me that she always thought I was a mean person because I would walk around by myself, never say anything in groups at lunch, and never speak at parties. I was baffled by this because I am the complete opposite of a mean person, I don't have a mean bone in my body. That conversation with her made me realize that my shyness was making people think that I don't like them because I don't talk to them. \n\nEver since then, I've tried to be more open at parties, and bars, and in public in general, but it is tough to talk to someone with the fear of being cut off and looking like an idiot. \n\nLike I said, I don't know if this is the case for a lot of shy people, but this is what drives me to be an introvert..",
" In your head is a balloon full of water. That water is all the great things you want to say, all your ideas, jokes, compliments. When we're born, there are a pipes where the water flows out, and gates where we control how much. In some people, the pipes don't work as well as they should. In some people, the gates don't close at all, they just keep on talking. In some people, the gates won't open, even if they want it too. Just remember, everyone has water in their balloon. Being mean to someone about being shy hurts their pipes, and makes them even more shy. As we grow, shy people keep their water away from the world because they can't get it out. Sometimes it stagnates, sometimes their pipes get too rusted over, and they need someone to come in to fix them. Or, they fix the pipes themselves. ",
"I think a lot of people here would benefit from joining /r/socialanxiety",
"Some people confuse shy people with introverts. Not the same thing.",
"Shyness is not just one thing. Some \"shy\" people have serious anxiety disorders, and some are quite depressed. Some people have been shy since they were young children, and will remain shy until the day they die, while others are going through a bad chapter in their lives. Some people become \"shy\" after a traumatic experience. In that case, maybe they'll get over it, maybe they won't. Some shy people are dreadfully uncomfortable. Others are perfectly at ease and simply prefer quiet and solitude. And so on.",
"For me, shy = lack of conversation skills + fear of rejection\n\nI had always thought that whatever I came up with for a conversation starter would be so silly/unimportant/unrelatable that the other person would think I am strange/weird and not want to be my friend.\n\nAfter reading \"Winning Friends and Influencing People\", I realized that people don't care about how you start the conversation (which is relatively unimportant) and that people care MUCH more about if you can talk about something they can relate to. Now I'm not shy at all because I can always figure out what they can relate to by being very interested in THEIR life, what THEY are talking about, asking questions about THEM, and everything about THEM in general. Talking about them gets them engaged with you so much every time. It works every time.",
"I am sure that this is going to be lost in the huge heap of comments but I think it's a combination of nature and nurture. I am the first born child of my parents and I was the \"favorite\" while growing up. My parents enjoyed praising my childhood accomplishments to others and would introduce me to many people. I kind of always wanted to just do what I do and not be have my childhood accomplishments paraded to others. My younger brother did not have as many \"noteworthy\" accomplishments as a child and I feel like he had to fight more for the attention that was placed on me. So I ended up a bit shy and my brother ended up as a huge extrovert with the gift of gab. I am sure there are biological differences at play as well but this is what I have come up with through my own personal self analysis. Since most of those type of things aren't truly in my memory since they happened when I was so young, a portion of it is conjecture based on how I perceived my parents to be with me at those younger formative ages. \n\nLike many others have stated, I am not a permanently shy person and I can be quite gregarious in a mixed group of people I know and don't know, but put me in a bar with no one I know and I will probably stick to myself for an extended period of time.",
"Ok, just wanted to add my two cents here: shyness often gets mixed up with introversion and they are not the same thing. Here's how I see it:\n\nI am an introvert but I do not think of myself as shy. I was in plays all through high school, on the radio in college, and as a grad student now I am an English instructor and the public editor of a student news paper. All these things require me to be very outgoing and, well, not shy.\n\nBut I am only very gregarious like this when I am occupying a role (as an actor, DJ, salesperson, etc) and with my close friends. If you saw me on the street, you'd probably call me shy. I tend to avoid eye contact, don't like to meet new people, and never really feel like contributing to conversations with people I don't know.\n\nEssentially, as an introvert, being myself in a large group requires an emotional investment that is physically taxing. It takes a lot of my energy to put myself out there, meet new people, and start new conversations. It's not that I don't enjoy it necissarily, it just gets draining. After a while, I need to retreat and spend some time alone to feel rejuvenated. Often people interpret this as me being depressed or bored, but really I'm just emotionally drained and exhausted. I need to recharge my batteries and process new social interactions.\n\nSo, I may seem shy but really I'm just introverted. And I'm definitely not mad/upset/bored or whatever, sometimes I just need to be alone",
"The sudden realization that you are surrounded at all times by violent, psychotic apes. ",
"The best piece of advice I have ever heard about being nervous around people is this:\n\nJust remember, everyone is so caught up in worrying about themselves, they aren't looking at you and judging you. ",
"I'm a 17 year old girl, almost 18. I haven't had a friend since I was 10. I had (and have) stereotypically male interests (dragons, dinosaurs, trains, videogames, being rough and getting dirty). I was pretty wild. Not extroverted, just full of energy. It was fine during most of elementary, even after my old friends moved away, but during the last years I was shunned by everyone. So I did a complete flip and became awkward, quiet and depressed. Not being friends with a wild nut I can understand. But I shared my interests with no one. I couldn't fit in with the girls, and the boys didn't want to be with me because I was a girl. Guess I was dealt bad cards, it's kind of painful how many people I see online that I might be able to get along with, if we met each other in person.\n\nIn middle school I became incredibly depressed. Between social issues and a homework load that left me going to bed at 2am, I thought about killing myself. If you don't enjoy living and there's no hope of life getting better, there's no point. I survive because I have a cat a love, a strong sense of self preservation, I enjoy the little things (such as how light reflects off of road reflectors at twilight), and I still have hope.\n\nI had some people I hung out with in middle school during lunch, and I was part of a (horrible, cheating) girl scout troop but I didn't have any emotional connection to anyone. The only things I said were weird, funny things. That was my place. I could only reveal a small part of myself, the part of myself that can come up with strange ideas about nothing (a dragonfly once hovered over my lunch group for over 15 minutes, so I joked that it was a government spy drone). I'm tired of this role, and want to express myself. All of myself. When middle school ended, I went to a different high school than them. I never really missed them.\n\nI was strange before, but 4 years of complete isolation and internet access have made me even stranger and socially incompetent. It's like I have a different culture than everyone else. I can't small talk. How do people come up with comments on people's Facebook pages? They're words, but they mean nothing. All people want to talk about are high school \"romances\" and superficial topics. Any other topics are very quick and shallow. Two comments, moving on. \n\nI'm forced to talk without thinking, and there's always a grammar mistake, or I never word my statements the way I want them. I stammer. I have nervous tics because of anxiety, such as rubbing my hands, licking my lips, or blinking hard. I can't make eye contact with people. I suspect people now think I'm mentally ill, as they talk down to me as if I can't fully comprehend what they're saying. All I do is sit alone during lunch, and then come home to be an only child with working parents who don't take my depression seriously.\n\nI've tried making friends, but I'm always rejected. I'm a naturally empathetic person, and I'm also nice to people because I can't afford everyone turning against me. So it can't be because I'm a jerk, I guess. I've just never \"clicked\" with anyone. I can't even really comprehend what friendship is. Someone was kind to me once, as she was worried about deserting me by going off-campus with her friends. It shocked me. I don't know what it's like to have someone watching your back, a person to support you emotionally. A person who understands you, who cares about you. \n\nI like being alone now. It's what I'm comfortable with. But I'm still depressed. I wonder how much space this post will take up.\n\n\nTL;DR Just a (relevant) personal rant. I'm shy because everyone rejected my friendship.",
"I think there is one underlying reason for being shy that many of these responses is forgetting to mention, and that's fear. Fear has a huge role in success in social interactions. I don't think anyone wants to admit it, but the reason a lot of shy people (and I mean “not introverted” or having an actual desire to be more outgoing/less shy) hesitate to make a move or strike up a conversation is because they're afraid of rejection, judgment, ego damage etc. Outgoing people, extroverts, that charismatic guy at the party talking to all the girls have all gotten over their fears of social failure. And even these people still deal with fear of rejection, they’re human, but they counter this by having been desensitized to it by repeatedly stepping out of their comfort zones. Many use alcohol and getting inebriated as a crutch (some would probably prefer the word “tool”) for getting over their initial fears of social rejection.\n\nChances are, if you're admittedly shy, it’s your ego that’s setting you up for failure. And you might think “I’m shy, I don’t have an ego.” My response would be yes you do, everyone does, and if you’re afraid then your ego is going to tell you that you’re not good enough and should be insecure. Compare this to a confident ego that should be yelling “YOU’RE THE BEST, SO ARE YOUR OPINIONS, REDDIT IS GOING TO LOVE THIS POST!” Give no fucks, be fearless, be shameless, be careless but not to the point that you’re reckless, and you’ll have a blast living outside of your comfort zone. \n\n**TL;DR:** Fear prevents shy people from taking the steps to get out of their comfort zones. Hell, fearful is a [synonym](_URL_0_) for shy.\n",
"I tend to belive being shy/outgoing is part of a person's temperment, which one is born with. They've done studies with babies and some babies are naturally fussy while others are very easy going. But I also think you can influence and shape a kid's behavior. If you have a kid who is very fearfully shy, you can still teach good conversational and social skills and have them practice it with trusted family members and friends. Expose and practice.\n\nI was very shy until mid 20s and remember being extremely self conscious in large groups. No problem one on one or up to 2-3 people but just clammed up when part of a large group. It wad hard for me to keep up with the the conversation with so many people talking. As more people talked, the more self conscious I felt not saying anything and it made me feel like the quiet freak. It wasn't an issue of low self esteem because I've always done my own thing, and was very self aware and perceptive of other people/environment. Going to parties didn't bother me, I just preferred connecting 1 on 1. It's more intimate and less superficial talk, ya know?\n\nPeople confuse shyness with introversion but they are two SEPARATE things. They're often linked (along with social awkwardness) but there are socially awkward, shy extroverts out there. My ex was one but for the longest time, I mistook him for a fellow introvert.\n\nIntroversion/extroversion is mostly about energy: introverts get energy from within self and hence feel drained being around people for a long time and need time alone to regain energy; extroverts get energy from an external source -- from contact with other people and they're not good alone.\n\nEven as an introvert I can chat up people no prob, enjoy parties and even called a party girl in my younger days. But I always needed/enjoyed spending a lot of solo time like going to see films and treating myself to a nice restaurant which was viewed as weird by others. Hanging with certain extrovert friends totally drain me and I can only handle them in small doses whereas with other introvert friends, I could hang out with them all day and we both feel fine. No sucking out of energy. Extroverts put out a lot of energy in their manner and talking and introverts find it draining.\n\nU.S is very geared towards outgoing extroverts and that is made to be the \"normal\" way to be. Other cultures like Japanese and French embrace a more introverted, thoughtful culture.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyness#Genetics_and_heredity",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion#Biological_factors"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://showbizgeek.com/the-sunday-open-letter-8/"
],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thesaurus.com/browse/shy"
],
[]
] |
|
a6d5ik | how does 1 - - 1=2? | I know it does.Ineed to explain it to my 8yo brother,can’t provide real life examples. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6d5ik/eli5how_does_1_12/ | {
"a_id": [
"ebtux7p",
"ebtv1s9"
],
"score": [
4,
27
],
"text": [
"Think of -1 as something owed. If I have -1 donut, I am owed a donut. If I have 1 donut and I'm owed a donut, then really I have two donuts, just one isn't with me right now. ",
"Imagine counting how far you have walked. 1 = a step forward. -1 = a step backward. \n\nDo a step forward and then a step backward. 1 + -1 = 0. You're back at the starting point.\n\nDo a step forward and then *undo* a step backward. It's the same as taking two steps forward. 1 - -1 = 2. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5puvg6 | what makes water such a pure compound for all living organisms? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5puvg6/eli5_what_makes_water_such_a_pure_compound_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcu2cq9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I don't understand the question. \n\nDo you mean what makes water such an essential compound for living organisms?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5hygxc | how do buildings with flags know when to put them at half-mast? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hygxc/eli5_how_do_buildings_with_flags_know_when_to_put/ | {
"a_id": [
"db3x3iv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There actually is a website that will send you email alerts on when to do it. According to the Flag Code, which is non-enforceable U.S. law, the flag is supposed to be flown at half-staff at the instruction of the President or Governor of a state to honor deceased individuals. \n\nThere are also certain days on which the flag is customarily flown at half staff:\n* Peace Officers Memorial Day, May 15th, unless that day is also Armed Forces Day. (sunrise to sunset)\n* Memorial Day, last Monday in May (sunrise to noon)\n* Patriot Day, September 11th (sunrise to sunset)\n* National Firefighters Memorial Day, October (typically a Sunday during Fire Prevention Week, which is around Oct. 9, and along with a memorial service held in Emmitsburg, MD)\n* Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, December 7th (sunrise to sunset)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9w2cwy | in american elections, how can there be uncounted ballots yet a result is called? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9w2cwy/eli5_in_american_elections_how_can_there_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9h0owj",
"e9h0oyh",
"e9h14yx"
],
"score": [
14,
4,
7
],
"text": [
"If there is a box of 100 ballots that were not counted, but all the other votes are in, and the winner has a lead of 50,000 votes, you can safely say they are the winner of the election. The outcome is not going to change based on counting those ballots. All votes should be counted, but you can still declare a winner. Just as different news networks will call presidential elections before all votes are in, just because they can confident that a candidate is going to meet the required electoral college votes.",
"The best way to think about it is that there are only so many point to give out. So if someone had enough points, you might as well stop counting there. It’s like playing best of three Rock Paper Scissors. If someone wins 2, it doesn’t matter the outcome of the third because it can’t change the final result. ",
"I take it you're talking about the media calling results (as opposed to the chief election officers of the states)?\n\nExit polls are done with people who have just voted. Within a margin of error the media knows who won long before the polls close. It used to be that the margin of error was very tiny and races were called in many states the instant the polls closed (out of courtesy they waited). In other states they needed to wait until there were enough actual ballots reported (by key precincts) to verify closer exit polls. Occasionally they had to wait a very long time in tight races.\n\nBeginning in 2000, the exit polls started to show severe variances in a few states (one, really). People started to lie about whom they just voted for, or there was something else going on, but in any case the margin of error was increasing. In 2004 the margin got much wider (in 8 states) and the trend has continued,\n\nSo the media has gotten lots more cautious about calling races, relying much more on actual voting results coupled with more sophisticated analysis of precinct-level results. But the process is functionally the same, the calls are made on a mathematical projection basis.\n\nBut these media calls are completely unofficial. We viewers take them more seriously than we probably should. The individual state certifications are made several days or more after the election and they are the only official \"calls.\" They are made on the basis of actual votes counted and certified (and may be different from preliminary results reported on election night or soon after) at a scheduled time. Later than scheduled if the results are still uncertain due to ballots yet to be counted (provisionals, mail-ins, etc.) if the number of those votes still left are capable of affecting the result.\n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
17irp7 | why canned food (like tomatoes) don't need to be refrigerated but uncanned ones do | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17irp7/eli5_why_canned_food_like_tomatoes_dont_need_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"c85vidf"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Canned food has been heated up to a certain degree in an effort to kill bacteria, and is then immediately canned to seal out any other bacteria that may be in the environment. Existing bacteria are already dead, new bacteria can't get in.\n\nFresh foods need to be refrigerated to retard the growth of bacteria that grow best at certain temperatures. Lowering the temperature kills or puts most bacteria into stasis so they won't continue to grow and infect your food. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5txx2g | why good quality images go bad when we upload them on social media? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5txx2g/eli5_why_good_quality_images_go_bad_when_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddpvkz9",
"ddpvvzv"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They are compressed to take up less space on the company's servers. A program looks at the image and trims out some of the visual information. The side effect is that your picture ends up slightly worse-looking than it started. Most people on social media don't particularly care, or even notice, so for the company it's an acceptable tradeoff.",
"the answer will vary depending on the site you are using and the image you are uploading but essentially it is to save space.\n\nWhen you upload an image to a site like Facebook, the image gets stored on one of their servers. And since there are now about 300 million photos uploaded every day ([source](_URL_0_)), Facebook would need a LOT of space to accomodate everyone.\n\nSo rather than storing the raw image (which is normally around 4mb), they compress the image down to something more reasonable.\n\nAnother argument for doing this is that when looking at photos on computer screens and mobiles, its often very difficult to tell the difference. And since most posts uploaded to social media are only viewed for a short time, and then forever forgotten about (but still stored on the servers), it would be a waste to upload everything at full quality."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/"
]
] |
||
1y07w7 | why do all organisms simply exist to reproduce and die? | This is a little philosophical, and maybe there are better subreddits for it, but the answers might be a bit out of my league.
Anyway, everything (e.g. humans, crocodiles, parrots) in our universe/reality simple eats food (or gets it from the sun, whatever) and then reproduces. Then everything dies. It's a lot simpler for animals, and humans have made it a more complex and elaborate process, but why does everything have to be like this? Wether you believe in god or science, how do you explain it? Why wasn't everything made so that we wouldn't have to work all the time to get food and then reproduce and die? Is it impossible to ever achieve this utopian like ideal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y07w7/eli5_why_do_all_organisms_simply_exist_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfg69sb",
"cfg6d29"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't think we can possibly know the reason for our existance",
"Well we will eventually reach the singularity which is essentially your utopia.\n\nThe reason everything simply exists to reproduce and die is because the very first form of life which EVERYTHING EVOLVED FROM, by happenstance they simply existed to reproduce and die. We are essentially just an extension of them.\n\nThere is no great mystery to life. It started because of a random combination of events. We are a cosmic anomaly the fact that we are here at all is just random and meaningless, while at the same time amazing and profound. \n\nAll life in our solar system will most likely die out eventually. And the universe will not have even noticed our brief existence. Our atoms will be re absorbed into the cosmos. Potentially fueling the next random event.\n\nTry to remember that you are a carbon based life form. Which means you have a a lot of carbon atoms making you work. There was no such thing as carbon after the big bang. Carbon was create. How was carbon created? Fusion, in the center of stars over billions of years, which eventually exploded. Scattering atoms of carbon across the universe. One day those atoms of carbon bumped into other atoms, and with access to H20 came alive. \n\nThe universe is cyclical, if stars had the capacity to think. One might have postulated. \"Why do all stars simply exist to bun and then explode\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1kii8v | why do we use pink or blue to know if a baby is a girl or a boy? | This is my first question on Reddit, I'll figure out how to correct it if it's not.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kii8v/eli5_why_do_we_use_pink_or_blue_to_know_if_a_baby/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbp9wlw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"QI had a section on this:\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2f7urmRaRxY&t=132"
]
] |
|
59puk4 | why is there a specific set up and order of attachment/detachment when jumping a dead car battery? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/59puk4/eli5_why_is_there_a_specific_set_up_and_order_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9adkfc",
"d9aetxd"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"Because some batteries, the kind you put water in, can generate hydrogen gas when being jumped. This gas is explosive (e.g. Hindenburg) so you want the spark at the other end, where the car is running and the battery is charged.",
"If you connect the positive cables first you make it harder to accidentally bump the frame/ other components and short the battery to ground. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
afmb9c | why aren't all six strings on a guitar perfect fourths like a 6 string bass? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/afmb9c/eli5_why_arent_all_six_strings_on_a_guitar/ | {
"a_id": [
"ee0210e"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because chords aren't typically made out of perfect fourths.\n\nWhile a bass usually plays a single string at a time, guitars often play chords by using multiple strings at once. The strings are spaced to fit common chords easily - you can play most common chords (like major or minor for example) by adding just one or two fingers.\n\nAdditionally, while it's easy to raise individual notes in the chord, because of the way human hands are shaped you can't easily lower individual strings. The string intervals sort of form a \"base\" for chords, then, attempting to naturally be at the lowest notes you would want so you can then raise the ones you need to."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
kumkf | those floating black/white dots in my vision i get after looking over my shoulder for long periods. | Or when straining my vision in any direction really...
What are they and is it bad for my vision? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kumkf/eli5_those_floating_blackwhite_dots_in_my_vision/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2njnb3",
"c2njnb3"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The floaters are actually pieces of your eye falling/moving in front of your retina which blocks the light going into your retina, so they appear as floating shadows in your vision\n\nI think its common with diabetes and near-sightedness",
"The floaters are actually pieces of your eye falling/moving in front of your retina which blocks the light going into your retina, so they appear as floating shadows in your vision\n\nI think its common with diabetes and near-sightedness"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
amtg9t | vga vs. hdmi vs. displayport | Like, why do people think that DisplayPort will become the standard for PC, instead of the "old" HDMI? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/amtg9t/eli5_vga_vs_hdmi_vs_displayport/ | {
"a_id": [
"efoftu5",
"efomn8r",
"efuyzcy"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It’s mostly just gamers who say this. In reality both HDMI and DisplayPort are quite good, and the differences in trade offs can be small in many cases, not relevant in others, and niche for a special case. \n\nFor gamers, DisplayPort can support multiple monitors from a single source output as well as supporting G-sync and Free-sync for monitors. This is it’s big pluses. \n\nThe multi monitor support is also good for business users and for devices which are constrained on space (like a laptop) as only one output is needed... however as most consumer electronics use hdmi, you may still need a converter for many business uses, so in this case DisplayPort is just meh. \n\nNeither are going anywhere soon and both HDMI and DisplayPort are improving with new updates regularly and neither one seems to be winning, except that HDMI controls the consumer electronics market, and has some additional functions (long list) that may prove useful in the consumer world in the future over DisplayPort which is more aimed at some more specific use cases on computers. ",
"From a professional video engineer point of view, I like DisplayPort better for one major reason, it has a locking connector. I like to remove as much risk as possible and a connector falling out of a graphics laptop (power point) is a small but tangible risk. DisplayPort locks and so is much less likely to fall out. That said, I usually have to use whatever laptops the production company rents so I don't often get full-size DisplayPort. I have to use HDMI and some strong tape. Lots and lots of tape. ",
" > Like, why do people think that DisplayPort will become the standard for PC \n \n..will?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
eyahh3 | why does air blowing in your face help you feel less carsick? | Always wondered why it helped (at least me) when I was younger and got carsick a lot | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eyahh3/eli5_why_does_air_blowing_in_your_face_help_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"fgh7ji5",
"fgi36qp",
"fgg12xd",
"fgg50cj",
"fgg9s32"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
52,
11,
8
],
"text": [
"Personally, over ventilation (breath faster than needed until slight headache) helps too. And in general cold in face helps.\n\nI have no idea why.",
"Humans maintain their sense of balance by combining several major and minor senses together. We can see the positions of things with our eyes, hear things moving with our ears, and feel air moving against our skin using our sense touch. We even have some fluids in our inner ears to help us balance, which is called endolymph.\n\nWhen a human is poisoned or intoxicated, it can mess with our sense of balance. For example, if you drink enough alcohol, you'll start to stumble around.\n\nAt some point along our evolutionary path, we seem to have developed a primitive defense against getting poisoned in this way. Perhaps back when we were more like apes or lemurs, or even farther back when we were more like reptiles, we must have had some problem with getting all messed up on bad berries. Because now, when the senses of balance all disagree with each other, many people have an instinctive desire to throw up.\n\nDo your eyes tell you you're moving, but your inner ear say you're standing still? \"Puke!\" says your ancient lizard brain. \"That will get the bad berries out of you, and prevent your dumb poisoned self from being eaten by a predator.\"\n\nBut your ancient lizard brain didn't anticipate the invention of cars, so now your senses are totally confused. Your inner ear detects movement, but your sense of touch detects stillness. You see movement but you don't hear the air blowing past your ears. \"Puke!\" says your brain. \"You must be poisoned!\"\n\nAir blowing on your face will reduce that conflict among your senses. Now your sense of hearing and touch will be in line with your sense of sight and equilibrioception. No more conflicting senses? No more carsickness.\n\nsource: I make Virtual Reality software for a living, where motion sickness is a huge problem.",
"From what I've read, we're still not entirely sure why people get motion sickness in the first place (we know the mechanism that seems to cause it, but not why some people get it and others don't, or why it is caused by those mechanisms in those people), and similarly other than chemical solutions that help with nausea, people aren't really sure why some of the other remedies work; I saw dozens of sites recommend either opening a window or directing an air vent to blow cold air in your face, but nothing that indicated even a hypothesis of why that might work.\n\nTo give a hypothesis: the main theory of motion sickness is that your eyes and inner ear disagree about what is going on with relation to your motion (you're bumping around and your inner ear fluids are sloshing about, but your eyes tell you that you're relatively stationary in the car), so the feeling of wind on your face gives your brain more sensory input that, at a subconscious level, tells you that you are moving, even if other signs are missing.",
"My guess it’s the more senses you have that are aligning the less carsick you get. I think it comes from your sense of balance telling your brain you are moving while everything else says you are stationary. \n\n*Look out the window (let your eyes see that you are moving)\n\n*roll down the window (feel and hear the air whooshing by)\n\nI’m not a doctor or anything, this is just my guess, but you never get carsick when driving and I think it’s because you are fully in tune with what you are doing.",
"One interesting theory I've heard is that dizziness and nausea were historically more associated with eating foods that had gone bad or were poisonous, than with travelling at high rates of speed (a very recent phenomena). The nausea from eating poisons would lead to vomiting and rid us of that noxious substance. \n\nWhen our inner ear's movement sensors detect movement that doesn't track well with visual or tactile cues, we feel that same kind of dizziness and nausea; and our body's response begins to mimic that of eating something poisonous.\n\nSo when wind is blowing on our face after feeling carsick, it creates the tactile illusion that we are indeed travelling in a manner more consistent with visual cues, and the nausea is somewhat reduced."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2d8ygh | do women who don't give birth live longer? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d8ygh/eli5_do_women_who_dont_give_birth_live_longer/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjn7i6h",
"cjn82zs",
"cjnai31",
"cjncvlm"
],
"score": [
19,
3,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Quite the opposite, actually. A number of scientific studies have indicated that women who have children live longer.",
"At one point in time, the average life expectancy of a mother was lower than that of a non-mother, because we factored in an increased chance of death in childbirth. However, it's been a long time since that was true. More recently, mothers actually lived longer due to support from their children into old age. But with the era of putting-grandma-in-a-home, things are starting to even out. ",
"There was an article on Reddit recently explaining how a woman with a health defect had her fetus share stem cells to that area to cure a terminal ailment. A bit like how tapeworms have cured quite a few things like asthma in their hosts. \n\nIf you don't have kids you will look younger though :D",
"Another point is that breastfeeding reduces your chances of a whole bunch of cancers, so there is another reason that mothers may live longer than non mothers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ecz17r | why does so much cut content remain present in video games, just unused? | I see a lot of examples of cut assets in video games that people find still remaining in files of the game itself. Why does this happen? I'm am sure there is a reason why its not as simple as highlighting everything unused and hitting "delete"... but what is it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ecz17r/eli5_why_does_so_much_cut_content_remain_present/ | {
"a_id": [
"fbel9r6",
"fbely49"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Games will go through a process where they are built (all of the code is assembled to produce a \"finished\" game) many times over the course of development. Through out this, things will get added and pulled over and over as they work towards a finished product. Some things that get added may get pulled later, and some things that get pulled now may get added back.\n\nAs a result, it is typically much easier to just disable the triggers for thing getting pulled rather than remove them entirely - maybe it gets added back later and you just saved yourself some work, or maybe some other part of the game uses a texture that you didn't realize and pulling your code will break someone elses. Given that space isn't really at a premium anymore, the benefits are higher to just leave the code there.",
"\\ > I'm am sure there is a reason why its not as simple as highlighting everything unused and hitting \"delete\"... but what is it? \n\nBecause coding is messy as hell and it's really easy to break something because of some weird issue. So unless space is a serious concern (which isn't much of an issue nowadays), it can be easier just to hide a batch of code or remove the triggers that activate it, instead of removing it completely. Ideally the players don't accidentally access it somehow (unless they're really fiddling with the game), and it's still there in case some other part of the game pulls from that batch of code. \n\nPlus, game design includes a lot of back-and-forth, so if something ever gets added back in during development, or later as downloadable content, it'll be easier to add back in."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
e6t518 | why are some foods more filling than others? eg. baked potato vs a slice of pizza | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e6t518/eli5_why_are_some_foods_more_filling_than_others/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9t1904"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"An average potato weighs about 10 oz. Half of a large cheese pizza from Dominos also weighs about 10 oz despite there being *substantially* more calories in the pizza. The reason for this difference is in the water content of the two foods. 80% of the potato's weight is made up of water, whereas water only makes up about 20-30% of the pizza.\n\nWater adds weight without adding calories, but your body has no way of determining the caloric or nutritional content of the food you eat. The only thing that your body is capable sensing is how full your stomach is, and weight is the only thing that matters for that. Because of that, high water content foods fill you up despite not having very many calories. Conversely, high calorie content foods tend not to weigh very much and so you don't feel full after eating them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
elub1y | why did president roosevelt get to serve 4 terms in office? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/elub1y/eli5_why_did_president_roosevelt_get_to_serve_4/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdk7voh",
"fdk7x39",
"fdk7xid",
"fdk84eg"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"There were no term limits before FDR, it was a custom started by Washington that every other president followed.\n\nAfter FDR, the limit was created.",
"There wasn’t a term limit amendment for the president until after Roosevelt. Before then it was just customary to only serve two term because that is what George Washington did.",
"The two term limit didn't come into play because it didn't yet exist. It was established by the 22nd Amendment, and that wasn't ratified until February 27, 1951.",
"Thanks guys! I didn’t know it was just a tradition to limit your terms until the 22nd amendment. As I said, it’s been a while since I studied anything political and just came across something about him serving 4 terms and got really confused."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6v0ml5 | why are u supposed to not ration water but ration food when you are stranded in the desert? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6v0ml5/eli5_why_are_u_supposed_to_not_ration_water_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlwtt31",
"dlwvf7q"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"Because you lose water through sweat, the minimum water intake is a hard minimum. You can go longer without eating because your body can turn to fat stores/muscle mass for energy.",
"You can ration water, but there is a hard minimum required to keep living in that environment and if you go below that you will die. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1ymgnl | why does congress have a 13% approval rate but incumbents are re-elected at a rate of 90%. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ymgnl/eli5_why_does_congress_have_a_13_approval_rate/ | {
"a_id": [
"cflt2bm",
"cflt2yf",
"cfltlta",
"cflucez",
"cfluehb",
"cflv0l2",
"cflv8vb",
"cflv9z2",
"cflva9a",
"cflvvah",
"cflw3jz",
"cflw452",
"cflws4y",
"cflx3q8",
"cflxbp3",
"cflxqh6",
"cflxyqz",
"cfly1hh",
"cflyxyw",
"cflz4ph",
"cflzhf3",
"cflztpf",
"cfm05n4",
"cfm0b9e",
"cfm0hhl",
"cfm0ixo",
"cfm0o3n",
"cfm19xh",
"cfm1bf6",
"cfm1fch",
"cfm1ifo",
"cfm1uml",
"cfm2mam",
"cfm2n8f",
"cfm36l0",
"cfm3mj0",
"cfm3tqy",
"cfm3yrq",
"cfm47m1",
"cfm4apb",
"cfm4fsg",
"cfm4n36",
"cfm4ryk",
"cfm5jlu",
"cfm5p48",
"cfm5rml",
"cfm62oh",
"cfm697c",
"cfm6c0k",
"cfm6c4g",
"cfm6d2u",
"cfm6qcs",
"cfm7lje",
"cfm8h2r",
"cfm8kjn",
"cfm8rsy",
"cfm962p",
"cfm97xf",
"cfm99om",
"cfm9ikw",
"cfm9p3g",
"cfm9rb1",
"cfma3c0",
"cfmaain",
"cfmabx9",
"cfmafjx",
"cfmbgml",
"cfmdebc",
"cfmdf3n",
"cfmdj5f",
"cfme2f4",
"cfmf01y",
"cfmfei1",
"cfmfoc9",
"cfmg866",
"cfmh281",
"cfmh34y"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
661,
4,
47,
47,
183,
2,
126,
11,
14,
8,
2,
38,
2,
6,
2,
21,
2,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
6,
3,
2,
8,
3,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
34,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
7,
3,
3,
2,
4,
3,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They elect a person, but are fed up with 'the system' and not making the right connection between the two. Also the system also allows to put the blame on somebody else. \n\nAnd the elected might have something done for his local voters and they respect that, but still hate on Washington. ",
"Follow the money.\n\nA key factor in election to the US congress is strong financial support. Rallies, flyers, helpers, advertisements, etc, all cost money. For a few *very* well off individuals this money can come out of their own pocket. For the vast majority though, this money comes (largely) from lobbyists. Campaign sponsorship comes with an implicit recognition that you'll do your best to support their interests, a very valuable commodity for many companies.\n\nNow, most lobby groups do hedge their bets a bit, the worst possible outcome is that a person who knows they helped the other guy gets elected. However, there are already a few factors which favour the incumbent. The incumbent inherently has a greater name-recognition; he spent all that money on advertising 2 years ago, remember?\n\nAs a result, lobby groups / campaign sponsors give more money to incumbents than challengers. A **lot** more. In 2000 for [example](_URL_0_), incumbents spent 92.8% of the money. Not surprisingly, this translated to 67.3% of the vote.\n\nThis is a self-sustaining advantage too. The fact that incumbents get more money means they are more likely to win. The fact they are more likely to win means that the benefits from donating to them are greater than the benefits of donating to the other guy. Thus, incumbents get *even more* money.",
"People like their own representatives, but don't like Congress as a whole.\n\nMost people are familiar with their own representative. That makes sense; when their local politician does stuff, it gets on the news (and the rep makes sure it gets on the news). Despite popular perception, a lot of the staff work in their offices is \"constituent service\": It has nothing to do with policy or party but everything to do with civic bureaucracy (getting licenses renewed, pushing through car registrations, etc.) Locally, a lot of people might say \"Oh, I don't agree with X's stance on this issue, but he helped get my visa application through so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.\"\n\nIn addition, politicians can speak to their constituents; they have a sounding board through which they can explain their positions more fully. A politician can release a statement tailored to their area to help explain why a vote is important. \n\nIncumbency is also important; it generally has an advantage (name recognition, local connections, etc.) It can sometimes be a liability, but most of the time it's a benefit. \n\nFinally, they can start local projects (\"pork\"). Now that earmarks are gone, that's not as effective as it used to be, but it's still there.\n\nAll of these factors are things that are locally known, and none of them are nationally known. So when people say \"I hate Democrats/Republicans!\" they're looking at the wide view--they only are aware of the upper-level decisions made on important issues. But for their own representative, they can say \"Well, I only agree with about 40% of what his party stands for, but he got that baseball park built for us, and I know the local pipefitters like him, and he helped my aunt get a wheelchair from Medicare, so I trust him to do the right thing.\" You don't think those things about a representative across the nation because it doesn't help you, but they're doing the exact same thing.\n\nEDIT: A lot of people are mentioning money and gerrymandering. While both can certainly be a factor, they're not close to being major factors. I won't go into it (unless we get another ELI5) but while money favors incumbents, it can often be a tool used against them as well (see: 1994, 2006, 2010). And gerrymandering doesn't really answer the OP's question--it can certainly be an issue but it wouldn't explain why they are locally popular and nationally unpopular.",
"Simple, congress doesnt work well as a team, but you cant trace it down to any one person (except maybe senators like Ted Cruz that spend all their time filibustering). Also these congressmen are getting paid more to get nothing done in a sense from big sponsors. Almost always if you have plenty of money you can get re-elected with extensive campaining. In general there too much differences between the two parties to get anything done in politics and thats ultimatly damaging the reputation of congress.",
"Because of the way Congress is set up in the Constitution, members of the House of Representatives only represent people from their district and Senators only represent people from their state. What this means is that when it comes time to vote, as a citizen, I can only vote for the member of the House associated with my district and the 2 Senators from my state (during different election years). \n\nIn other words, there are 435 people in the House and 100 in the Senate. A single voter only has a say for 3 of these 535 people. \n\nBecause of this concentration of votes on only a few elected leaders, Congress is made up of people from all over the political spectrum, rather than just being an average of everyone's views. As a result, there are plenty of Congressmen people like and plenty they hate. They tend to like the ones from where they're from and share similar views, but they dislike those with opposing views from elsewhere. When all is said and done, people hate Congress as a whole, but that hatred's usually based upon the actions of politicians that the individual is unable to vote for. ",
"1. False dichotomy two party system.\n\n2. Lobbying dollars used to buy advertising.\n\n3. Numbfuck idiots believing what they see on tv.",
"Gerrymandering and money. Basically, setting up the voting districts so that your party cannot lose. And because you are the incumbent, special interests will support you with plenty of money for your campaign.\n",
"because it's never *my* congressman.",
"it's only pork when it's not your district.",
"Sports team based mentality when it comes to politics. What team are you on? Democrat or Republican? Blindly vote for the member of your team.\n\nHonestly, the only way to really garner any change would be to always vote for the other guy. I never vote for the incumbent. Doesn't matter what political party their affiliated with, or what their beliefs/ideals are - insanity wolf is the only solution to this horrible mess we're in.",
"because most people are fucking stupid.\n\nmost of those who do bother to vote, only do so by party lines or by who they think will give them free shit (regardless of how much damage it's doing).\n\naka worthless/selfish ignorant assholes. \n\nyou'll also notice, especially on a local level, that the same last names are in the political elite year after year after year... no matter how shitty their local city/town economy is doing.\n\nagain, this is because most people are fucking stupid and they vote for the name they recognize instead of actually being politically involved, or at the very least, researching the candidates before election day.\n\nthis is what frustrates me the most about my country. while everyone should have the right to vote, they also should have the personal obligation to understand what certain politicians (and political parties IMO) are doing to them.\n\ni'd much rather someone not vote at all than go to the booth voting based solely on platitudes, ingrained behavior, and willful ignorance of the world around them.",
"Because people are fucking stupid, through and through",
"Because if you ask most Americans what they think of their individual Congressman, they will usually say they like them. It's a kind of, \"Well, MY Congressman isn't like the rest of Washington.\"",
"I wish my laptop worked as i could type this much faster. Here goes.\n\nApproval rating overall doesn't have much effect on specific people who get elected. Viewing congress as a whole is different than how people view their individual elected officials, particularly because you can pinpoint the projects a local official has taken part in and relate personally.\n\nMore importantly, incumbency and re election is a separate beast that rides on two main factors: name recognition and money. Incumbent re elections are very high because their names are at least recognized due to already having campaigned and been in office. People trust things they at lest have heard of. \n\nNext- money. Money is used to get name recognition. Money is spent on flyers, signs, canvassing, events, renting office space, cold calling, paying finance directors to call people to get more money, etc. incumbents are already in the lead here because they already have the names of people they need to call, they already have franking privileges (mailing ) which saves a shitload of money. They have databases with information readily compiled from previous election runs. So a non-incumbent has to work a ton harder to raise money and get her name out there. \n\nThis kills me i cant keep typing maybe i write more later when laptop fixed ",
"Most Congressional districts are heavily gerrymandered, wherein a majority of the constituents are historically Republican or Democratic-leaning voters. So even if many of them are upset with how Congress operates as a whole, they would still be much more reluctant to kick out the incumbent (who represents their views) than to vote for the other party's candidate.",
"1. Because we are idiots who vote Party Lines.\n\n2. Because the system is set up so that we are typ0ically offered a choice between 'Dumb and Dumber'.\n\n3. Because we are too lazy to even keep track of what our own particular 'Esteemed Legislator' is doing and only blame them in \ngeneral for the messes they create.",
"incumbency name recognition advantage - people are subconsciously more likely to vote for a name they recognize, and most people just do not take the time to educate themselves about the candidates.",
"Gerrymandering!\n\nGerrymandering is the act of redrawing district lines to make is easier for one side to get elected. Imagine there is an area that is electing 3 congressmen. There are 100 hardline republicans and 50 hardline democrats. If split fairly you might see 2 republicans and 1 democrat. If you carefully draw the district line so that each district has 33 republicans and 16 democrats (the leftovers can go anywhere) you now have 3 republicans.\n\nHere are some examples of [gerrymandered districts.](_URL_0_)\n\nIt is a very popular strategy, particularly among republicans. Draw the districts so any many of the opposing party is in a single district limiting them to one seat. Then the remaining districts are strongly in your favor. The problem is now these congressmen have no fear of losing future elections. The democratic district is near 100% democrat, the republican districts are usually very safely republican. The congressmen could run down the streets naked flipping off their constituents and still probably win. Republicans don't want to vote for democrats and vice versa. The only danger of losing their seat is to another of the same party in the primary.\n\nA second major reason is SuperPACs. Corporations can basically pump unlimited money into campaigns and flood television with commercials trying to sabotage candidates they don't like and telling people to vote for candidates they do. They get away with a lot of things. People don't have enough time to really research the candidates and vote the way TV tells them to. Flooding the television with attack ads is very effective.",
"Gerrymandering, is the correct answer. The boundaries of Congressional districts are very carefully drawn, with great complexity, so that they include people who will vote for the candidate. The politician picks his voters, instead of the voters choosing the politician. Imagine if you were running for an elected position and you were able to decide who votes for you. Do you think that you would win?",
"It's because of what they call \"politics\". They are using reporters to leak stories in their favor, using back stabbing tactics against those in their way. Also, setting up other candidates for failure to somehow ensure personal success. Ultimately they all want to get to the top ASAP and be as powerful as possible. They will use any means necessary. For example, back channeling with foreign dignitaries, say from china for instance, and powerful billionaire business men to leverage control. sometimes they don't even need your vote, they are so crafty they can get people around them to resign and slowly move up the ladder that way.",
"Everyone hates congress but your local congressman get little bits of legislation passed to benefit your area. So the people there love their congressmen but hate everybody else's.",
"Everybody thinks they have the best congressman. It's always somebody else's fault.",
"Because people are idiots.",
"Because House of Cards",
"Pork.\n\nYour congressman brings home federal money for the project you like (a community swimming pool or a waste facility that creates jobs or gets some local person on a postage stamp, etc.) You may hate the other congressman in other districts doing the same but you got yours!",
"People tend to blame congressmen other than the ones in their state/district. ",
"People are uninformed. Name recognition helps get politicians reelected",
"Political Science major here! I'll focus more on the House, which is the more obstructionist part of Congress, for reasons I'll discuss. Congressional House districts cater to a relatively small constituency and districts are often drawn in ways that preserve a member's electoral majority, a process known as [gerrymandering](_URL_0_). This means that a member of Congress doesn't have to tailor his image and positions to a randomly selected 1/435 of Americans in his state, but a carefully selected group that is predisposed to support him.\n\nIt's important to remember that job security for Congressmen depends only on whether or not their constituents approve of the job they're doing. One reason so many people don't like Congress is that many members refuse to compromise. This leads to gridlock; most Americans agree that Congress needs to compromise more to get things done. However, this logic collapses when looking at their own Congressman. When other Congressmen oppose legislation to move forward on an issue these Americans care about, they are being \"obstructionist\" and Congressional disapproval increases. When their own Congressman refuses to compromise on an issue, he is \"taking a principled stand\" or \"doing what's right, not popular\".\n\nIt can help to think of Congressmen as rational actors; their is no incentive for compromising to get things done for the \"good of the nation\" because the nation doesn't elect them. They only need to serve the interests of their (often quite narrow-minded) constituents - there is no incentive to compromise. Indeed, doing so could be seen as weakness and become a huge liability in the next election. For example, Senator McConnell, the Senate Republican majority leader, is being hit with attacks from the right for not taking enough hard-line stances against Harry Reid and the Democrats. \n\nIt's a complicated issue but it becomes clearer when you remember that Congressmen want to be reelected and to keep their jobs, not necessarily do what's best for the country.",
"Ctrl+F: first past the post\n\nNo results.\n\nSeriously, guys?",
"\"It's not my guy, it's everyone else.\"",
"Everyone loves their congress critter. Their congress critter has done a lot for the district. It's your congress critter who sucks and needs to go so please vote him out.\n\n",
"Fenno, where are you to explain?",
"A two party duopoly. The first priority of members of congress are to get elected and remain in office, and they are very good at it. After this, they are interested in getting fellow party members elected to office and keeping them in office. Distantly after those two priorities, and probably numerous others, is to actually pursue their legislative agenda and try to get some laws passed, but that's really unnecessary in pursuit of the first two priorities.\n\nNow, in a given congressional race, the candidates must convince the voters of two things. First, they must convince the voters that the Democrat and Republican running are the only two worthy candidates, and that a vote for a third party candidate is a waste. Since both parties agree on this, there isn't much a third party can do to get recognition and access to voters through debates. (Even if a third party candidate did get some attention, most voters just don't pay that much attention.)\n\nSecond, the candidates must convince voters that they are better than the other candidate. The easiest way to do this is to take the other candidates positions and highlight the negative aspects and drive those home in every speech while remaining ambiguous about their own positions. When candidates are ambiguous, people tend to assume that they agree with them on the issues. Just look at how President Obama ran on a campaign of hope and change, and what people just assumed that meant.\n\nNow that the candidate has managed to get elected, they need to focus on their reelection. That means focusing your legislative agenda on bills that are sure to please the voters, while avoiding anything that could be used against you. That's how you end up with deficit spending, because anyone who would vote to raise taxes or cut spending could be cast in a negative light during the next election. So, they vote to spend on things all the voters like while also voting to keep taxes low. If the president wants to go to war, they won't vote for it as they required by the constitution, but they also won't stop the president from doing it anyway, because being for or against war can be used against you.\n\nCongress is like your shitty roommate who doesn't stop the dog from taking a shit on the floor. Sure, they're against the dog shitting on the floor, but doing anything about it may cause them to get shit on their hands and the dog may not like them for it. Fortunately for them, they have you convinced that only one other person is willing to live with you (because they tore down your fliers), and that other person clearly hates dogs because they happen to own a cat.",
"It's true that \"Congress sucks but my politician doesn't\" for one reason: gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is why. ",
"There are quite a few reasons. The first is that incumbents have nearly every advantage in an election. Elections come down to money and networking. Incumbents have already raised the money the first time. They know who will give them money and they know how to get it. Similarly, they have all the connections. People know them and will support them. \n\nSecondly, super PACs will tend to support incumbents. PACs want to get in good with politicians and will support this whom they think will win often regardless of affiliations. Ted Kennedy was very anti gun yet every election he received the maximum donation from the NRA. The perception that incumbents will win helps make sure they actually will win.\n\nThird, people tend to hate all politicians except the one they elected. ",
"[This is a simple and mind-opening book](_URL_0_) about the problem. \n\nBasically? The voters are the problem. We vote for our representatives based on our own local interests, then expect them to carry those out. But we also expect Congress as a whole to do things that are best for the entire country. What we don't do is consider the possibility that what's best for our local community may not be good for the country. We also don't think for even a second if every district and state acted as selfishly as we did that it would cripple the nation.\n\nFarmers will think \"We produce the food for the whole country! We deserve these subsidies!\" That costs the rest of *the country* money. The steel industry thinks \"without us, American manufacturing is dead. We deserve these tax breaks!\" That costs the rest of *the country* money. The banks think \"With all these regulations, we can't quickly manage investments to keep the economy productive, and everyone depends on us doing that. We need to get these regulations gone!\" That results in *the country* getting proper fucked.\n\nNearly every \"special interest\" group can think of legitimate reasons and rationalizations for why they deserve special treatment. But everyone claiming that treatment drains our national treasures. Think about this the next time you hear a politician railing against special interests. He'll call out the easy targets, but if you dig into his politics, you'll see he has a ton of his own special interests. You shouldn't be surprised when those interests align with those of his district, his voters. \n\nWe're all a selfish bunch of assholes without any foresight or long-term thinking.\n\nThis is the exact same problem we see when we take national polls about what to do about our budget problems. \"Balance the budget!\" we say loudly. \"But don't raise my taxes or cut any of these programs!\" we say, just as loudly. You look at the poll results when they ask about specific programs to cut for spending, and even Republicans won't say yes to any of them. We're a stupid fucking group of people. \n\n**The voters are the problem.** If politicians are a problem, it's only because they listen to us so well.",
"Imagine you poll three cities for their favorite foods. These cities are A, B, and C. The poll finds the following results:\n\nA - Steak\n\nB - Candy Corn\n\nC - Deep Fried Broccoli\n\nThe pollsters say \"Well, this is fantastic, we know what each city likes, so let's give them all the same dish, one that contains all three favorite foods!\"\n\nYou now have a dish that contains steak, candy corn, and deep fried broccoli. Because it contains all three favorites, it's said to be representative of all cities preferences, but if you ask the people what they think of the dish, most of them will say that they DON'T enjoy it, because their favorite dish is being overpowered by other dishes in the casserole. \n\nThe favorites are the individual representatives, the casserole is congress, and the cities are the individual districts. \n\nIf you want to learn more about why people overwhelmingly elect incumbents in each election, that is a different story. ",
"Basically it's battered-wife syndrome. I predict you'll see a change when people stop engaging in the charade and start opting-out en masse.",
"Because everybody elses congress critter is teh devil.",
"It's never our fault.",
"My government teacher put it as \"I voted for this guy, and I'm not an idiot, so it must be the rest of Congress that is the problem\"",
"Hardly anyone will read this at the bottom, but it's lobbying, or as most politicians will never admit to calling it, legitimized bribery. I was a lobbyist for 2 years for the largest lobbying 501(c)(3) on the planet, the AARP. If we're ever going to have the opportunity for beneficial reform, lobbying/bribery has to become illegal. ",
"Answer = Gerrymandering. \n\nIn most states (some, like Iowa, California are exceptions) districts are drawn by the state legislators. Extremely advanced computer software is used to draw district lines to guarantee outcomes, allowing for maybe a single competitive race (i.e.: Florida). \n\nIn the 2012 election, more Democratic votes were cast in the nation, but the House of Representatives is Republican controlled. That is due to gerrymandering. Both parties are equally guilty of this all over the country.\n\nPeople like their Representative because they have purposefully & statistically been grouped with other like-minded citizens. This causes a galvanization of people's beliefs (nice way of saying \"close-minded\"). \n\n(Source: I have a degree in Political Science and teach college level government). ",
"\"Why does congress have a 13% approval rate but incumbents are re-elected at a rate of 90%.\"\n\nSimple. People want to think that the problem is with everyone else and not the guy that they elected. After all, the people in a district don't want to believe that they could put a guy in office that sucks. For example, you are a manager and you hire someone you really believe in to do a difficult job. He's screwing it all up and everyone around you knows it.... but to save your own ego, you deny to yourself that the guy you hired is the problem. Instead, you blame the problems on the people around him.",
"I worked on the campaign trail for nearly a decade, so I can tell you the three most interesting reasons: \n\n1. The Optimism Gap - People hate Congress but love their Congressman. This is less true than it used to be but the dynamic still holds. While Congress is less popular than the King of England at the time of the Revolutionary War, most members of Congress get something like 60-70% approval in their home district. This high level of approval among active voters is primarily due to the gerrymandering of districts (i.e. politicians choose the voters, not the other way around). However, widespread voter apathy also contributes to this dynamic because most polls only take into account the opinions of people planning on voting (the first question in most polls is: Are you planning on voting? No = goodbye). Therefore, the positive reviews of the politician's active supporters disproportionately skew polling and ignore the potentially negative opinions of inactive voters that exist in the population. \n\n2. PAC Checks - Most Political Action Committees (PACs) have a rule that they only give money to incumbent members of Congress. It's not just that the guy with the most money wins something like 95% of the time, it's also that most of the money flows to incumbents specifically. So while the challenger is phone calling every one of their friends for $100 or asking for $25 in an email to build their campaign from scratch and then later spending 5-7 hours/day 5-7 day/week raising money by cold-calling rich donors, politicians already elected to Congress get multiple $5000 checks handed to them at lunches and happy hours in DC. The incumbents-only rule is especially true of corporate PACs and rarely broken (only when it's obvious the challenger will win). \n\n3. Franking - In the budget for every member of Congress is an allotment of money for substantial amounts of postage and constituent contact, known as \"franking\". Essentially, elected member of Congress get to mail their voters for free, telling them how awesome they are and how much amazing legislation they've passed (or stopped). It's like a low-tech advertising budget for incumbent Congressmen (though some offices have even used franking dollars to run online ads). This really entrenches incumbents even further because they are constantly corresponding with constituents and doing them favors, which tit-for-tat picks them up additional support at the polls. Challengers face an uphill battle in gaining similar name recognition and popularity among the population because they have to do it all with their campaign. Incumbents get to use their office and the campaign to make their case for why they are a good member of Congress who should be re-elected.\n\nWait, this isn't ELI50? Oops, my bad. Hope it helps!\n\nPS. It's really interesting to combine the 13% approval of Congress with the Gallup poll result showing 87% of Americans believe reducing government corruption is extremely or very important (making it a top 3 issue). I wonder if the 13% of people is the same in both cases - approve of Congress and believe corruption is not a problem. Who the hell are those people?\n\ntl;dr - Congress sucks, but incumbents got the votes, the money, and the favors. ",
"I know others have mentioned the obvious answer to this paradox: redistricting. A while back, Slate magazine came up with a jigsaw puzzle game that illustrates how arbitrarily these \"districts\" are often drawn in order to all but ensure victory for one party. Give it a try here if you like: _URL_0_",
"Approval Rate: \"Do you like the president/congress?\" 'NO FUCK THEM'\n\nElection Time: \"Who'd you vote for?\" 'Same people ... didn't know anything about the others' *or* 'Didn't Vote' *or* 'etc...'",
"* Because running for office is extremely expensive \n* name recognition goes a very long way",
"see GERRYMANDERING ... that is the answer.",
"People love their state congressmen, they just hate everyone else's.",
"Scientifically gerrymandered districts + scientifically effective techniques that reduce voter turnout = polarized electorate, and defeat-proof incumbents. ",
"Wikibot, what is Gerrymandering?",
"The entire political process has been hijacked by money and the people running are always the same cogs in the same machine. They don't represent us and they haven't in 100 years. The ad campaigns they run to sell us these people work on most of the Lemmings (i.e. \"hope and change\"). Collectively we don't have the intelligence or the will to get people in office who actually represent us.",
"People hate change. They fear what they don't know \n\n",
"Here's an example for you: Congress is currently authorizing tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars to be spent on construction of fighter jets that the military has no use for. These jets are going straight from factories into scrap yards. The vast majority of the country thinks this is outrageous, but the thousands of people who work at those factories are very happy with the work their representatives in Congress have done to keep their jobs from disappearing.\n\nCongressmen are elected to serve the interests of their states or districts. If they can siphon enough tax dollars back into their home districts, then their constituents will love them, even if it means they're screwing over the rest of the country in the process.",
"You should change yours I'm afraid of charge. ",
"OOH OOH WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN GOV CLASS\nits something called the incumbent advantage: essentially, he's already well known, and the other guy has to fight an uphill battle to get his name out there. essentially they use those ads, \"do we really know who (insert person running against incumbent) is?\" also, most local parties don't allow fellow party members to run against them (so a republican can't run against a republican incumbent and get party support and has to run as an independent) and in some districts that are overwhelmingly one party the other guy (democrat or republican) doesn't really stand a chance. ",
"Because we, the people, are horrible at making decisions. Just like Congress.\n\nPeople don't actually follow political news for the most part. They vote based primarily on familiarity with a name, or for their \"political party\". I feel confident that 90% of people that vote for an elected official can't tell you with any level of confidence what that person actually stands for or has built their \"campaign\" on. \n\nIn short, American politics are awful, and we need to erase what we have and start over, imo.",
"Extremely simple answer: people hear national news about congress and local news about their representative (if they hear information about them at all).\n\nNational news work is often higher profile and there's a much bigger focus on investigative journalism. Local news is more concerned with fluff pieces and the image of whatever region they are in. This isn't true in bigger locales, local news in New York city almost certainly has a hard-hitting investigative bent to it, especially compared to the newspaper from buttfuck nowhere.\n\nThat means that when you hear about your representative, unless they've done something bad enough to draw the attention of national news, you're probably reading a fluff piece.\n\nThis phenomenon alone is enough to give people a biased opinion of their own representatives compared to others.",
"Because research is hard, and commercials are pretty.",
"Because *your* representative sucks.",
"The two party system has failed us. That is why.",
"I think it's because congress, not their specific politician has a 13% approval ratings. For the most part, republicans blame democrats and democrats blame republicans. So a republican thinks democrats ruin congress and thus congress is bad. And vice versa. I've come to this conclusion because these are my opinions, but I won't get too opinionated or political here",
"Fixing it would involve more than 50% of voting-age Americans giving a shit. Of those only 50% show up to vote. Of those, only 50% know anything about who or what they are voting for. Of those only 50% bother to be involved in the political process beyond voting day. The rest watch \"16 and Pregnant with the Kardashians\"",
"because when you check approval ratings people think about the \"actions\" of congress as one entity.\n\nbut when they vote they vote directly on party lines (all dem all repub) and or as the media \"tells\" them to vote.\n\nOR the \"ratings\" are cherry picked statistics that mean nothing.",
"Because people are generally forced to pick between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.",
"The short answer is, because they aren't real elections.\n\nWhile that's not entirely true, after two centuries of political positioning and posturing, the cards have been effectively stacked in favor of the incumbent and reigning political parties.\n\nedit: crap, I only just noticed this is supposed to be ELI5... oh well. I'll leave it up. I can take the downvotes.",
"It's called gerrymandering and it's bullshit.\n_URL_0_",
"Power - > Money - > Advertising - > Votes",
"Watch this movie. It explains everything. [The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) starring Eddie Murphy](_URL_0_)",
"\"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.\" - Winston Churchill",
"I'm a little late to the party, but I think I can make a meaningful contribution to this ELI5.\n\nA major problem with the American political system is how we vote. I'm not talking about the Electoral College, electronic ballots or anything like that. I'm talking about the mathematical system we use to combine individual preferences into a group preference. Each person selects one candidate, the votes are tallied, and the candidate with the most votes wins. This is known as plurality voting, and it sounds fair.\n\nUnfortunately, plurality voting is deceptively simple. It has a major defect known as [the spoiler effect.](_URL_0_) The spoiler effect occurs when a candidate draws votes from a major candidate with similar political views thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win. Famous presidential spoilers include Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader. Spoilers not only happen during presidential elections, but at every level of government. This is why [Republicans fund Green Party Candidates](_URL_5_), and [Democrats fund Libertarian Candidates](_URL_3_) in an effort to take votes away from their opponents.\n\nThe spoiler effect has trained voters to [strategically vote](_URL_2_) to prevent the spoiler effect from occurring. Unfortunately, [strategic voting perpetuates the two party system](_URL_6_), and the two party system is a major reason why we have such crappy candidates.\n\nThe good news is that there are voting systems that eliminate the spoiler effect. The bad news is that there is no clear best voting system. [Score Voting](_URL_4_) (The same system Amazon uses to rate products) is a personal favorite of mine.\n\nTL;DR: We keep voting for the same crappy politicians because math. [Here is a CGP Grey video about it]( _URL_1_)\n",
"Because a state representative congress was a great idea 250 years ago but sucks now. When a congressman tacks on $50 million worth of pork on a bill his own state loves him while the rest of the country hates him for wasting our money. When the military gets stuck with a billion dollars worth of planes they don't want, which prevents them from getting equipment they DO want and can cost lives, everyone hates that congressman, but the people in his state where the manufacturer is located love him. It is an awful system right now, the country suffers because they all look out for themselves first, their state second, the country last. Add to that the money trail, where encumbents have corporate dollars already behind them, plus they can sell their seniority as a benefit if they are on key committees and the system is rigged for reelection.",
"It's because the way most districts are drawn there is really no more competitive races left for Congress.",
"How has gerrymandered districts not come up yet? Gerrymandering produces safe districts that encourage extremism, as the only challenger will likely be the one more able to appeal to the district's base.",
"Because Americans just vote straight ticket instead of researching their candidates. ",
"I like to tell Australians that \"I exercise my right not to vote.\" I refuse to vote for the lessor of two evils, and I'm still waitng for a canidate who represents me fully. I'd go to write in \"Stephen Colbert\" but thats just a waste of resources. I would always vote if the gov comes up with an app for that... ha"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States#Incumbency_financial_advantage"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.rollcall.com/features/Election-Preview_2011/election/top-5-ugliest-districts-210224-1.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/11/the-top-ten-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Governments-End-Washington-Stopped-Working/dp/1891620495"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/08/gerrymandering_jigsaw_puzzle_game_put_the_congressional_districts_back_together.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering"
],
[],
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104114/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_voting",
"http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-bundler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Score_Voting",
"http://www.greenparty.org/PA_funding.php",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
l475c | how the reddit spam filter works. | I have only submitted 3 links which were not even remotely spam, and 2 of them were caught by the spam filter and I had to message the mods, yet I constantly see actual spam in the new que. So what's up with this thing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l475c/eli5_how_the_reddit_spam_filter_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2po7au",
"c2pon6a",
"c2po7au",
"c2pon6a"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"nice try spamer",
"The reddit spam filter is a highly tuned machine, carefully taking into account many factors such as your previous posts and how well they did, your karma, whether you have reddit gold, Tuesdays, solar flares, CMBR and and the stock market, before flipping a coin and deleting your post on heads.",
"nice try spamer",
"The reddit spam filter is a highly tuned machine, carefully taking into account many factors such as your previous posts and how well they did, your karma, whether you have reddit gold, Tuesdays, solar flares, CMBR and and the stock market, before flipping a coin and deleting your post on heads."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5s34lc | why do most artists, actors, musicians and comedians tend to be left leaning? what is it about being on the right that makes you less inclined to create art? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5s34lc/eli5_why_do_most_artists_actors_musicians_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddc5n5u"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Think of it this way:\n\nWhen you do your taxes or you fill in your name on some form, you're technically creating something that wasn't there before. But we don't call *that* kind of thing \"creative,\" because you're not doing anything *new and different.* \n\n\"Creative\" people are people who naturally like to do things differently than others. \n\nAnd that usually means they're naturally more comfortable with the changes that *result* from doing things differently...and also that they're more comfortable with other people who are openly different, just like *they're* being \"openly different\" every time they do or make something that's creative and new.\n\nAnd by contrast: If someone is \"right-leaning,\" that means they're (typically) politically *conservative.* And if someone is more \"conservative\" and more comfortable with things staying the way they are, then they usually won't become \"a creative person\" who does things differently. (Although they might, of course, still become a *traditional* artist who \"follows the [old] rules\". But we don't hear about those artists as much.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
14hx8p | what is the difference between an institute, university, community, and college? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14hx8p/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_an_institute/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7d822q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Institutes and communities can be a lot of different things!\n\nA university is a collection of colleges. When you go to a university, you don't graduate from \"University X\", you graduate from \"The College of Y\". Think of a university as the federal government and colleges as states. States are largely self-contained and autonomous. If states get in a lot of trouble financially, they can turn to the federal government for help but it won't always work. The same is true of colleges inside of universities.\n\nThere are also colleges that are stand-alone, not part of any university system. These are, as an example, community colleges and state state colleges. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
35eubu | why do female rabbits hump? | Whenever I put two female bunnies in the same cage they take turns humping each other? They are both definitely female. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35eubu/eli5_why_do_female_rabbits_hump/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr3zjy8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Rabbits, both female and male, mount and hump each other as a sign of dominance. Rabbits tend to be very territorial and surprisingly aggressive.\n\nSorry if this answer isn't super in depth. Hopefully someone with a more satisfying explanation will come along.\n\nSource: Owned two rabbits (one male, one female). They would take turns humping each other.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
dt9ahv | how do different types of cells make different types of proteins? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dt9ahv/eli5_how_do_different_types_of_cells_make/ | {
"a_id": [
"f6vmmjj",
"f6vr5ik"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This process is highly regulated and has a lot of intersecting influences \n\nIn general, when embryos start to develop specific tissues some changes happen on the DNA that makes certain areas more \"open\" or readable. These open areas lead to higher levels of those genes turning into RNA and then proteins. Some of these differentially expressed genes search out for specific codes in your DNA that correspond to other genes associated with a specific tissue type. So these tissue specific \"transcription factors\" help muscles cells make muscles, or immune cells make immune signals.",
"All nucleated cells have the same DNA content. But you never express all the genes in the same cell. The genome is a library, and each cell reads only a section of that library.\n\nDuring development, there are asymmetrical gradients of secreted proteins. Say you have two cells next to each other, A on the left, B on the right, and you secrete protein X from the left of cell A. Due to diffusion, protein X will spread, but it will have a higher concentration near A than B. So now A will have a different response, and it will start to express different \"transcription factors\" than B. These factors are basically specific to certain genes, they facilitate their expression.\n\nNow A has slightly different genes, as the cells divide more and more they also secrete their own proteins. This creates a spatially complex network of many secreted proteins. The different combinations of protein concentrations each cell receives pushes it to have a more and more unique identity.\n\nThen these cells differentiate to tissues. And in the developed organism, you have a wide range of tissues, even expressing different transcription factors. And they also have different parts of their chromosomes \"loosened\" making them readable, as opposed to compact and tight.\n\nThese identities affect expression of many things that can in turn affect expression of other things, how you splice (how you create a given protein from a given gene), how you regulate that protein, how this protein responds to a given signal from the outside etc. It's really just layers of complexity compounding on earlier layers, generating cells with highly specific functions.\n\nNote: this is very simplified. Dozens more mechanisms exist for all the above. I just gave you an idea about how it works."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5jkx1s | how do usb-c ports support so many different types of connection (power, thunderbolt, video, etc) at the same time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jkx1s/eli5how_do_usbc_ports_support_so_many_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbgxz06"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"USB-C has a lot of pins, some of which can be repurposed. So it can't carry everything simultaneously, but it gives you the flexiblity that previously took a whole row of different ports.\n\nThere's 10 non-duplicate pins:\n\n* 2 for power (coming and going)\n* 4 for either high-speed USB (3.0) or DisplayPort (for video)\n* 2 for standard USB (2.0) for backwards compabibility and so you can use USB and displayport simulatenously (just not as fast)\n* 1 that's totally open for future standards and options if people want to implement something \n* 1 for USB Power Delivery communication, to confirm if devices are capable of handling higher juice to charge faster\n\nA couple of these are duplicated resulting in 12 pins, and then the entire setup is duplicated and mirrored on the other side for 24 pins.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3b6j1l | how much more dna do we share with relatives than the average stranger? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b6j1l/eli5_how_much_more_dna_do_we_share_with_relatives/ | {
"a_id": [
"csjbudz",
"csjby62",
"csjc6y7",
"csjcp6h",
"csje5nl",
"csjug5b"
],
"score": [
126,
3,
15,
6,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Among humans, all but about 0.1% of our DNA is the same. That .1% accounts for all differences we see among humans. Every color, shape, and size.\n\nFor identical twins, the DNA is 100% the same. Siblings/parents/children share about 50% (of the .1%). Grandparents/grandchildren it's about 25% (of the .1%).\n\nA distant cousin might share .01-3% (again, of that .1% that's different, not the total).\n\nWith a stranger, nearly none of that .1% that makes us unique is shared, but of course, the 99.9% we share with all humans would still be the same.",
"There's a certain percentage of our DNA that all humans share, because that DNA is essentially what makes us human (for example the genes that make sure our internal organs form properly). I believe this percentage is upward of 99%. Of the remaining DNA, on average you will share 50% with a sibling, since you both received a random mix of genetic material from the same two people. This percentage lessens the more distant the relative. So to answer your question, mathematically speaking the extra similarity in DNA between you and a sibling as compared to you and a stranger isn't that large, but that extra similarity often codes for aesthetic things such as eye colour which are easily noticed.",
"It also depends where you are in the world. In Africa there is in general more genetic variation between people. So in Africa you will share slightly less DNA on average with a random stranger. In the rest of the world, the hypothesis is that they were founded by a subset of the African population which left in the past, and so everyone is slightly more interrelated than the African population.\n\nThere are on average ~5 million differences between any person's DNA and the reference genome. Total human DNA is 6 billion bases, so you have ~ 99.99% of the same DNA as any other human being. Your 5 million differences from the reference will be shared 50% with your siblings. With a complete stranger from the same population, you will share less than that, but the exact amount will depend on which population you are in.\n",
"The percentage of the genome varying among humans is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.4% ([source](_URL_0_)). Let's say it's 0.2% for this example. So if you compare your genome with a random human, you should share 99.8% of your DNA with them.\n\nYou may have heard that you share 50% of your DNA with your siblings. That seems crazy when you compare it to the numbers above, but they aren't the same thing. The 50% you share with your siblings is what geneticists call \"identical by descent,\" meaning you not only got the same sequence at those genes as your sibling, you also inherited that sequence from the same place. (Note: 50% is a probability, not an exact measure.) A lot of it is going to be the same anyway (probably 99.8%). But you also share 50% of the remaining 0.2%. So if the average similarity between any two humans is 99.8%, then the average similarity between two siblings is 99.9%.\n\nWhether that is rather small or not depends on your point of view... to a geneticist, its quite a lot. :-)",
"It depends entirely on how close a family member is. \n\nAs stated by other posters we're all 99.8 more or less the same in structure and composition of genes. The closest relationship (the one with the least genetic diversity) is between identical twins, which is estimated at 60 SNP variants at birth. ",
" > Given that we share ~50% of our DNA with a banana\n\nBy the way, numbers like these are often misunderstood. The banana genome is 600 million bases long, while the human genome is 3 billion bases long. So how can we share 50% of our DNA with banana when we have 5 times more DNA than it does?\n\nWhat this number is really is the similarity between regions of both genomes that are \"orthologous\", meaning they're descended from the same region is the most recent common ancestor. There are tons of human genes that don't have orthologs in bananas (like genes to grow an eye, for example) and vice versa, so they're just not considered."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3oo8lr | why does hypoglycemia give you a headache and shakes? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3oo8lr/eli5_why_does_hypoglycemia_give_you_a_headache/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvz2h7g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most of your cells use a molecule called ATP for energy. However, ATP is too large to pass through the blood-brain barrier, so the brain uses glucose (the \"sugar\" in \"blood sugar\") for energy instead. Those symptoms are the result of your brain being energy-starved during periods of low blood sugar."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
23ud9q | what is the advantage to separating urine and feces? | I know how urine is from kidneys which has a different function, but why doesn't it just feed back into the fecal system? Wouldn't it be advantageous to have one fewer orifice? Or to reduce the sexual system to 1 output? Women get UTI all the time. Is there an advantage to separation I'm missing here? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23ud9q/eli5_what_is_the_advantage_to_separating_urine/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch0odj0",
"ch0oe0t",
"ch0oeqc"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Don't birds work that way? Presumably also many reptiles. And don't cows have their tubes much closer together?\n\nNow you got me wondering.",
"Amphibians, reptiles, birds, egg-laying mammals (the duck-billed platypus and some species of echidna) and some fish all possess one opening for faeces, urine and egg-laying. When people joke about eggs coming from the anus of a chicken, they're actually quite right, except that it's not called an \"anus\", it's called a \"cloaca\" -- which, rather distressingly -- is the Latin word for \"sewer\". When you look at bird poop, it's usually white with a black dot -- the white part is the urine, and the black dot is the actual poop.\n\nWe humans have a sort of residual cloaca; it's just divided up. However, there is a congenital disorder called \"persitent cloaca\", where all the openings come together and everything comes out of one channel. This causes severe problems in most cases: loss of bowel and urinary control, impaired sexual function and, for women, problems with menstruation and real difficulty with childbirth.",
"Liquids can be filtered out via osmosis, but bacteria LOVE fecal matter. You have so many bacteria in your gut. It's necessary to separate them because of this, and due to the nature of fluids and solutes they can be separated easily, whereas poop not so much. So it makes sense to use chemical filtration rather than physical filtration to divide the two from the intestines and be processed similarly, so that only one tube so to speak, needs to be set up to deal with a lot of bacteria. That would be your colon."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1njnc7 | why websites do not render apostrophes properly. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1njnc7/eli5_why_websites_do_not_render_apostrophes/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccj693s",
"ccj6s5b"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Where do you see this?\n\nThat's, it's, etc.",
"I take it you mean \"fancy\" apostrophes like this one: ’\n\nInstead of \"straight\" apostrophes like this one: '\n\nTo really explain this we need to talk about Unicode, character sets, and character encodings.\n\nA *character set* is a scheme where you assign a number to each character that you need to write down.\n\nA *character encoding* is a way of writing down the character set. If you have a number like 8217, how do you write it down so that a computer can read it nicely? What about 44032?\n\nAnyway, computers need to use a common character set and character encoding for text, if a person is going to read the text later on.\n\n* Websites are hosted on web servers - web servers can tell your web browser what character encoding / character set the page is meant to be using.\n* If the web server itself does not tell you the encoding scheme, the page can mention it instead in its contents.\n* If the page doesn't mention it, then your web browser has to guess the scheme used.\n* But when it guesses incorrectly, or worse, if the web server or the web page mentions a wrong scheme, then the browser is bound to mess up, and you're bound to see funny letters instead of the proper letter(s).\n\n\"Straight\" apostrophes are commonly used in a character set called *ASCII*, and the encoding scheme is very simple too.\n\n\"Fancy\" apostrophes are not included in ASCII, and they belong in different character sets. There are different ways to write those character sets down (different encodings)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3eldcx | if you were to look at a mirage through binoculars or telescope, what would you see? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eldcx/eli5_if_you_were_to_look_at_a_mirage_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctg1qc8",
"ctg1tz2",
"ctg2tlo"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You would see exactly the same mirage, just bigger. The use of a magnifying lens doesn't really affect the mechanism that causes mirages, which is an interaction between air layers of different temperatures.",
"You would see a magnified version of the mirage. A mirage is caused by a difference between refractive indexes of the hot layer of air close to the pavement and the relatively cooler air above it. That change in refractive index and the shallow viewing angle create a reflection which shimmers. Viewing it through a magnifier just makes it look closer. ",
"You're seeing the souls of those damned by heaven and rejected by hell. Stare too long and you'll join them. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
53tnkn | what exactly is the "core" that they talk about in fitness? (e.g. use your core, find your core, etc.) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53tnkn/eli5_what_exactly_is_the_core_that_they_talk/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7w3tv5",
"d7w3vv8"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There is a group of muscles within and around your abdomen which keep the top of your body from just flopping around on top of your hips. That is referred to as your \"core\" and is important in supporting almost any other exertion you can do.",
"It's the set of muscles that keep your spine straight. That includes all the muscles around your spine and the ones around your abdomen. \n\nWhen you hold your whole body straight while doing one of the plank variations* the muscles that get tired around your torso are your core muscles.\n\n*Hold a push-up position, then rotate so your facing right and then left. Finally face up."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4029cr | why are diamonds found so much more commonly in south africa? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4029cr/eli5_why_are_diamonds_found_so_much_more_commonly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyqvvz5",
"cyqwkb7"
],
"score": [
2,
13
],
"text": [
"Diamonds are hardened carbon - which also makes up coal and oil. Coal and oil come from dead organic stuff that has decomposed. There used to be a large rainforest over Africa before the split of Pangea, which allowed for large coal deposits to form, and then time allowed them to turn to diamonds more so that other things. That's why oil is not (commonly) found in areas with diamonds; the diamonds would be oil, the the oil diamonds, due to differences in which forests occurred in that area.",
"The geology of diamonds is interesting, they are formed in the Earth's mantle, miles below the surface. We live on the crust of the Earth, and plate tectonics mostly recycles crust material, and what does come up from the mantle is altered significantly. The only formation that contains diamonds is a kimberlite pipe, which forms in an explosive volcanic eruption from deep in the mantle. Those kimberlite pipes aren't common, and only a small fraction contain diamonds.\n\nThere is only one known diamond field in the US, but a few diamonds have been found in all 50 states. This is because diamonds are much harder than other stones, the diamonds have probably been on the surface for a very long time, moved from place to place by rivers and glaciers. I imagine that many of them traveled as gastroliths- stones that birds swallow to grind food inside their stomach. The odds of a bird swallowing a diamond are one in a billion, but there have been countless billions of birds.\n\nDiamonds are dense, so they are found in the same river gravel that gold prospectors search. They have a high index of refraction, they sparkle even if they aren't cut and polished, so a person interested in minerals- like a gold prospector- would notice them instantly.\n\nSome redditors like to say that diamonds are common, and that DeBeers hoards them. I cut gems as a hobby, I can assure you that if diamonds were common, I would quit my job, find them, and sell them. Faceting isn't terribly complex, you can learn to cut a round brilliant in a day, although diamonds cut slowly. [Diamond mines are also incredibly huge](_URL_0_), if the diamond cartel already had vaults of diamonds they would probably *stop digging the biggest mines in history*. Most stones are exponentially less common in large sizes, the diamond cartels might have tons of tiny stones that they keep off the market."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.mining-technology.com/features/feature-the-worlds-top-10-biggest-diamond-mines/"
]
] |
||
6gsgzp | can us states enter into agreements without the federal government being involved? | I saw a Reddit post by someone who moved to California and said he didn't care about people in Red States anymore. He said they can keep their 'terrible policies' and that he thinks states should focus on themselves instead of trying to 'force' policies on states that don't want them.
I know it may be hard to fund many entitlement programs or progressive policies within a single state, but is it possible to Blue States to band together and form some sort of multi-state entitlement agency. Are states allowed to make these kinds of treaties, or is this only possible through the federal government? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gsgzp/eli5_can_us_states_enter_into_agreements_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"disoc91"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"States can make agreements with each other, and they do it all the time. They are usually called \"compacts\" and deal with many different topics, like sharing of law enforcement information, water rights, lotteries, and other things.\n\nTwo or more states can certainly make agreements with each other to do things that they are already entitled to do. But they can't do things that are reserved for the federal government, like printing money, border control, or establishing tariffs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5f2z5c | how do tails on animals help their balance? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5f2z5c/eli5_how_do_tails_on_animals_help_their_balance/ | {
"a_id": [
"dah23y4",
"dah24bc",
"dah24qp"
],
"score": [
3,
23,
2
],
"text": [
"You know how sometimes when you're trying to maintain balance you put your arms out, maybe try to put one arm farther to balance in that direction? \n\nSame deal. It's just an extra limb that helps counterbalance. ",
"Stand on one foot and keep your arms at your sides. How hard is it to balance?\n\nNow stick your arms out. How easy is it to balance now?\n\nIf you had a tail to stick out too, can you see why this might help you balance?\n\nIt allows finer control over your center of balance.",
"I think it's similar to seeing a tightrope walker hold a bar or how people stick their arms straight out to the side when trying to walk a straight line. It helps balance their center of gravity. I could be wrong though."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1wirkx | justin trudeau's expelling of all 32 liberal senators today | I don't follow politics really, but as a Canadian I am curious as to the significance behind this move. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wirkx/eli5_justin_trudeaus_expelling_of_all_32_liberal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf2izwg"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"In Canadian politics, the parliament is composed of two groups, the House of Commons and the Senate, both of which must agree before a new law can be passed.\n\nMembers of the house are the people we elected to represent us, but the members of the Senate are chosen by the Queen's representative (known as the Governor General) on recommendation by the Prime Minister. Once one becomes a senator they basically stay a senator until either they resign or they reach the age of 75. New senators are generally only chosen when one of them needs to be replaced.\n\nBecause the current Prime Minister gets to effectively pick any replacement Senators, they can choose people that will continue to act in favor the party, even if the Prime Minister loses the next election. As a result up until recently senators were usually high-ranking members of cabinets or the party that currently held the majority.\n\nThis is creating some contention on the Canadian political landscape as most Canadians don't like the idea that the senators weren't actually elected by the people of Canada.\n\nIn recent years the conservatives have held elections for senators in some provinces and the senators which won the elections were the ones that were recommended to the Governor General.\n\nThe Liberal party is trying to appeal to voters by distancing themselves from senators that they put in place long ago when the liberals had a majority government. And in essence they've told their senators that they should make their own decisions and not follow the Liberal party line.\n\nSo on one hand it is probably a good thing that senators are encouraged to make up their own mind; The whole reason the Senate exists was supposedly to give \"a sober second look\" at any legislation being created in the house.\n\nThat said, we're talking about senators who were usually fairly high up in the Liberal party to begin with, and generally held liberal opinions on all issues. The fact that they are now arm's-length from the Liberal party probably wouldn't change their decision-making. Nor does it change the fact that they weren't actually elected by the Canadian people.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
acb64w | does saving a digital file (like a pdf) to an object (like a hard drive) change the mass of the object it’s saved to? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/acb64w/eli5_does_saving_a_digital_file_like_a_pdf_to_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"ed6l3sh",
"ed6s6ba"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"No.\n\nIt is simply the moving of magnetic switches from the \"Off\" position to the \"on\" position, and vice versa. There is no mass change. ",
"Yes, but it a very, very, very small amount. Energy is needed to create those bits and energy has a mass equivalence. [This page](_URL_0_) estimates the mass of one bit to be **at least** 3.61x10^-38 kg for a computer at 150F/66C. That number is not dependent on the technology used to store it. The mass will be higher for practical systems because they are inefficient. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://scottkurowski.com/massbit/index.htm"
]
] |
||
1j6ss1 | why are people boycotting florida for the "stand your ground" law when it wasn't even used in the trayvon martin case? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j6ss1/eli5_why_are_people_boycotting_florida_for_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbbnvdw",
"cbbnxfb"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"There's this notion that, by eliminating a person's duty to retreat from a life-threatening situation (effectively what the law does), the law encourages violent confrontation.",
"I did not know there was a boycott until my employer asked us all to avoid FL businesses and not to travel there on company money. Very strange as we have several contacts I don't want to lose. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7wfpvh | how does skill-based matchmaking work in multiplayer video games? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wfpvh/eli5_how_does_skillbased_matchmaking_work_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtzz4z8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The algorithm can vary from game to game. One that I'm familiar with is he [Glicko](_URL_0_) system which assigns players values which go up or down depending on the rating of the other players and the outcome of the game. If you are the underdog and win, you gain more points than if you rated higher than your opponent before the match. But likewise lose more if you were ranked higher but end up losing. Games with team play will have algorithms to generate an overall team rating and another algorithm how to add or subtract points from individuals after the match.\n\nOf course, just having a rating is one thing, if you are playing a team game, matchmaking itself needs another algorithm to try to generate teams of equal skill. If you don't have enough players in the player base or there are simply not many players at your skill level, the matchmaking system may start pulling players further from the team average over time just to fill out the team."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system"
]
] |
||
45ay01 | are programming languages all in english? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45ay01/eli5_are_programming_languages_all_in_english/ | {
"a_id": [
"czwg8d3",
"czwg9em",
"czwgcrp"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, there's a language called [Brainfuck] (_URL_0_), which bears no relation to any human or animal language ... and a variation of that called Ook! in which all commands are Ook! and variations thereof. ",
"They're kind of in English. Programming languages normally only have a small set of keywords though. Those keywords are in English, but since there's only a few of them and they have specific meanings it wouldn't be difficult to learn what they do without knowing English. I mean English speakers still have to learn what a \"for\" loop is, even though they know what the word \"for\" means.\n\nThat said, I think it's expected that programmers in most of the world should know English. It's technically possible to use a programming language without any prior English ability. But not knowing English would severely limit your ability to work with commonly used APIs, because the names of functions will almost certainly be in English only.",
"[Not all programming languages are in English](_URL_0_). However, most are, and all the commonly used ones are.\n\nI can't comment with authority on how non native speakers manage because I am a native English speaker. I have worked with many people who are not native speakers, though - but they've all spoken fluent English. I can only imagine it would be difficult to use a programming language in a language in which you aren't reasonably fluent... but English is so prevalent throughout the developed world that it's rarely a problem."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck"
],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-English-based_programming_languages"
]
] |
||
1rdmxg | why so many characters in children's films have dead parents. | Particularly in Disney Channel movies. I have seen a lot of these since my daughter came along and when we watch a new one we seem to always have the 'I'm sensing a dead parent' moment. It's the mom in the majority of films but dead dads do happen to.
Why is this employed so often? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rdmxg/eli5_why_so_many_characters_in_childrens_films/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdm663l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Simplifies the family dynamic. One parent, one relationship to address in the film.\n\nOr it's used as a defining moment in the character's life: lion King, Bambi, Snow White. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2vo3vw | why isn't every moisturizer/lotion "for sensitive skin"? | It seems to me that it would be beneficial for both consumer and company if peoples faces didn't explode upon application of the "regular" kind.
Is the sensitive lotion less effective? Is the regular lotion otherwise superior in any way? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vo3vw/eli5_why_isnt_every_moisturizerlotion_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cojdzsx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sensitive skin moisturise tends to be made with different ingredients, some of which can be more expensive than those used in regular moisturisers. \n\nAdditionally, one many products sensitive skin is code word for dry skin. Something that can work well on dry skin can make regular skin excessively oily. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6bmz00 | how can two games look so different on the same console? | I played Dark Souls I and II, and I couldn't help but notice how much more beautiful II looked on the exact same Xbox that I played the first one on. How does this kind of change happen despite me never upgrading my hardware? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bmz00/eli5_how_can_two_games_look_so_different_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhny9dp",
"dhnz574",
"dhnzsrk"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
9
],
"text": [
"Because your console isn't the only thing that can be improved upon. \n\nThe development team itself, over the years, gains experience, gets better at creating more complex art, they learn how to better utilize the console, They might have a bigger art budget than last time around, the industry as a whole improves their methods, They might be targeting higher-end machines than before, and so on and so forth. ",
"They got better at programming simply. Your Xbox can do more than what the first game showed and the second proves that. The studio may have gotten a bigger budget and more experience thus they could cough out a more technologically advanced game. \n\n\nGood example is GTA SA and half life 2. Both came out same year. Yet half life has much better graphics",
"Here's an analogy: A pencil is a tool you can create pictures with. It is limited, for example you are not able to produce colours with it. (This would be what the console is just not capable to do). But within the things you are able to do, there is a huge spectrum. You can create simple stick-figures. But the more you master the tool, the more complex and detailed things you will be able to draw.\n\nA console is just another medium that has to be mastered. (Look at some PS1 or NES games. Compare Super Mario Bros. 1 to SMB3. Same console, one early and one late game. Developers just learned a lot in these years."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5upa9s | why, in the uk, student loans are seen as a bad thing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5upa9s/eli5_why_in_the_uk_student_loans_are_seen_as_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddvt3uw",
"ddvtju9"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I think the reason is that we seem to have regressed. In other words we've gone from free tuition 20 or so years ago to £9000 a year. \n\nCouple this with the possibility that more than 50% of students may never pay back their loans, thereby leading to a loss to the taxpayer (when the measure was meant to save money), and the fact that many more students are being sent to uni to do degrees which will not boost their earning potential in any major way, and it doesn't seem to me that you have a decent system. ",
"The main reason as to why student loans are found to be so hostile is because of what they replaced. \n\nThey replaced student grants on the maintenance side, meaning that instead of having to pay it back, it wasn't to be paid off at all. \n\nTuition fee loans are good as it allows many with lower incomes to go to university, but the hostilities to this is simply because it has risen from £3000 a year to £9000 a year, with seemingly little value for money. Before that, no tuition fees whatsoever. \n\nWhilst the current scheme isn't bad, what it has replaced was far more reasonable. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
chhoys | what is the difference between capital gains and dividends? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/chhoys/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_capital_gains/ | {
"a_id": [
"eut7zq3"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Capital gains are when an investor sells a stock for a profit. \n\nDividends are typically when the corporation has made so much money that they would like to reward the investors. So the company gives them cash every three months or so."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
x62tu | in honor of the olympics, how do you judge gymnastics? | I swear, when I watch the Olympics, I dont understand what the judges are looking for. Looks like some gymnasts land with a post-bounce and you hear the announcers say, "Oh, she'll be deducted for that." And then other times if they land with a quick, perky bounce the announcers flip out because it was an amazing landing. I don't understand what to look for in the movements for the different gymnastics events.
Can someone give me an overall gist of what the judges take off points for in the floor routine, parallel bars (is that one?), uneven bars, rings, vault, balance beam, etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x62tu/eli5_in_honor_of_the_olympics_how_do_you_judge/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5mgcqk",
"c5jhvp4",
"c5jzags"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Former gymnast here:\n\n* Form: Strait legs(unless the skill is a bent legged skill), pointed toes, legs together.\n* Control: Pauses, stops between skills, loss of balance, falling.\n* Sticking landings: number of steps, size of steps, landing low, landing far off to one side.\n* Skill Requirements: Routines must have certain numbers and types of elements. Some examples would be a forward flip, backward flip, twist, strength move, dance move.\n\nEach of those mistakes has a certain range of points the judge can deduct. Your score is then calculated using your execution points which 10 added to your difficulty points which can range based on the difficult of your skills usually hovers around 4-6 in olympic competition and then the mistakes are deducted from that. So i did a routine with 4 points difficulty but made 2 points worth of mistakes it would be 10 + 4 - 2",
"Each gymnasts routine is given a difficulty score before they participate. The more difficult the routine or stunt, the higher the difficulty score. They are then judged on their execution of that routine or stunt and the two scores are combined.\n\nPoints are awarded based on execution. When they land, the idea is that they should not have to take a step, showing great balance. If a competitor takes a large step or a long jump after landing, they will be deducted points. Points are also taken off for lack of execution, slips and falls, improper body position, or other mistakes.",
"To add to what sixthmillipede said: The reason you hear different things about the landings is that the announcers are compensating for difficulty. For example, ANY bounce can be a deduction. If the dismount is particularly difficult, they might say it was amazing because considering how hard a move it was, landing it with only a small bounce is very very impressive. \n\nMy dad used to be a judge for gymnastics, so if you have any more questions feel free to ask. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1f9plb | roth ira accounts | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1f9plb/eli5_roth_ira_accounts/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca85krj",
"ca85z4a"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Is this a question, or a rant? Roth IRAs don't pay 0-1%, they are invested in mutual funds and indexes just like a 401k / traditional IRA and typically have a modest return - higher than interest rates for a typical savings account or a CD. The difference is you are taxed on the cash before it goes into the Roth IRA, so you dont pay taxes when it comes out. You still can't take it out until you are at least of retirement age, however, without paying additional penalties.",
"I don't see any question here, I see a rant. if you have a specific question feel free to repost without the rant."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
axm11r | - salt is supposed to be dehydrating, but electrolytes are salt too, and good for hydration? how does this work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axm11r/eli5_salt_is_supposed_to_be_dehydrating_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehudflh",
"ehudv3x",
"ehuh00a",
"ehuhlxe"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Salt is an essential electrolyte, but if you overdo it, your body needs to flush it out, leaving you dehydrated. ",
"The salt in your body needs to be at a certain concentration for the nerves and some other things to function properly. Now if you eat a lot of salty food, the kidneys will remove the salt through urine, which is why salt is dehydrating.\n\nBut sweat is also salty, so if you're sweating a lot, you're losing salt. This isn't really a big problem under normal circumstances, since there's a lot of water and salt in your body. But if you're doing intense, long exercise such as running a marathon, you're going to lose dangerous amounts of salt. That's why sports drinks contain electrolytes.\n\nFor regular, routine workout, this isn't necessary. You can drink plain water and replenish salt through food afterwards.",
"Wherever salt goes, water follows. If you're taking salt in, there is a retention of water in your system. If your body detects you have too much salt, the body will excrete it and the water will also follow.",
"A very simplified answer:\n\nThere's two main things salt (and not just NaCl) is used for in the body; maintaining water balance through osmosis and enabling messages to be sent across cell membranes.\n\nThe body maintains water balance by controlling the amount of salt in various places in the body, by pumping in or pumping out salt, which affects the rate at which water molecules (who are too small to be hindered by cell membranes) move and where they move to. This is osmosis, and occurs everywhere in nature. In summary, if there is more salt in a place, then water will tend to go to the salty place, to dilute it. This will occur until the concentration of salt is the same in both, the place the water came from and where the water goes to.\n\nIn your body, there are various different areas where salt is kept, to maintain the myriad processes going on. when you eat a lot of salt, however, there is all of a sudden a huge increase in the concentration in your digestive tract. Water from your bloodstream goes to dilute this. so, the amount of water in your digestive tract goes up, even if you haven't actually been drinking any water. This is why people sometimes feel bloated after a salty meal.\n\nAll this water comes from the bloodstream, which, all of a sudden has too little water. To balance this, your organs start shedding water molecules into your blood. in other words, your blood and organs get dehydrated, because your body is trying to rehydrate your digestive tract. If additional water isnt introduced, this can get dangerous. As people have mentioned, your kidneys will redress this balance, but this take time.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nOn the other hand, a base level of salt is required because of their ionic character. On a cellular level, messages get around your body essentially by small electrical impulses. To carry these impulses you need charged molecules. Salts are made up of these. For example, NaCl - table salt is actually Na+ and Cl-. they help to transport messages across cell membranes, which in turn helps the cells do their jobs. Cell membranes are where the vast majority of a cells reactions take place. If you dont have enough salt (for example because you've eaten too little of it, or sweated too much of it) , these messages dont get sent, and the cells cant do their jobs.\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2odzyx | why do metals used for medical purposes ( like screws or plates used to hold bones together) not set off metal detectors? what's stopping a terrorist from making a gun out of that metal and bringing it on a plane? | Title | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2odzyx/eli5_why_do_metals_used_for_medical_purposes_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmm8gle"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sometimes it does. People with metal implants sometimes carry documentation of same to show to the security people, and they may be subject to additional screening as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1pqqdv | what is the link between genes, chromosomes, dna, meisos and meitosis please? | I can't understand the concept of meiosis and mitosis, and how they link to dna, genes and chromosomes? Can someone please help 'draw' the connection for me? I'm an avid programmer, horrible biologist :( I don't even know if there is a link between these, I just read a lot of different information from each sources that seem to contradict (or so it seems) each other.
Thanks in advance | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pqqdv/eli5_what_is_the_link_between_genes_chromosomes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd50mp2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Going from smallest to biggest: \n1. Genes are sections of DNA with specific instructions. \n2. DNA is the sum of the genetic material in each chromosome (all the instructions for that Chromosome). \n3. Chromosomes are the individual collections of DNA that tell your body how to behave, what to look like, etc. \n4. Cells are either haploid or diploid. Almost every cell in your body is a diploid cell. This means it has 46 chromosomes. Sperm and egg cells are called haploid cells, which means they have half that number, or 23 chromosomes. \n\nNow as for mitosis and meiosis. Mitosis is the process by which a haploid cell doubles its contents and then divides into two equal cells. Think of a copy machine. At the beginning you have one cell. At the end you have two cells that are identical. \n\nMeiosis is the process by which haploid cells (egg and sperm) are developed. With meiosis, the cell actually divides twice: the first time into two diploid cells with 46 chromosomes each, and then each of these two cells divides again into haploid cells (23 chromosomes each). This is how a sperm cell (haploid with 23 chromosomes) can combine with an egg cell (haploid with 23 chromosomes) and form a diploid gamete (46 chromosomes: a genetically distinct organism). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1v9ad5 | why can't i decalare my own properties as independent and make my own country? | Isn't this exactly what the founding fathers did? A small bunch of people decided to write and lay down a law that affected everyone in America at that time (even if you didn't agree with it, you are now part of it and is required to follow the laws they wrote).
Likewise, can't I and a bunch of my friends declare independence on a small farm land we own and make our own laws?
EDIT: Holy crap I didn't expect this to explode into the front page. Thanks for all the answers, I wish to further discuss how to start your own country, but I'll find the appropriate subreddit for that. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v9ad5/eli5why_cant_i_decalare_my_own_properties_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cepyrvc",
"cepyszm",
"cepywfp",
"cepyx3k",
"cepyyyc",
"cepz02n",
"cepz78d",
"cepzaum",
"ceq16z0",
"ceq1ln5",
"ceq1ore",
"ceq29db",
"ceq2khj",
"ceq2pjg",
"ceq2ps3",
"ceq2snf",
"ceq2spx",
"ceq2w8c",
"ceq2xt1",
"ceq33dv",
"ceq34ep",
"ceq350u",
"ceq36kb",
"ceq3cdo",
"ceq3ivg",
"ceq3mdb",
"ceq3qv7",
"ceq3rl4",
"ceq3yyz",
"ceq3z4s",
"ceq40cd",
"ceq440z",
"ceq468q",
"ceq49tx",
"ceq4bb8",
"ceq4c28",
"ceq4l9z",
"ceq57jf",
"ceq5gaq",
"ceq5r9s",
"ceq6224",
"ceq66yr",
"ceq6bgh",
"ceq6km8",
"ceq6mgf",
"ceq6nn8",
"ceq6pmz",
"ceq6qpo",
"ceq6vyq",
"ceq8gae",
"ceq9hm5",
"ceq9jjf",
"ceq9sh8",
"ceq9z53",
"ceq9ze3",
"ceqac01",
"ceqapj6",
"ceqbicg",
"ceqbo25",
"ceqboq2",
"ceqbpwe",
"ceqbq55",
"ceqbydi",
"ceqc1mq",
"ceqcaw4",
"ceqftjj",
"ceqi9fm",
"ceqj3kq",
"ceqj8uc",
"ceqjom8",
"ceqk9x9",
"ceqkbbz",
"ceqkv88",
"ceqlip3",
"ceqm7iu",
"ceqpkxn",
"ceqqphs",
"ceqsvce"
],
"score": [
23,
333,
77,
11,
3,
3,
1255,
3,
8,
34,
647,
22,
2,
2,
13,
218,
17,
2,
3,
4,
4,
2,
20,
3,
5,
2,
2,
13,
23,
6,
24,
3,
2,
2,
5,
4,
3,
9,
2,
2,
4,
2,
5,
5,
2,
2,
5,
2,
4,
12,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yeah, but do you remember what happened when the colonies tried to declare their independence?",
" > can't I and a bunch of my friends declare independence on a small farm land we own and make our own laws?\n\nThe American colonists won a revolutionary war against Britain. Will you and your friends win a war against America? My guess is no.",
"You can \"claim\" whatever you want, but you are going to have to defend yourself from the person you took the land from, who probably isn't going to be too happy about it.",
"You have to realize that you do not actually own your property, the government does. If you owned it you would not have to pay an annual rental on the property in the form of realestate tax. You would also not need to pay the government for the mineral/ water rights on your own land.",
"You are allowed to renounce your citizenship. However, you won't be allowed to live in that you country you were from, since geographic nations control immigration and emigration to the areas within the border of their country. If you can find land that is unclaimed by any nation, territory, person, or organization of some kind you can declare yourself an independent nation. Once you are able to achieve some recognition, in an international body of some kind such as the United Nations you will have achieved it. Good luck!",
"No. For one simple reason that your land is only yours because the U.S. government recognizes it to be.",
"Go ahead and stop paying your property taxes and everything else. When the government attempts to seize your property defend it with your army. Then declare your property an independent state. Then write laws on your property and enforce them. Then have other states recognize your sovereignty. \n\nIn essence, in order to be considered a state you need:\n\n**PHYSICAL SPACE**\n\n*Territory: The land you have\n\n*Population: People that live there\n\n**GOVERNMENT**\n\n*Internal sovereignty/Legitimacy/Physical Control: Population must obey your laws and you must enforce them. \n\n*External sovereignty/Legitimacy: Other states must recognize your state as such and you must be recognized by the world (Golden Rule: You have this if the UN recognizes your state as legitimate). \n",
"[Who say you can't?](_URL_0_)",
"you can. there are a number of micronations in and around the US.",
"I know this is an unpopular point to make, but...\n\nyou're probably going to need some legal documents, and for that you'll have to spell properly. Luckily, legal documents seem to follow no grammar rules, so you're clear there.",
"in Texas v White (1896) the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not allow for secession, but a state could theoretically secede from the Union again via consent from the other states or via armed revolution.\n\nI mean, you could form your own country if you really wanted to but it's not going to do anything. Key West briefly seceded from the United States in 1982 as a form of protest and to drum up press because their issues were being ignored by the government. They declared war on the United States, surrendered a minute later, then applied for a billion dollars in foreign aid.",
"See the[ Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of Nation States 1933](_URL_0_) to understand generally what a nation state is. Most pseudo-states like Nagorno-Karabakh etc fail on the 'international recognition' part. \n\n",
"As you would essentially be stealing property from your country you will need an army to back you up.\n\nBut if you succeed in defending your property until they stop attacking and let you be then it is yours ... until they try to take it back.",
"Socorro, New Mexico got some mileage out of this concept back in the 1950s. Here is a short article from the [*El Defensor Chieftain*](_URL_0_]). Long live the Free State of Socorro!",
"_URL_0_\n\nIt takes a bit of watching to get to your exact point, but I find the videos very interesting with easily understood explanations.",
"A guy in Australia did exactly that in the 70s: _URL_0_\n\nEssentially, he was unhappy with the wheat production quotas at the time, so he refused to continue paying taxes and set up his own \"Principality\". After many years of disputes, the Australian government now considers him a non-resident of Australia for tax purposes, and leave the residents of the Principality alone mostly.\n\nThey have set up a whole government, including a mint, postal service, visa system, and mostly hilariously, a navy (the Principality is land-locked).\n\nEdit: grammar.",
"[Someone has done this!](_URL_0_)\n\nThe truth is sovereignty is a really vaporous idea. There are lots of countries that claim to be sovereign, that other countries don't agree with (Taiwan/Chinese Taipei for example).\n\nAlso, what about things like micro nations. If push came to shove, how Sovereign is the Vatican really? What about places like Liechtenstein?\n\nIn the series, Danny Wallace looks at a lot of these places, and explores what it means to be a country.\n\n\nSo ultimately, the reality is, you can declare your properties to be whatever you want. You can also declare other peoples properties to be yours if you want. That doesn't mean that other people will agree with you, and likely the police will arrest you. If you managed a force strong enough to resist the police, then maybe the army would make you do something. If you managed a force strong enough to resist the army, then maybe they would acknowledge you as sovereign.",
"Well, you can if you are ready to start a war with your former country.\n\nI hear war is expensive though, so you may lose money in the long run.",
"Basically it is not practical. But you could go \"off grid\", and form your own society. Like the Amish, Huderites, etc.",
"I believe David Koresh and the Branch Davidians did just that, and we all saw how that ended. ",
"There was a guy who sort of did this in the uk.\n_URL_0_\nBasically took over an offshore fort off the British coast and declared his own country. He kind of got away with it, probably as it wasn't really worth the effort of taking back off him.",
"It has been tried on a fort island off the UK see the wiki here \n_URL_0_\nIts about being recognised and so on that is the hard part, also you will be amazed at what you will need from the country you are trying to remove yourself from which you would no longer be entitled to otherwise etc.\n",
"You can claim any piece of land and it will be yours if you can defend it against anyone who tries to take it from you or rule over you. It's as simple as that.\n\nIf this land happens to be the whitehouse or your property in a city, you will need to kill a lot of cops and soldiers who come for you to be able to hold onto the land but likely you don't have the ability to do that so you will not be able to successfully claim the land.",
"Look up what happened at Waco.. They weren't trying to be a country but I'm pretty sure the government would respond similarly.",
"If you can't enforce your own laws in your 'country', and can't prevent some else from enforcing theirs, then you don't have sovereignty, which is the definition of what a country/state has.\n\nThis also comes from recognition by other states and the UN.",
"Might makes right is the motto of national politics.",
"If I ever win a lottery I am going to buy an island somewhere in the pacific and declare myself sovereign. I will then attack other millionare and billionare with wooden swords and such until they agreed to join my growing empire. Add a few mercenaries and a few more \"attacks\" and I would have myself a country. We would boycott spending our billions until the UN recognized us as such.",
"I feel like a lot of people are being condescending toward OP's question. He's asking about a hypothetical situation. Its not like he's actually going to declare his lawn a new country. So to all you nationalists out there, calm the fuck down and answer the question without being a dick",
"You can.\n\nThere is nothing stopping you doing that.\n\nBehind all the pieces of funny coloured fabric, behind all the wise and incomprahensible pieces of paper vesting authority and law, behind all the grand speeches is one thing and one thing alone.\n\nThe willingness to use deadly force to assert your claim.\n\nThis is what power has and always will boil down to. How willing is your 'new nation' to kill to assert your claim.",
"[Here you go](_URL_0_) (with illustrations!)",
" > \"In essence almost every national boundary simply represents the place where two opposing tribes fought each other until both sides were too exhausted to carry on fighting.\"\n\n**Robert Anton Wilson**",
"Simpsons did it!",
"There are actually several different theories on what constitues a [sovereign state](_URL_0_). The declarative theory suggests that it is possible to have a sovereign state even if it is not recognized by other states, though the benefit of this may be questionable. This might be possible if you are not looking to trade with anyone and your geographical location is remote enough that the central government of the state already claiming the place doesn't really notice or at least bother you. So while such of an unrecognized state might not be a state according to international law (de jure), it might be a state in all other regards (de facto). An example might be [Transnistria](_URL_1_), a state which is probably in all maps marked as part of Moldovia but which is more or less independent or the very least self-governing.\n\nThen there's the classical example of the [Order of Malta](_URL_2_): The old chivalry order, while no longer holding any territory since Napoleon booted them out of Malta little over two hundred years ago, is still considered a sovereign international entity and thus possibly a kind of a nonterritorial state (well, it has two embassies and three other properties which enjoy extraterritoriality, including the grand master's apartment in Rome). It holds a similar status in the UN as the Vatican and Palestine. It issues its own passports (which, unlike Sealand's, are recognized) and has diplomatic relations with several sovereign territorial states, in most of which it has an embassy. (Since it holds no territory, it hosts no embassies itself, though many ambassadors to the Holy See/Vatican are also ambassadors to the Order of Malta.)",
" > Likewise, can't I and a bunch of my friends declare independence on a small farm land we own and make our own laws?\n\nBecause [Ruby Ridge](_URL_0_).",
"OK. Here is the answer... the civil war fairly corrected the notion that you have any right to declare yourself independent of the US government. So, it is not as though this hasn't been tried before and failed.\n\nIn Texas V White 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled that an entire state, no matter their reasoning or ability to care for themselves has no right to remove itself from the union, and should they do so, they would violate the constitutional premise of 'perpetual union'. \n\nMore recently, Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia has written that 'no right to secede' exists.\n\nIn other words, the reason why you can't is because the action of doing so - for real and in purpose, would require under our understanding, a declaration of war against the United States government, and that is a war where you and your friends will get their ass kicked.",
"you certainly can. and you'll remain independent until someone kills you and takes it from you. you have sovereignty so long as you can keep any armies from taking it from you.",
"Oh, you're in for a serious treat if you haven't seen this TV series:\n\n[How to start your own country](_URL_0_)\n\nIt's about a man's quest to found his own country. The first episode starts off with an invasion of Eel Pie Island in the Thames (which the police are not too happy about!) and ends up with speaking to Princes, UN officials and the army. It's absolutely hilarious and actually informative. If you watch the series through to the end, you will probably be singing his national anthem with him.",
"There is quite literally no such thing as \"property ownership\". The people who \"occupy\" a space do so by having a military force large enough to stay in that space. This could easily be extended to virtually everything else too. ",
"I encourage you to watch the Family Guy episode 'Petoria'",
"You don't own your real property, you own an interest in that property such as a [Fee Simple](_URL_0_)",
"Republic of Dave!!!! Not the Monarchy of Tom!",
"The top answer is wrong.\n\nBasically, it is saying in order to have a country you require:\n\n* Land\n* People\n* Violence\n* Recognition from other violent, land & people owning organizations\n\nSo this is called Macro economics. Macro econ is focused on how governments work, or how they don't work depending on how you look at it. From that point of view, this is true. But you have to really understand the history of how this works first as well as the definition of a government.\n\nYou might ask, well where did the first government come from? Wasn't there are time before \"the state\"? Yes, there was. Modern government that America is familiar with goes back all the to ancient Greece, we call modern government \"The West\", typically. \n\nBut government systems go far further back than that. We can trace this system all the way back to a violent beginning in our hunter gatherer days. You could consider tribal hierarchies to be a system of government (e.g. alpha male uses physical force to control a group of people) but we are interested in macro economics. So we want to look at one group exerting control over another group using force or coercion.\n\nThere were two types of early humans. Nomads were people who followed the herds, ate high protein diets. They had weapons and their livelihood depended on the quality of those weapons and knowing how to use them. Their existence was very physical. Farmers were the second type. They did not have the benefit of high protein diets. Their tools were for plowing fields - not necessarily fighting (although many weapons from the Orient are based on farm tools and became ingrained in the culture after peasant uprisings).\n\nAt some point these two types of people met. Nomads realized they could kill the farmers and take their food and women. Happy days. Soon, however, some of these nomadic tribes realized that it was dangerous raiding villages, dragging off supplies and women and after you did it once it took a very long time for that village to recover, if at all. \n\nSo from one of the darkest periods in human history one of the evillest inventions were born - tithes. It was much easier to send a couple of the boys to ride in to the village and demand a small portion of supplies & women from the town. In fact, we won't even sell it as \"Give us this and we won't kill you\" it was sold as \"Give us this and we will protect you from other people like us.\"\n\nThus taxes, and government, were born. \n\nThis is the heart of macro economics. The entire goal of what Keynes finally described was a system designed to keep one class of people in charge of another. \n\nMicroeconomics is completely different. It is focused on the individual. Microeconomics says that the individual is the highest authority, owns their own body and is responsible for their own actions. Micro/macro are kind of like oil and water in this sense. In a society where microeconomics is the central focus (I.e. early America) the individual has power over the government, or at least government has no power that any single individual cannot have. If it is not my right to steal from you how can I give any organization the right to steal from you, therefore how can tithes or taxes exists any way other than through voluntary participation?\n\nSo top post is correct in a macro economic sense. If you want the warlords (regardless of their ties, pantsuits and whatever legislation they push to \"save the children\" that's what they all are) to recognize you are a sovereign country you need to have a big enough stick that you can fight back. The \"Social Contract\" everyone refers to is basically that. Simply by being born in a geographical area these warlords \"own\" you or a portion of you labor or possessions and you have no say in it.\n\nIf any other organization in the world tried to get you to sign that contract - if it were ever actually written, not a single human being on the planet would. Could you imagine Google, or Apple saying \"Hey sign this and your children's children's children forever and all time owe us a portion of your income. We'll give you some nice perks and you can pick our CEO and some board members but ultimately we run the show.\" Fuck that. And people like Google and Apple more than the federal government.\n\nIn a micro economic sense you are sovereign by default and free to cast your own allegiances where ever you wish. No one can own you because you are the only mind controlling your body. You are not bound by things like The Constitution because you did not sign it and no one else can speak for you - certainly not some body of men hundreds of years ago.\n\nSo I guess there you have it. The natural order of things is that you are free, you are your own sovereign entity. \"Anarchy is all around us.\" Nature gives you that. In the thousands of years humans have existed the one thing we've successfully done is created an entire mythology of economic thought (macro) and somehow convinced the majority of the population that without our rulers society would crumble. When, in fact, the opposite is quite true. \n\nAll progress experienced by human beings has been in spite of, not because of, government and power structures.",
"Peter Griffin tried this. It didn't work out so well. ",
"You actually CAN do that, or, more accurately, you can try to. Every nation is different, but you would have to declare secession from the country that claims your new \"country\" in some fashion. Most nations will not be very eager to give up their own land. You have a much better chance on an island or on a boundary of your country, not smack-dab in the middle of it.\n\nIt's possible (I don't know any specific examples) that you could claim some rock below 60 degrees south latitude in the middle of southern ocean (I'm just using that as an example of a very small island that is in the middle of nowhere) that is currently acknowledged to be a territory of a very poor or faraway nation, and they might just say, \"Ahhhh... Screw it! Let the guy have it!\" That would be the easiest scenario -- and is probably pure fantasy.\n\nThe second best-case scenario would be to be uber-rich with a entire gang of high-powered attorneys that can make a good case about it being in the big nation's interest to let you run your little kingdom.\n\nThe third best-case scenario would be to make a good case before the world at large, the international community, that you are in a better position to run your chosen empire than your current nation is. That is gonna be one tough nut to crack.\n\nThe fourth scenario would be to make an ethnic claim that the only way your \"people\" can live in peace is to have their own nation. Actually, this has been done a few times in the past 100 years or so, but those places are usually not separate countries, they are \"autonomous regions.\" That's kind of like the big nation saying, \"You guys can do your own thing here in this area, but you're still part of our nation. We're not the boss of you, but... we are the boss of you.\"\n\nThe fifth scenario would be wresting your little fiefdom from the big nation by force. I'd actually like to see that shit happen one day.",
"Did you recall that the founding fathers fought a war about this?",
"By the way, one of the original intents of the U.S. Constitution was to make it so that government would never get all up in your face enough that you would ever feel like leaving the country. \n\nThe mere fact that you want to do this means either you are nuts, or our country is nuts.\n\nI'm assuming you live in the U.S.",
"Actually, I don't think there would be any need for violence at all. The US would simply set up border fences around your property and let you stew. No food in or out, no trade or commerce, and I think you might get a little antsy when your sewer connection got cut off. If you do have enough land for a septic then at least you could shit in peace in your sovereign land of Anonistan.",
"Countries are not founded and maintained by international law. Countries are founded and maintained by force of arms.\n\nYou may do whatever you like on your land when you have the ability to keep all the various agencies of the US government off it. Until you can do that it's US territory and you are expected to follow US laws.\n\n",
"So technically a top-secret society of high ranking American army officials could seize army equipment, claim everything as theirs, then use the weapons and such to fight of a retaliation, no? ",
"You can get an ELI5 version by watching the Family Guy episode in which Peter founds Petoria",
"Here's from an international law perspective:\nOnly three categories of people apply to a 'right of independence': \n- colonial regime\n- military occupation\n- Racist minority regime\n\nIn casu, you and your friends cannot be condsidered as colonized or subject to a military or racist minority regime.\n\nThis rules out the right for self-determination.\n\nWhat about secession? International law does not recognize a general right of secession. However, it can be a fact of how some States come into existence (e.g.: Belgium 1830, Bangladesh 1971, Eritrea 1993 or Montenegro in 2006). 2 conditions need be fulfilled.\n(1) Is it a state? (Population, territory, government, (and recognition)). \n(2) Has it come into existence in a lawful manner? How did you do it? If this happened contra international law, other States are obliged to not recognize you as a country. (e.g. if you claim your land in a violent way)\n\nFrom an international law point of view, it is possible surely. However, the US government will most likely consider this an unlawful situation which prohibits other countries from recognizing you, which in turn greatly diminish your legitimacy and power. \nThus, gaining independence is as much a legal question as it is a political. See also the situation of Kosovo: some consider it a country, others do not. It depends...",
"Go ahead if you feel like you could take on the US armed forces.",
"You can. Lets assume you do. You meet all the requirements to become a sovereign state. Well, guess who you just stole land from. Guess who won't be happy about that. Don't worry though, we will send you a housewarming gift of \"freedom\".",
"You can try. The U.S. just wouldn't recognize you and your land as your own entity.",
"You can, it just wouldn't be recognized by any \"other\" country. A country is just a made up geographical area wherein a group of people with guns have declared ownership of the land, resources and people who live there. You could certainly declare your backyard to be the sovereign state of Solarhamsterland and begin enforcing your rule but the men with guns that previously owned the land would eventually be by to reclaim their property once they noticed you weren't paying any taxes. A country is a line drawn on a map and backed up by men willing to kill anyone who disputes their right to it. If you can wall of New Jersey and repel the ensuing armed invasion then you can have your own country. All you have to worry about then is all the people who will want to kill you and take your place.",
"If you live in the United States, then the United States owns your property. Here is a really easy acid test: Stop paying your taxes and see what happens and who enforces the happens. As a citizen, you have rights though (and hopefully keep these rights for a long time) and a contract called the Deed. If you discover gold in your garden, there may be limits on what you can do (unless you have mineral rights). The airspace is also regulated by the FAA and local ordinances that will determine if you can put up huge antennas or wind turbines, etc. Then there is more regulation whether you can have a business on that land. If you have a home owners association, they will sue you if you don't comply with their rules (contract based). The only real way to create and sustain your own country starting from nothing would require Political or Military action, winning the hearts and minds of a People's who make you dictator, or blowing up hearts and minds to secure and defend a plot of land (old school). We have an agreement with our government, We Pay Taxes < > Gov. Defends Our Property from Invaders",
"Because you're the High King of Skyrim.",
"Of course you can. \n\nJust be prepared, like the founding fathers, to spend 6 years in the freezing cold, thousands of deaths, significant economic disruption, to make it stick. (Or not, as the Confederate States found out).\n\nThe Americans won because fighting the revolution was incredibly unpopular in England. They'd just finished fighting a series of wars with France in the last few decades, the colonies were not much of a financial resource - they had trouble raising troops and resorted to hiring Hessian mercenaries to fight the war. When France helped the Americans at Yorktown, that was the last straw. The English gave up and gave in.\n\nSimilarly, Taiwan got away with declaring independence because mainland China did not have the navy to take on the USA. Tibet... not so lucky; wrong palce, no friends. Bangladesh was too far from (West) Pakistan and had India as a friend, so they got to declare independence. \n\nSo, you need a good army, and friends willing to rcognize you and back you up. \n\nThere's the added complication, that one of the main tenets of the United Nations is that national boundaries are inviolable. One basic cause of the Second World War was the issue of national boundaries. Germany and France fought over Alsace-Lorraine for a century, where Germans and French mixed in different villages. Germany then demanded they annex Austria, also a country of German peoples. They demanded and got parts of Czeckoslovakia with German inhabitants, then took over the whole country. then they wanted parts of Poland...\n\nThe UN has agreed that unless all parties agree, or blatantly violate human rights, their members will not allow boundary changes. After all, everyone is vulnerable; the USA had the Civil War, Russia has an array of southern territories that want to become independent islamic states, England has Scotland and Northern ireland, Canada has Quebec (and Quebec has the northern Indian territories) that want indepencdence, the Kurds want to hive off parts of Iran, Iraq, turkey, and Syria... There's no end to the demand for independence and other border changes; and history has shown, once you start down that road you have nothing but trouble. So the UN in principle is against border changes and separation, and most countries live in glass houses when it comes to encouraging their opponents' territory to separate. \n\nSo you can try, but unless you can hold off the police and the US army, you'll just end up another Waco.",
"Nice try Peter Griffin",
"Because there is an oppression by the majority of the minority.",
"The paradox is this: you need a government for property to exist-or we are dealing with might makes right. If I claimed to own an iceberg floating in international waters, who cares, my claim is meaningless without courts, police, records offices, AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. Moreover, you need the government to be nearly universally accepted. If the US government told the world I owned an iceberg, the rest of the world would say this violates international law and our citizens are under no obligation to respect the right. If a government I made up, told the world I owned an iceberg no one would listen. Since you rely on government for the claim, government can and does place limits on the right: the most basic of which is you are not allowed to leave the government. \n\nEnd Result: You don't have an absolute ownership right to your property (this does exist anywhere in the world). You have the closest thing, in the English Common Law tradition known as a \"fee simple.\" Basically, you have a right to sell the property to anyone you wish, unlike the earlier more restrictive rights where the property had to follow noble succession rules.You also hold a vast array of other property rights that have been added on over the years but not complete dominion to do whatever you wish. \n\nIn return for the government creating the right to own land, and protected your land from the rest of the world, you must follow government rules and restrictions. \n",
"I shall call it: Petoria\n\n",
"You sure can. you just need to be able to properly defend it against the US Army when it comes to claim its land back. Keep us posted on how it works out!",
"Because the country you live in has decided that he, with its armed forces, police and tax system, is the ruler and will enforce it.",
"Answer: because you do not have a big enough army or other similar deterrent against being annexed by your bigger neighbors.",
"You can do whateve you want you just have to have the weapons to back your actions.",
"Every country gained its title through one method. Force. ",
"As defined in the [Montevideo Convention](_URL_0_), a state requires\n\n- a permanent population\n- a defined territory\n- government\n- capacity to enter into relations with the other states.\n\nSpecifically this last point will turn out to be problematic, as it implies recognition by other states (e.g. the question whether or not Palestine is a legitimate state in international law).",
"it happened in Australia... _URL_0_ (basically: angry farmer got angry with government. Government wrote a letter referring to him as 'Administrator of the Hutt River Province' which the farmer took as the government acknowledging his farm as being an independent Principality)\n",
"Because as a single person you have very little power/authority to make others recognize your claim. \n\nNow, you could band together with other likeminded people to try to enforce your claim (heads up, this will probably involve guns), but then you've just created another government, and you'd have to ask yourself if it would really make difference.\n\nAn example of why it would be pointless: if you're of the tax protest type, and you want to create a new \"libertarian\" nation, that's fine, but then the US could just put up large tariffs if you want to \"trade\" or do business with the rest of us, since you'd technically be exporting, and removing money from our economy. Paying a tariff is no different than paying tax, and so you're back where you started.",
"Yes and no. You can start a new country, but it won't be recognized by the larger ones. Therefore your rules will mean nothing.",
"There have been a few instances of people or corporations trying to establish new nations on sandbars and almost islands in international waters on the high seas. Mostly to set up a tax haven and money laundry with a banking system.\n\nLack of an adequate navy put the kibosh to those guys pretty fast.\n\nBetween nations it is the law of the jungle, with the strong preying on the weak. Read your history and ask why the USA and most other countries maintain armed forces. Mostly to make the takeover more expensive than its worth, so negotiations do take place.",
"You can, its just that nobody will recognize your country. Anddddd the local police will probably arrest you. Countries can be formed, but recognizing them is an entirely different matter.\n\nMuch like how Taiwan is a country, but it isn't a country because they don't have a seat in the United Nations and nations do not recognise it as a separate territory from China. Nor does the Vatican City. And a bunch of other countries.\n\nCGP Grey covers this a little bit.\n\n_URL_0_",
"I read somewhere about a guy in America who did just that. He never fucked with anyone, and he doesn't allow access into his house without a passport. He hasn't payed taxes in like 10 years and for some reason the government doesn't bother him about it. If I find the link I'll share it.",
"You can. Just be prepared to defend your newfound sovereignty against the United States Military. ",
"Because you cannot spell.",
"Do you have a flag?\nNo flag no country.",
"Because there is no such word as decalare."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention"
],
[],
[
"http://www.dchieftain.com/2013/10/17/the-free-state-of-socorro-mdash-60-years-of-mischief"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syujTp5m5Vk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.wikihow.com/Start-Your-Own-Country"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_malta"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syujTp5m5Vk"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam03.asp"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7fuoh8 | why can’t two phone numbers calling each other be connected instead of being prompted with a busy line? is this something that could be fixed easily? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7fuoh8/eli5_why_cant_two_phone_numbers_calling_each/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqehmkk",
"dqehpe6",
"dqeuzbh",
"dqfc160"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When you dial a number on your phone, it goes \"off the hook\". That is, it's no longer able to receive calls, because dialing a number is the same as being in the middle of a call.\n\nThis can't be fixed easily, because it's rooted in the basics of how the telephone system works. However, if you have call waiting (where you can see that someone is calling even when you're in the middle of a call), you'll be able to see that the person you're calling is calling you, and switch over to that call.",
"Also this problem, I think it's happened to me maybe twice in my life and both when much younger before cell phone years, is not really a problem.",
"It probably could be fixed, but it would be expensive because it would add extra computational requirements in the phone company's equipment, and it is expensive in terms of time that you're making someone wait until the far end finishes dialing.\n\nWith a traditional landline phone, when you pick up the phone to dial you literally establish an electric circuit with the phone switch at the telephone company's central office. 30 or so years ago your dialing would interface with an electro-mechanical system that would create an electric circuit between your phone and the receiving phone, and simultaneous dialing would be an intractable problem. \n\nNow, the telephone company uses digital switches and dialing a phone number is pretty much the same as typing in a URL: The switch creates a virtual circuit that sends your voice traffic as VOIP packets to the far end's switch, that then converts them to the analog signal that landline phones can convert to sound. In this system, the switch at one side contacts the switch at the far side and asks if the receiving phone is available to take a call. You could add logic that pauses the connection if the far side phone is still dialing to see if they're dialing the same number, but the problem is, how long do you wait? How long to you hold someone up before giving them feedback while the far side might be calling? Because if you wait too long, they'll likely assume something went wrong and hang up. \n\nCell phones are similar to the latter case, except that there is no actual electrical circuit to the switch, everything is a virtual session.",
"Apart from all the technical issues, what about the commercial ones: who would pay for the call?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1hi6i6 | can we create life from inorganic material? if so, how? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hi6i6/eli5_can_we_create_life_from_inorganic_material/ | {
"a_id": [
"cauk0nu",
"caukboq",
"caukiqi",
"caulmmr"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"In principle? Almost certainly.\n\nBut we don't know how yet.",
"We have an ingredient list, but we are still lacking certain steps in the recipe.",
"This was the closest I've seen and it was published years ago: _URL_0_",
"Well...\n\nYes and no. I would say that it all depends on your definition of \"life.\"\n\nIn the future, we will certainly have robots around us. Will they be \"alive\"? One again, it depends on your definition. For example, lets say life requires extracting energy from one source into another source that can be used by the thing doing the conversion. With this definition, car engines are \"alive.\"\n\nSo, lets add the addition to having to be able to think. Well, robots and computers can think thanks to programing, so they are alive at that point.\n\nLet's say that they have to self replicate too. Well, we have robots that can build things, it just a matter of time before they can build themselves.\n\nSay in a hundred years we design a robot that has a metabolic system (a power plant that can be recharged by means of \"consuming food\"), a system of learning, thought and emotions, and the ability to build another just like it, would this robot be \"alive?\" Why is it not alive?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/scientist-creates-lifelike-cells-out-of-metal#"
],
[]
] |
||
yac14 | what i should do to learn code for developing games? | I'm really interested in learning code and i've been tooling around a little bit with javascript and watching video tutorials online. However I am curious as to what steps i should take for seriously pursuing this as a career avenue. I'm still undecided for a major and I was already leaning towards mathematics, so would it be too difficult to make this my major? Should I make this my major or should I learn it in my spare time as a hobby? If i should go down the hobbyist avenue what are the best ways to learn about code? Any and all input is welcome, so thank you in advance. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yac14/eli5_what_i_should_do_to_learn_code_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5tqw8q",
"c5tr15y",
"c5tt8gd",
"c5ttgqc",
"c5u3i53"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Teaching yourself is the best way, but can be very frustrating. Majoring in computer science is not a bad idea, but you *will not* learn how to make video games in this major, but rather the theory and ideas underlying computers. \n\nFor starting out, I would strongly recommend [processing](_URL_0_). It is a language designed to allow people without much experience develop interactive visual applications. And it's built on java (it's really just a set of self contained java libraries), so when you get a bit more experienced you can easily transition into writing java programs. Processing also allows you to write games for the web, and for android devices.\n\nThe processing website has some examples and tutorials that can get you started. ",
"What do you mean by make 'this' your major? Computer science? Because computer science =/= making games, it's a large academic discipline on its own.\n\nI don't know what your major choice deadline is or anything, but I'd recommend playing with learning to code in your spare time. See how it goes, and whether you enjoy it. If you have the choice, take some computer science classes and see how they go, but most of computer science is *not* about learning to make games.\n\nAs for actually learning, 10 different people will have 20 different strong opinions about what language to use, where to learn, and so on. I personally recommend learning python - the [/r/learnpython](/r/learnpython) subreddit has some great links in the sidebar and is a generally a good source of help. I recommend python because it's syntactically simple and easy to understand, but a fully fledged language. It's also extremely popular and well supported, so there are good libraries with good documentation and help for anything you might want to do - including simple games to learn with. And finally, it's not a cut down language in any way, so the concepts you learn will translate easily to (say) C++ later - I'd generally say that if you can't easily transition from python to a lower level language, you'd never have managed to learn the lower level language in the first place.\n\nHowever, this is just an opinion. Other people say many other things, such as simply recommending to dive into C to immediately get an understanding of how lower level code *really* works. The main thing is, just do it! Choose something and get going, there are tons of tutorials out there. And once you have a basic grasp, pick a project like making a simple game and go for it - you learn best by asking questions about things you don't know.",
"go to /r/learnprogramming. \n",
"Not to be a dick but this really isn't the right subreddit for your question. ELI5 is more for explaining concepts or events, like the Watergate Scandal or gravity. \n\nYou should ask in /r/programming maybe?",
"Former game developer here.\n\nI don't recommend video game programs at most colleges. I've reviewed a couple for some schools, and told them they were shit. They rolled them out anyway. These degree programs are for suckers. \n\nBut, if your resume came on my desk and read DigiPen, I'd give you a shot. If it read Full Sail, I'd consider it. Otherwise, as a developer, I want to see a Comp Sci BS or MA.\n\nSolid principles are important, and depending on the studio, they can teach you the rest. Mills don't have the time, though. More on mills later. If you're heavy on the math, good for you. That will look attractive for writing shaders, optimizing algorithms, or writing physics - especially if you know some physics.\n\nLinear Algebra, Quaternions, Trig, and Calculus. Get to knowing it.\n\nSpecialize. If you want to do physics, learn some physics. Otherwise, you'll land in the world of Gameplay Engineer.\n\nThe predominant languages out there are C# on the Microsoft platform, C/C++ everywhere, especially since there's a long legacy of investment in it, Javascript, Flash, and, increasingly HTML5 and newer standards for browser games, and then your choice of scripting languages. Lua and ECMAScript are popular. I think the Unreal Engine and others have their own proprietary scripts, Python...\n\nIt depends on what you want to do. The field is open for you to specialize, and studios are going to do things different ways, depending on their workflow.\n\nWork on a demo reel. If you're really mathy, prove some algorithms, show some charts, and explain why it's cool. Apply some lighting equations and render an image. If you're a physics guy, make a ball bounce around inside a box or something. AI? Show me some AI algorithms in action. I don't care if it's colored boxes in 2D, I don't care if there's audio or not.\n\nShow me a game. It doesn't have to be pretty. You're not an artist. It has to be functional. If you have a box that shoots boxes at boxes, you got a game.\n\nBut polish helps, if you can afford it.\n\nSo you know, lots of studios are mills, and just crank out shit. Shitty cell phone games or some shit commodity title for Desperate Housewives (no, really). Or titles tied to some movie IP, which never sell well, and are more valuable as part of a marketing strategy.\n\nIf you're brilliant, and you shop around, you can actually get moving at a serious career making a real difference in the industry. If you're mediocre, you get the slow route of making a few shit titles for shit pay, sleeping under your desk because you crunch for 8 months. Then you bounce around companies for a few years until you're 10 years out of college, finally making something that you know won't be forgotten in 6 months, and on par with that brilliant college graduate that just got hired...\n\nDon't try to be a designer. That's a rock star job that's all ego, flooded with everyone else who wants to design, and their egos, and pays some of the lowest salary."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://processing.org/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3sqj3k | how do songs get popular? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sqj3k/eli5_how_do_songs_get_popular/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwzkg2y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is generally multiple 'levels' of popularity, there is local popularity and then higher levels until it reaches 'mainstream'. Unless it's a popular and current artist many songs start out as small time bands getting their song on the radio or the more popular internet.\n\nCurrent artists will have huge advertising campaigns for their individual songs, singles or albums, Just look turn on a tv or a radio and you'll be bombarded by adverts for songs, we don't notice this much now because we have grown used to it.\n\nI hope this helps to answer your question. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5im3f9 | how come it is so much easier to sing with accurate pitch in a whispery way than at a normal volume? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5im3f9/eli5_how_come_it_is_so_much_easier_to_sing_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"db9duba",
"db9jrd4"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"First, I think you're referring to SOME pitches, not all, and especially high pitches (and the \"whispery way\" would be what we call \"falsetto\").\nWhen you sing in your comfort zone, you can perfectly sing a pitch without too much effort.\n\nProblems arise when you're hitting pitches outside of that zone, especially in the high register. You need vocal support (= air) to sustain those pitches, and as soon as you start lacking that vocal support, the pitch goes flat.\n\nFalsetto makes you use the rear of you throat/mouth, and the immediate effect is that you don't feel like you're straining your voice. Falsetto makes high pitches easy to sing, but try to sing low notes in falsetto and you may revert to \"normal\" voice (= be unable to maintain your falsetto).\n\nSo, in short : falsetto offers you the same ease of use for high pitches that full voice offers you in your normal range, which is why you find it easier to sing those high pitches in falsetto.\n\nShould you want to sing them in full voice, you would need to have a broader vocal range (=experience) and much more vocal support (= great breathing technique) to sustain them perfectly and longer.\n",
"I can answer this from my wife who learned this while doing her doctorate in music. Most people who have trouble matching pitch do so because they hear the overtones too much and can't accurately hear themselves. Basically, every sung pitch contains the main frequency (fundamental) and a series of higher frequencies called overtones that define the timbre (sound characteristics) of the tone. Low notes and note sung with a full voice contain stronger overtones in the middle of our hearing range and can confuse some ears. Higher notes have their overtones farther up in our hearing range so they're less distracting. Breathy or whispery singing is Probably just higher up with less diaphragm support, so higher = easier to hear, and less vibration of the vocal chords = more focus on the fundamental and has weaker overtones, so it's easier to hear yourself. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6z2pda | how tiny candles can bring fragrance to entire room? | Also, can a regular candle (unscented) eliminate bad odor in a room? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6z2pda/eli5_how_tiny_candles_can_bring_fragrance_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmrzxm5",
"dms3uma",
"dms45so"
],
"score": [
27,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"The sense of smell is powerful. We can detect something in the air when it's only *one billionth* of the gas present in the room (the rest being mostly plain air).",
"Look up thioacetone (it's basically acetone, or propan-2-one, with the oxygen atom replaced by a sulfur one)l\n. Most sulfur based compounds are easily detected by humans. Why?\n\nThe molecules fit in \"plugs\" unique to said molecules and notify the brain.\n\nWe therefore get lots of variables: number of \"plugs\", concentration of the molecule in the candle, strength of the signal coming from the plug, etc.\n\nIn the case of thioacetone, it's extreme signal strength.",
"Diffusion. If you have a whole lot of molecules moving randomly, it tends to spread out. So the scent given off by the scented candle will fill the room. It's like putting a drop of food coloring in a glass of water."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4fk1gx | why are so many houses built in the usa single floor bungalows? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fk1gx/eli5_why_are_so_many_houses_built_in_the_usa/ | {
"a_id": [
"d29h2dx",
"d29hq5d",
"d29htx9"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Cost of land is cheaper so building lots are larger, that and the market demands it in most areas.",
"I know that the second floor of a house is often harder to cool than the first floor. That makes a difference in places like Florida, which have a much higher average temperature than the UK. ",
"Most US houses were built after the development of, first, the electric train or tram, and then, the car, and also of water and power systems. So being a dense village where everything can be walked was no longer important, or sharing walls to save on heating was also no longer important. With plenty of land and also transportation options, it's cheaper to just build one story, and since people have a way to get to these more spread out homes, the cheaper mode of building predominates. In areas with higher land prices, you are more likely to see more packed in homes (although do note that many places only recently became expensive, and will have 100 years worth of housing stock that is more bungalow style). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
lxe3k | how online advertising pays for the maintenance of a website like facebook or reddit. | Specifically who are these people that decide to place their advertisements on a website and how do they know it will end up beneficial to their company? It is a confusing topic for someone who has no experience in how internet traffic or advertising works.
**Edit: I know this is a complicated topic. I would like more of a sense of the magnitude of the numbers involved. Also how does an advertising agency know which demographics are visiting a site? I understand how facebook could do this but are other sites capable of this too? How? Also, how does an advertiser know how many clicks an add gets?** | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lxe3k/eli5_how_online_advertising_pays_for_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2wclbs",
"c2wclbs"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"it pays like any advertising pays. company A wants product B to be seen by a certain demographic. A pays agency C to place those ads in that demographic's eyesite. search engine optomization (SEO) algorythmically determines which sites suit best. you click that site, you see the ad, website gets paid.",
"it pays like any advertising pays. company A wants product B to be seen by a certain demographic. A pays agency C to place those ads in that demographic's eyesite. search engine optomization (SEO) algorythmically determines which sites suit best. you click that site, you see the ad, website gets paid."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3cwnzc | what is the necessity having to double-press a key fob to get all the car-doors to unlock (as opposed to just pressing once)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cwnzc/eli5what_is_the_necessity_having_to_doublepress_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cszn4hw"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"As a safety feature, the first press unlocks only the driver's door, so that you are not unlocking the doors on the other side to potentially admit a stranger into your car."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3od2pw | how do we get full colour corrected photos or videos from black and white footage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3od2pw/eli5_how_do_we_get_full_colour_corrected_photos/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvw3kjn",
"cvw9dfg"
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text": [
"More or less the same way we get full color pictures from a coloring book. There are *some* context cues, and you can make some educated guesses from the shades, but for the most part it's just guesswork.",
"Reddit has a sub that can show you how it's done. Check it out [here.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/Colorization/"
]
] |
||
fg18jq | how are wooden baseball bats so durable? | In the MLB there are 250lb+ men who hit the ball with exit velocities over 100mph and yet the bat doesn't shatter into pieces. I know sometimes the bats do crack, but most of the time they are fine. How? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fg18jq/eli5_how_are_wooden_baseball_bats_so_durable/ | {
"a_id": [
"fk1spdv",
"fk1ur8w",
"fk3bgws"
],
"score": [
176,
39,
2
],
"text": [
"Hitting the ball with the grain of the wood the correct way. Like how a stack of papers won't bend along the edge, but will bend easily across the sheet.",
"According to this source, a pro baseball player goes through 120 bats per season on average.\n\nThere's only 162 games in a season, so the average bat doesn't last more than two games. That might be due more to optimal performance than durability, but in either case we can conclude that a bat becomes structurally imperfect very quickly in a pro setting.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Also they DO break... more than you might think. In the 2008 season MLB had about 2000 baseball bat breaks."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.sluggermuseum.com/about-us/faqs"
],
[]
] |
|
51brcy | how does the cassette tape aux cord work? | I recently bought a car with a cassette deck, and one of those cassette tapes with an aux cord. I have no clue how it plays my music from my phone. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51brcy/eli5_how_does_the_cassette_tape_aux_cord_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7aqf2e",
"d7aqfwc",
"d7aql0l"
],
"score": [
2,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"A cassette tape has magnetic tape which is where the sound gets recorded. It's read by a magnetic tape head as the tape passes over it (think of the head like the needle of a record player except it's not pointy).\n\nThe cassette with the aux cord doesn't have tape, it has its own head that can mimic the action of the magnetic tape so that the head in a cassette player can \"hear\" what is being pushed onto that tape head.",
"A cassette player is designed to accept cassette tapes, which have a long strip of material containing the information for the songs or other audio on the tape encoded magnetically.\n\nBasically, like magnetic versions of record grooves.\n\nInside the player is a \"read head\" which is a small sensor that reads the magnetic information from the tape as it is moved over the read head. The tape has small gears in it that the tape player drives to move the tape past the read head at a specific speed.\n\nThe read head is like a magnetic version of a record needle; it receives the audio information from the tape and then magnifies that signal through a series of amplifiers, eventually reaching your speakers.\n\nThe adapter you mention, which looks like a cassette tape but has a cord that sticks out to connect to a more modern audio player, has some electronics inside that takes the signal from your audio player and sends it to a small emitter right where the read head is- essentially pretending to be the tape playing across the read head.\n\nThe read head gets the same audio information that it would from a real tape and the player just plays the audio as normal from that point.\n\n",
"Audio cassettes worked by using the magnetic properties of the tape to store a magnetic representation of the audio wave. This magnetic field would then make the playback head of the tape react to recreate the sound as an electrical wave they your speakers can then reproduce as an audio wave. \n\nThe adaptor basically takes the audio output of your phone (an electrical wave) and turns it into a magnetic field similar to what was on a tape that the playback head in your car cassette player can use to then feed music to your speakers. \n\nIt is basically making your cassette player think there is a cassette tape in there. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5kr00l | what makes a human a human? | Or for that matter what makes any species a member of that species is it the number of chromosomes or certain characteristics. For example is a down syndrome person not a human because they have more chromosomes.. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kr00l/eli5_what_makes_a_human_a_human/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbpwv8q",
"dbpx2ml"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"I was always under the impression it was to do with genome composition, but i may be mistaken",
"The truth is, species is a fuzzy inexact concept. It does not have a straightforward description. You'll hear someone say, likely in this very post, \"It depends on if the animals can reproduce together,\" for instance, which is wrong. It's a decent rule of thumb, but it does not define a species. It doesn't work for cases like an entire kingdom that is asexual. It is confusing for cases like ring species, or cases where we call animals that can't reproduce the same species, or cases where we call animals that can reproduce different species.\n\nUltimately, a lot of what makes a species a species, is that when we looked at them, here, after the fact, thousands, millions of years after these animals have diverged from one another, we said 'well these seem pretty similar.'\n\nNow as we go back in with more precise methods, looking at DNA, tracing evolutionary lineages, we're saying \"hey, that guess worked pretty good here\" in some places, and \"wow these aren't really the same thing at all\" in others. Making kind of a steamy pile. So, a human is a human if he/she was born from other humans, and they all seem pretty reasonably humanlike overall to us. So yes, a down syndrome person would be a human."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.