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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
55joi1 | how would wells fargo benefit by having a bunch of ghost accounts with no money in them? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55joi1/eli5_how_would_wells_fargo_benefit_by_having_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8b4enk",
"d8b4iqo",
"d8ba0qb",
"d8bx2ud"
],
"score": [
6,
9,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It didn't. Individual branches and employees did. \n\nIt was a bad metric, the bank decided that it would set targets for new accounts and the like and incentivised hitting the targets. Thing is, the people who are hitting the targets are doing it *just* to hit targets. The poor sod sitting there at the window with corporate breathing down their neck doesn't care if the account will make money, only that it helps reach the target and keep their boss from hounding them. \n\nShitty metrics do this all over the place. For a clear example, look at programming. If you say \"you must write at least 300 lines of code a day\" you're going to get everyone intentionally stretching they code over more lines, you're going to be punishing people who are clearing up old code and making it shorter. You've not improved the productivity of your workforce, they're just trying to meet your arbitrary targets.",
"Staff got bonuses. Wells Fargo itself gained by claiming increased market share. (i.e. if there are 500 million accounts in the US, Wells Fargo can claim to have lets say 100million of them. Pump that up to 200million.....claim to own 2/5 of the market, your share price ROCKETS, and the board of directors + CEO get nice healthy bonuses).\n\nPlus the accounts they created have SMALL fees attached, maybe 10-20 dollars a year. But add that up over 100 million accounts.....even if 90% of the people complain and get the fee back, you're still raking in an extra 200 million dollars a year.\n",
"The problem is that these senior level executives owned WF stock and encouraged investors to buy WF stock based on fraudulent numbers which they knew to be false (the number of additional accounts opened by each existing customer, also known as cross-sales). \n\nSo, the simple story is pretty much this: \n\nStumpf, the CEO, mandated a sales strategy of 8 products per customer, which was arbitrary and unrealistic. Stumpf then became aware that fraud was occurring in meeting this sales mandate, but didn't fix it. WF continued to lead the banking industry in cross-sales (roughly 6 accounts per customer to the industry average of 3). Stumpf used this fact to sell stock to investors. When investors purchased more WF stock, the stock price went up. Stumpf owned WF stock. The bump in the stock price increased the value of Stumpf's stock by $200 M dollars. So, basically, he made $200 M by screwing consumers over and then lying to investors. And politicians, like Warren, are pissed that he thinks he can save face by firing 5,300 employees and returning to business as usual. Instead of being held accountable, he's still CEO and chairman of the board and, until recently, was eligible for a performance bonus. \n",
"There is a marketing strategy that says 80% of your income comes from 20% of your customers. Its called the [Parento Principle](_URL_0_) or the 80-20 Rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity. And it has become a hot investor issue related to the rationale for cross-selling, data mining, web site cookies, and why venues are now raising fees to limit the audience they serve to a more efficient, smaller, and repeat business clientele. \n\nSo considering the quotas to keep your job, the incentives to place your own self-interest ahead of your customer, and the banking industry corporate culture, misinformation and fraud that lead to the 2008 financial collapse that was never prosecuted, it is not hard to see how this got so out of hand and why NOT fixing the problem was so profitable. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle"
]
] |
|
ci8ujt | how do baby animals developing in eggs eat/drink with nothing to eat/drink? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ci8ujt/eli5_how_do_baby_animals_developing_in_eggs/ | {
"a_id": [
"ev2hedm",
"ev2ijl9"
],
"score": [
3,
9
],
"text": [
"The yolk is their nutrition.",
"In eggs the baby uses the yolk for nutrients. In placental animals the mother provides nutrition through the umbilical cord."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
8n925g | what framework allows some countries to demand that other countries denuclearize? | I searched for this but didn’t come up with anything. What framework or international law or treaty or whatever allows some countries to demand that other countries dismantle their nuclear arsenals? How does it get decided who gets to have them and who doesn’t? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8n925g/eli5_what_framework_allows_some_countries_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"dztnwxm",
"dzto03x",
"dztod1o",
"dztok9s"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The primary 'official' framework I believe would be the [NPT](_URL_0_). However, that being said, I think a significant aspect here is a de facto 'might makes right' presence put forward by powerful nations. ",
"The nuclear non-proliferation treaty that basically everyone but India, Pakistan, and Israel signed. \n\nThe original 5 nuclear powers (US, UK, Russia, China, and France) agree to help other countries develop civil nuclear programs (i.e. nuclear power plants) in exchange for them vowing not to develop a nuclear weapon. Both North Korea and Iran are party to this agreement.",
"Most nations of the world has signed the Nuclear Non\\-Proliferation Treaty \\(NPT\\) that bans nations from developing nuclear weapons \\(unless they already possessed nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty\\). It also gives signatory states the right to pursue civilian nuclear energy programs. Iran is a member of the NPT, while North Korea is not. Even though North Korea technically has a legal right to develop nuclear arms, most of the world thinks this would be really dangerous, so there's been a bunch of UN security council resolutions \\(the only legally binding UN resolutions\\) authorizing sanctions against North Korea. \n\nIt's ultimately a question of power who gets to keep their nukes, a tiny state like North Korea is unlikely to survive the outside response to going nuclear, while you couldn't force China to give up its nukes. It is widely recognized that the more nations have nukes, the more likely a nuclear war will become \\(with the potential of escalating to a global nuclear war with dire consequences\\) so nations generally accept that the nuclear powers get to keep theirs in exchange for stopping the spread of nuclear arms. ",
"Countries are \"allowed\" to do whatever they want. So if my country wants to demand the US dismantle it's nukes they can just do it, they're \"allowed to\" to do it because they can do whatever they want without asking for permission first. Like all countries can.\n\nThe actual question is, why would you listen to my demands? Why not just go \"lol, no\".\n\nThe only reason you'd listen to me is if I threaten to do something that you wouldn't like. For example, if I say \"I'm going to convince everyone to stop trading with you if you don't do what I want\" then that is a big deal, and could convince you to do what I demand. Or if I say \"I've rolled a tank into your palace and I'm pointing it at you\", you might agree to do what I want.\n\nThat's all there is, people will cite the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, but all that is, is a document where a bunch of countries agree to behave a certain way. But nothing forces them to do that. It's just if we all agree \"this is how it is, and if someone breaks this, this is the punishment\" and you then break it, it's a lot easier for me to convince other countries to go through with the punishment, because we all agreed on it ahead of time. But maybe they don't agree, and then I have to decide what I do next, maybe it's the tanks?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2p9cet | why does emotional pain, feel like physical pain? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p9cet/eli5_why_does_emotional_pain_feel_like_physical/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmuid0m"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The same section of our brain processes both kinds, so it's probably just getting wires crossed and thinking they're the same. \nAlternately, it's because emotional pain actually creates a physical reaction from all the stress, and it's the equivalent of your eyes hurting after you cry. \n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-causes-chest-pains/"
]
] |
||
23q6sf | the difference between the major us tv networks? | As an Australian I know very little of the major networks, aside from that Fox is a cesspool for republican agenda. Can someone give me a rundown of each? That would be rad.
Many thanks in advance. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23q6sf/eli5_the_difference_between_the_major_us_tv/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgzhqwy",
"cgzj02y"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Wait, are you asking about the major TV networks or the major news networks? Fox the TV station has very little to do with Fox the news network.",
"There are five major over-the-air commercial broadcast networks: ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, and NBC. Their programming airs on local stations that are affiliated with (but not usually owned by) one of the five networks. National \"prime time\" programming, news, sports, and some daytime shows are provided by the national networks, and the local stations air syndicated shows and produce local newscasts. Three of the networks--ABC, CBS, and NBC--have existed since the early days of television, and have traditionally been known as the \"Big Three.\" Fox was founded in the 1980s as a low-budget network offering only a few hours of programming per week, but today it's mostly the same as the old Big Three in terms of prestige and popularity. The CW is the product of a 2006 merger between The WB and UPN, two small networks founded in the 1990s. Its programming is primarily low-budget and aimed at younger viewers compared to the other networks.\n\nYou mention Fox as a \"cesspool for the Republican agenda.\" What you're thinking of is the Fox News Channel, a cable channel that's separate from the Fox broadcast network. Most Fox broadcast stations air local newscasts, and there's also one talk show on the broadcast network known as Fox News Sunday. Otherwise, the broadcast network will occasionally simulcast the Fox News Channel during coverage of major events."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
duwspf | why must natural gas appliances like water heaters and furnaces be vented outside, but it's safe to use a gas oven inside? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/duwspf/eli5_why_must_natural_gas_appliances_like_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"f78syl9",
"f78uxt8",
"f78wnyc"
],
"score": [
3,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"It's only a question of quantity. The exhaust products of burning natural gas aren't dangerous in low concentration.",
"Very different use cases.\n\nAn oven is used in a (typically) better ventilated space (the kitchen) when the user is present for very short periods of time (cooking). This makes it very unlikely that dangerous gas concentrations could build up.\n\nFurnaces and water heaters, in contrast, are used in poorly ventilated spaces (basements, utility closets) when the user is not present (they run as needed automatically) for longer periods of time (they run for as long as required to heat). This makes it much more likely that dangerous gas concentrations can build up, hence the need to have automatic ventilation.",
"Where I am there is also a code requirement for a hood fan that vents outside for all gas ovens."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
aqo3zv | taxing the rich alternatives | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aqo3zv/eli5_taxing_the_rich_alternatives/ | {
"a_id": [
"eghcjlt"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > Couldn’t the rich just tax themselves or do things that act like being taxed?\n\nMany rich people give to charity, or start their own charities; this is similar to \"being taxed\" in that they are giving away their money.\n\nHowever, in a democracy taxes are meant to be spent according to the will and needs of the people, as decided by the politicians elected to represent those people. This is different from charitable giving, where the person doing the giving decides where the money will go; having a single person decide where the money will go is more akin to a (benign) dictatorship than a democracy.\n\nWhat's more, humans are pretty selfish creatures. While there are well-publicized exceptions to the rule like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, most wealthy people are very possessive of their wealth, and even go to lengths like tax havens to *avoid* having their money go towards helping others. Relying on the wealthy to voluntarily give up money to help their fellow citizens is a dead-end street."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4rqmzy | why do different cable companies have different channel numbers when all it does is confuse those who switch providers. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4rqmzy/eli5_why_do_different_cable_companies_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"d53bamy",
"d53cvyo",
"d53klcf",
"d53vo6n"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"You say that like it is a bad thing, like companies should try to make it easier to switch to their competition.\n\nAlso, not all companies have the same mix of channels to offer. So what should they do, have weird gaps in numbering? 1,16,36,78? How do you think they should coordinate which channels match which numbers and enforce such standards upon each other?\n\nIt is their network and they can arrange the channels how they like.",
"I think there are some deals between the channels and the broadcaster to influence the order. The more you pay the higher you get.",
"How often do people switch providers?\n\nHow often do people keep the same provider for 20 years?\n\n25 years ago, when cable companies were rapidly expanding, nobody bothered making sure that all of the high-numbered cable stations had the same number. There's no point. As they expanded, they tried to keep their numbers the same so that existing customers wouldn't get confused.\n\nYou're looking at a system that's grown organically since the early 80s, not something that was developed from scratch and deployed across the country overnight.",
"Why does it matter?\n\nWhen I had cable, every time we got a new TV we \"programmed\" it. Every channel we saw got a nice low and somewhat logical number."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
kktfw | what is the big deal with all of the corn based food products? | Why are people freaking out about high fructose corn syrup, corn fed animals, etc? Are there actual health risks, or is this just another media driven overreaction? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kktfw/eli5_what_is_the_big_deal_with_all_of_the_corn/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2l271q",
"c2l27k1",
"c2l2kco",
"c2l34ig",
"c2l271q",
"c2l27k1",
"c2l2kco",
"c2l34ig"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Corn is a simple carbohydrate... a starch. It is easily converted into glucose and causes insulin spikes and contributes to weight gain since the human body isn't really designed to run on simple sugars. (It's designed to run on protein, complex carbohydrates and fat)",
"The documentary Food, Inc. does a pretty good job at taking a look at the corn industry. It has some bias, but, it's certainly a good place to start.",
"The energy you get from corn comes from the starch in the corn. When you eat corn or corn products, your body turns this starch into glucose. In high-fructose corn syrup, the glucose is already turned into fructose in the manufacturing process. \n\nBoth glucose and fructose are simple sugars that your body can use for energy. \n\nThe problem comes from eating too much of these simple sugars (the \"high-fructose\" part of high-fructose corn syrup should tell you something). Your body makes insulin to digest these sugars and if you're eating corn products, your body requires a lot of insulin to digest them. As your body is flooded with insulin, it becomes more resistant to it and you can eventually become so resistant to insulin that you develop Type-II Diabetes. \n\nBut that's not all. The simple sugars that corn products contain are also very high in energy. If you're not active enough to use all of this energy, then your body will store it as fat until you *do* decide to use it. The fat will build up as your body consumes more energy than it expends and there are many negative health outcomes that come along with that fat. \n\nAs for the corn-fed animals, I haven't heard very much about that and can't give you a good answer. I haven't heard many people get upset about animals like beef being corn-fed, though, as it is usually used to suggest that they're being fed something that resembles real food and not a protein slurry or something. \n\nAlso, I should be clear that there isn't a chemical or something specific to corn itself that's bad for you. Your body needs simple sugars like glucose to help your nervous system run. But it can produce glucose on its own from protein, complex sugars, and fat instead of getting them pre-refined from a soft drink. \n\nHere's a decent [link](_URL_0_) with more info. \n\n**TL;DR No, it's not a media-driven overreaction. There are real health problems that can develop from eating a lot of corn products. High-fructose corn syrup in particular.**",
"[Sugar: The Bitter Truth](_URL_0_)",
"Corn is a simple carbohydrate... a starch. It is easily converted into glucose and causes insulin spikes and contributes to weight gain since the human body isn't really designed to run on simple sugars. (It's designed to run on protein, complex carbohydrates and fat)",
"The documentary Food, Inc. does a pretty good job at taking a look at the corn industry. It has some bias, but, it's certainly a good place to start.",
"The energy you get from corn comes from the starch in the corn. When you eat corn or corn products, your body turns this starch into glucose. In high-fructose corn syrup, the glucose is already turned into fructose in the manufacturing process. \n\nBoth glucose and fructose are simple sugars that your body can use for energy. \n\nThe problem comes from eating too much of these simple sugars (the \"high-fructose\" part of high-fructose corn syrup should tell you something). Your body makes insulin to digest these sugars and if you're eating corn products, your body requires a lot of insulin to digest them. As your body is flooded with insulin, it becomes more resistant to it and you can eventually become so resistant to insulin that you develop Type-II Diabetes. \n\nBut that's not all. The simple sugars that corn products contain are also very high in energy. If you're not active enough to use all of this energy, then your body will store it as fat until you *do* decide to use it. The fat will build up as your body consumes more energy than it expends and there are many negative health outcomes that come along with that fat. \n\nAs for the corn-fed animals, I haven't heard very much about that and can't give you a good answer. I haven't heard many people get upset about animals like beef being corn-fed, though, as it is usually used to suggest that they're being fed something that resembles real food and not a protein slurry or something. \n\nAlso, I should be clear that there isn't a chemical or something specific to corn itself that's bad for you. Your body needs simple sugars like glucose to help your nervous system run. But it can produce glucose on its own from protein, complex sugars, and fat instead of getting them pre-refined from a soft drink. \n\nHere's a decent [link](_URL_0_) with more info. \n\n**TL;DR No, it's not a media-driven overreaction. There are real health problems that can develop from eating a lot of corn products. High-fructose corn syrup in particular.**",
"[Sugar: The Bitter Truth](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM"
]
] |
|
230pc7 | how do networks like hbo & netflix prevent entire seasons from being leaked but record companies and movies studios can get leaked early? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/230pc7/eli5_how_do_networks_like_hbo_netflix_prevent/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgs8no5",
"cgs9cni",
"cgsbzx5"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because, unlike record and movie companies, HBO and Netflix have complete control over their distribution channels.\n\nRecord companies have to ship CDs to retailers. Movie studios have to send the movies to theaters. Both have to be done sufficiently in advance of the release date so that they are ready for customers.\n\nBut when the new episode of Game of Thrones came on at 9 Eastern yesterday? Sure, maybe you got it though Comcast, but they didn't get an early copy. At 8:59:59 HBO still had the episode locked up and under control.",
"In addition to /u/Teekno's explanation, some record albums are \"leaked\" on purpose by the artists. This happens when they record an album but the record company refuses to release it because they think it won't make enough money.",
"Movies rely on reviews to have big opening days, so they send out early copies to reviewers. Send out enough copies and someone's assistant will leak it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7vjdwl | how does the body adapt to ketosis? what stages are there | I am imagining then when switching from carbs to fat and protein as your base diet the body sort of "panics" in a few stages.
Stage 1:
Body's reaction - carb's are low....burn the glycogen...maybe we will get more...we need to get fuel.
Stage 2:
Out of glycogen - body's reaction: Insulin is low!!! glycogen is out!!!....we need something!!!....wait a minute...we got fat, lets burn that.
Stage 3:
Fat "factories" convert from carb to fat factories to burn fuel.
Stage 4:
Fat reserves are being burned more than normal....slow down or plateau...body is too nervous to burn more.
Stage 5:
I keep eating fats....body realizes its okay to burn even more fat since a steady supply is coming in...fat burning continues.
Is this logic of thinking correct? I tried finding awkward yeti comics....or a cartoon atleast....but nothing significant. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vjdwl/eli5_how_does_the_body_adapt_to_ketosis_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtsxkgq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"That's pretty much it. For the first few weeks you'll feel like crap because your body has to ramp up it's ketone count, and then learn how to actually use ketones! Once that happens, you become keto-adapted and then start to feel much better. Energy becomes abundant."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5zo7t2 | how many sentences can we form in the english language? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zo7t2/eli5_how_many_sentences_can_we_form_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dezojog",
"dezrjj8"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"No. There is no strict limit to how long a sentence can be. As such there are an infinite number of possible sentences, and we obviously can't use that many. Note that most of these are pointless sentences and won't be used.",
"You can use the same word more than once. There are actually an infinite number of possible sentences. For example, you could say \"My favorite number is one\", \"My favorite number is two\", etc. There's an infinite amount of numbers, so you can build an infinite number of sentences by following that format.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
aa06xa | how does water "climb up" certain materials, like paper? | We had a little water leak from the washer’s drain. Next to the washer is a stack of toilet paper. I noticed that not only the bottom of the pack got water in it, but also the second stack above it, like the water was somehow traveling up?
What’s the scientific explanation behind it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aa06xa/eli5_how_does_water_climb_up_certain_materials/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecnx0sp",
"ecnzazb"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Capillary attraction. Have you ever looked at the edge of water in a half full glass? Where it meets the glass the surface goes upwards a little. That's because the water \"wets\" the glass surface, it tries to have a very shallow angle of contact. In a narrow tube, that wetting and the attraction that water molecules have for each other (surface tension) pulls the water a little way up the inside, higher than it would be if just gravity was affecting it. The narrower the tube, the higher it rises.\n\nPaper is just the same, it has a very water-compatible chemical nature (hydrophilic) and the water pulls itself up in the narrow gaps between the fibres.",
"Water properties - cohesion (water molecules adhere/come together) & adhesion (water molecule adheres to a different surface material) create the capillary effect which allows the water molecules to pull each other upward essentially."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3450yf | why are super-rich, non european people world buying european football teams? | Many French football teams are owned by rich arabs. Chelsea is owned by a Russian. Rome and Bologna in Italy were recently bought by two americans. Inter is owned by a guy from Indonesia. Now the Chinese want to buy Milan.
How does that make sense? What's the logic in owning a football team of another country? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3450yf/eli5_why_are_superrich_non_european_people_world/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqrayrq",
"cqrbl5o",
"cqrdjr8"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually ego and fame. There's only a limited number of clubs, which sets a pretty high barrier to entry. Sure it's costly, but it's a toy for them, and one that can bring them media coverage and fame by hoisting the trophy. ",
"They are exclusive and expensive toys. You must understand that in Europe, football is considered to be more important than religion, so owning Chelsea is basically godlike ego-inflating.",
"Club teams like that aren't tied to a specific country. It's not like the England National Team where it is made up by Englishmen playing for England. You are buying a team made up of players of all nationalities, playing other teams from around the country and the world. It can be an investment (thinking the team will improve in value/bring in money from merch and tickets and tv deals), or a hobby (you like the team/sport/league so you own a team to be a part of it.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5sngta | how/why does an object's mass change due to velocity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sngta/eli5_howwhy_does_an_objects_mass_change_due_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddggkjq",
"ddgil3n",
"ddgp2fz"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The observed mass of an object travelling close to the speed of light increases because it's momentum, and therefore it's energy increase, and relativity tells us that energy and mass are equivalent (E = mc^2 is the famous, simplified version of that relationship). However we don't normally talk about that in terms of mass, preferring instead to talk in terms of the total and kinetic energies. We leave mass to refer the object's rest mass, the mass it experiences in its rest frame, which is always the same.",
"When the laws of special relativity were discovered, one of the predictions that the theory made was that objects would get more and more difficult to accelerate as the velocity increased.\n\nNewton's 2nd law says that F= mass * acceleration. So, in the early days after special relativity was discovered, people said that if the same amount of force was producing less and less acceleration, that mass must be increasing. At the same time, mass = energy * c^2 - and you are adding kinetic energy so mass is increasing. So everything makes sense.\n\nThe problem is that this causes a lot of confusion. The \"apparent\" mass just doesn't seem to be useful for much. And, it's much simpler if we just accept that Newton's 2nd law is a useful \"rule of thumb\" which is accurate enough to be useful at low velocities, but is inaccurate at high velocities. And if we want accurate calculations at high velocities we need to use the Lorentz equations.\n\nSo, these days, physicists tend say that mass doesn't change (usually calling it the \"rest mass\"), but instead use more complicated equations for acceleration and momentum, rather than sticking with the old Newton equations. ",
"Mass does not change. Here is [an excellent scholarly article on the subject](_URL_0_ ). It says:\n\n > The “famous formula E=mc^2 ” and the concept of “relativistic mass” increasing with velocity, which follows from it, are historical artifacts, contradicting the basic symmetry of Einstein’s Special Relativity, the symmetry of 4-dimensional space-time. The relation discovered by Einstein is not E=mc^2 , but E0=mc^2 , where E0 is the energy of a free body at rest introduced by Einstein in 1905. The source of the longevity of the “famous formula” is the irresponsible attitude of relativity theory experts to the task of explaining it to the non-experts."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0602037.pdf"
]
] |
||
21i3xx | why aren't mercenaries protected equally under the geneva convention? | According to the Protocol Additional to the G*eneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977,* it states that **a mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war**. Why is that? Why aren't mercenaries treated equally? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21i3xx/eli5_why_arent_mercenaries_protected_equally/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgd7xsd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because they will fight for either side, whomever pays them the most."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1noi8h | as for countries like n. korea who's citizens are dying from famine, why can't we just send them food? is it because it wouldn't ever actually get to the hungry civilians? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1noi8h/eli5_as_for_countries_like_n_korea_whos_citizens/ | {
"a_id": [
"cckh3wx",
"ccknrp7"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Plenty of NGOs and larger countries do send quite a bit of food, but you're right in that not much of it actually gets to the people that need it",
"I remember in the most recent famine (and I use famine like I would describe a Saharian summer as a \"drought\") the N.K gov. actually rejected international help.\nAlso, I dont think we can just send food to everyone. I mean, we probably could if we wanted to spend the money on it. But we dont."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
8l7dsd | in lawsuits and other court cases that involve money, why do courts bother ordering people to pay massive sums of money that the defendants obviously don’t have and that the plaintiff will most likely never see? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8l7dsd/eli5_in_lawsuits_and_other_court_cases_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzdesln"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yarr! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: When someone sues someone for a large sum of money (let's say 5 million dollars), and the person being sued doesn't have that money, who pays out the claim? ](_URL_1_) ^(_19 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: how do non wealthy people who get sued for millions or billions able to pay all of that money?? ](_URL_3_) ^(_4 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: when a lawsuit awards millions of dollars, why do the plaintiff and lawyer only end up with hundreds of thousands? ](_URL_4_) ^(_7 comments_)\n1. [If someone sues a broke person for $1 million in damages, what happens? ](_URL_2_) ^(_27 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How can someone be awarded millions of dollars in civil suits? (Punitive and compensatory damages for injury lawsuits for example). How do they quantify the damages? Where does this money come from? ](_URL_0_) ^(_3 comments_)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r1iqo/eli5_how_can_someone_be_awarded_millions_of/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2oeyig/eli5_when_someone_sues_someone_for_a_large_sum_of/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/4jramb/if_someone_sues_a_broke_person_for_1_million_in/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dd8sd/eli5_how_do_non_wealthy_people_who_get_sued_for/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zvvea/eli5_when_a_lawsuit_awards_millions_of_dollars/"
]
] |
|
1fy2uq | the physical difference between cd, dvd and blueray. how can they look identical but their capacities vary vastly? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fy2uq/eli5_the_physical_difference_between_cd_dvd_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"caex7eg"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The markings that lasers read on CDs and DVDs are kind of like text printed on a page. Blu-ray discs just have smaller markings - just how you can fit more text on a page if you use a smaller font."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9zts4r | why does water make things slippery, but licking my finger helps me pull out a cigarette or turn a page? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zts4r/eli5_why_does_water_make_things_slippery_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"eabyrp1",
"eabyt4c",
"eacioz5"
],
"score": [
10,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Water also has a trait called adhesion, which makes it clingy. This is why you can shake your hands really hard after washing them and they'll still be wet. Water sticks to paper and to your finger, *voilà!* cigarette.",
"It has to do with the amount of water. In small quantities, water is actually sticky. That's what gives it surface tension. But in larger amounts, the water can separate two surfaces. The water sits between them and reduces friction, allowing them to slide past each other.\n\nYour finger would have only a small amount of water on it, so it would be slightly sticky. Just enough to grab something small.",
"You know how when you sweat or go for a swim, your clothes are hard to take off? But when you get water on your wood or tile floor, it's slippery? It's because the water reacts differently with the substance. Water clings to your skin to a certain extent, and water also soaks through your paper and sticks to it too now. Thusly the page is easily turned. However, when there's a pool of water on the floor, the water doesn't just seep into the tile, does it? This means that the water just sticks to you and you go sliding along. It's about absorbency."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2au9ig | how are the location and depth of an earthquake's epicenter calculated? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2au9ig/eli5_how_are_the_location_and_depth_of_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciytssn",
"ciyu07v"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You can calculate the location by comparing what time seismographs in different places recorded the earthquake. Since the vibrations take time to travel through the ground, if you know when they reached various places you can use that information to triangulate where they started. I don't know about depth, though.",
"Seismographs give you information on how strong and far apart the sound waves are. Using data from several different seismographs, you can narrow down where the epicenter was.\n\nNote the epicenter always refers to the earth's surface. It is the point directly above where the quake occurred."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
brjix3 | is it really only calories in, calories out (caloric deficit/surplus) that determines weight gain/loss? or hormones can overpower this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/brjix3/eli5_is_it_really_only_calories_in_calories_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"eoefvww",
"eoeg7jj",
"eoehaao"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Calories in- Calories out is a simple answer to a complicated issue. Yes it is true, but there are so many variables that affect how you store and burn energy that muddy the water. I may need to eat 1500 calories a day and an hour of strenuous activity to have a deficit, but you may be able to eat 2000 calories with the same amount of exercise to have a similar deficit. Hormones, metabolism, types of calories you consume, complex carbohydrates, and a number of other variables determine how you lose weight.",
"No amount of hormones can break the law of conservation of energy. If you are using more calories than you are eating you *will* lose weight. End of story. \n\nWhat hormones can do is mess with your appetite so you are abnormally hungry or it might slow down your metabolism. Or the opposite, as you mentioned.",
"I just sent through gastric sleeve surgery which means I struggle to eat more than a cup of food at a sitting. I also take a large amount of vitamins including various B vitamins to boost my metabolism. A calorie loss will cause you to lose weight, but as soon as you do your metabolism will slow down causing the weight loss to slow. It's definitely not as simple as calories in calories out."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
26ewn1 | if bottled water is really just tap water, how can companies get away with marketing it as coming from mountain springs or glaciers or whatever? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26ewn1/eli5_if_bottled_water_is_really_just_tap_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"chqdi4z",
"chqdj2g",
"chqe7bo"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They can't, that's false advertising. If it's filtered tap water it usually says so on the bottle. If it is spring water, it will say it is spring water. Not to say exceptions don't exist.",
"Well, you'll notice that companies that bottle their water from municipal tap water sources do not say that they sourced their water from springs or glaciers. That would be illegal. They usually call their water \"drinking water\" or \"purified water\". If a company claims that their water is spring water, it must be transported from an actual spring.",
"Its clearly labeled as to the source. they put mountains and streams on the label and you make the connection to pure mountain streams\n\nthat if you actually drank straight from the river, you get dysentery. cuz ya know bears poop in it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
b7895w | why can’t you bring meat across international borders? | Ok background I’ve been watching the show border wars and I can’t understand why you can’t bring meat into the U.S and I’m sure other counties as well might have similar policies but they say it’s to protect agricultural and livestock but how would it affect livestock or agricultural? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b7895w/eli5_why_cant_you_bring_meat_across_international/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejpx28u"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It's to stop certain diseases/parasites/insects/etc from being carried into regions where they typically aren't found.\n\nDifferent countries have different requirements for proving the food is safe, and it's simplest for them to just ban the transport across borders."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6hmt3d | how casinos can refuse to pay a jackpot, claiming the machine is broken, but not pay back everyone who played and lost? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hmt3d/eli5_how_casinos_can_refuse_to_pay_a_jackpot/ | {
"a_id": [
"dizgx2r",
"dizi3im",
"dizjpsx",
"dizl0q4",
"dizl0s9",
"dizl8yk",
"dizlkq7",
"dizmp4i",
"dizmvb5",
"dizmyz7",
"diznu5y",
"dizofc8",
"dizoj5s",
"dizoq18",
"dizp7kg",
"dizpk15",
"dizpv1b",
"dizq8if",
"dizqdnl",
"dizqxhd",
"dizr31q",
"dizt9un",
"diztk81",
"dizu046",
"dizu6ur",
"dizugjb",
"dizulg3",
"dizv7az",
"dizv857",
"dizvk07",
"dizvxed",
"dizw2ke",
"dizw557",
"dizwgls",
"dizwhhu",
"dizwmcz",
"dizwtwl",
"dizwxda",
"dizxk1o",
"dizxnew",
"dizxu8m",
"dizy9ec",
"dizyc2f",
"dizyd4x",
"dizyop6",
"dizyvwh",
"dizywug",
"dizz3tq",
"dizzenq",
"dizzy17",
"dj00fw9",
"dj00li5",
"dj00pr5",
"dj01d0u",
"dj01fua",
"dj020gu",
"dj021aq",
"dj02ct7",
"dj02zcg",
"dj032f8",
"dj0362h",
"dj03coa",
"dj03f7j",
"dj06qsc",
"dj079wk",
"dj07taz",
"dj08crl"
],
"score": [
1230,
36142,
498,
21,
181,
909,
7,
59,
2,
16,
3,
37,
28,
3,
2,
2,
7,
3,
17,
8,
31,
2,
5,
4,
2,
2,
12,
3,
2,
33,
3,
2,
29,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
66,
19,
2,
2,
3,
3,
4,
5,
2,
4,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"They do have to pay anyone who lost on a broken machine. And they can't just claim a machine is broken, it actually has to be broken. The state runs a gaming commision that audits machines and is in charge of things like broken machine issues.\n\nIf a machine is broken, all transactions on that machine are void, wins and losses.",
"Software developer here,\n\nI wrote software for these one-armed bandits for ~5 years. Detecting a fault in the machine isn't too hard, I suppose, though I never had to do it. If the machine is a \"participation\" game, then some of the winnings of each game are paid out to the manufacturer, because just making and selling machines isn't profitable enough to stay in business. The catch is the manufacturer pays out the jackpots, not the casino. So the casino doesn't give a shit if you hit 10 jackpots in a row, and neither do the commissioners, for them, they're just doing their job.\n\nWhen a jackpot is hit, the whole bank of machines are roped off and kept under guard. A poor (EDIT:) sonofabitch engineer or two are dragged out of bed in the middle of the night, or pulled out of their children's birthday party, whatever, and they're stuffed into a plane with all sorts of gear and shit. They will systematically diagnose, test, and dismantle that machine down to the rivets to make sure it wasn't tampered with or flawed. It's the company's responsibility to prove the win was false if they want to save their cash.\n\nBut even the manufacturer plans for payouts, it's all part of the budget. My employer designed the math behind their games so one of their participation games, in the entire market, like a Wide Area Progressive, would hit every 6 months. We had one WAP hit twice in one month just after release once, the execs puckered up so tight they shit diamonds to cover the bills that day.",
"The law isn't written to be fair, it is written to be just. A lot of people equate these terms, but they aren't actually the same.\n\nA fair system would be the one you just described, where if a machine is faulty, all transactions should be considered void and reimbursed.\n\nA just system means everyone has the same legal rights and responsibilities. The just system can have a rule like \"if you think a transaction was faulty, the onus is on the person who wishes reimbursement (or the refusal of payment). Any party that wishes to seek these measures must go and prove the transaction was faulty.\" Here, the law applies the same to everyone. It is just that the casino has the impetus to test the machine in the case of a huge payout, and you do not have the impetus every time you lose ten cents. If a person would go back to that casino and show evidence that they played 100 dollars on those machines after the casino has proven it was faulty, they would be reimbursed. \n\nTL;DR: You have to seek reimbursement to be reimbursed. Everyone has to, and the casino does when it refuses a jackpot. \n",
"Not the case in the news story I'm sure, but one reason they check is that it may have been tampered with. There may be no way of knowing if the manufacturer was responsible for the error or if a gambler intentionally broke it.",
"If you're talking about something like these:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_2_\n\nor (more recently): _URL_1_\n\nAs someone else pointed out, those values are just below (if you're counting in cents) the size of an integer. It's more likely that the machines were using unsigned integers, mistakenly allowed a person to go below $0, then when the person tried to cash out instead of showing -$2, [integer overflow](_URL_3_) occurred and the machine mistakenly displayed that a huge amount was due.\n\nSo the error likely arose with allowing the person to play for $2 more than they should have, in which case that player already got something for free. And everyone else who played didn't get to play for free, but their play was probably fine, so the casino doesn't reimburse anyone.",
"I assume you are referring to the $43M ticket from the other day. \n\nOne aspect is the nature of the error. That $43M ticket could never have happened under normal operation. The maximum payout for that machine was $10k. So, a factor of 4,000 smaller than the erroneous ticket. That makes it clear it is an error. A single spin not winning is a pretty normal state of affairs. It may well be in error, but it would be very difficult to prove either way. \n\nThen, we put all sorts of checks into those machines. When it attempted to issue the ticket the server will (most likely) have replied that it couldn't issue a ticket that large. At that point the machine has a balance it can't pay out and will go into alarm. At that point the machine will have been rebooted.\n\nAlso against that girl is the fact the only photo is of her collecting her \"winnings\". Why take a selfie of the boring ticket print screen rather than the jackpot screen itself? Seems to me like the error occurred well after the game ended, she hit collect *then* something went wrong. \n\nWe do our best to make sure that nothing goes wrong with the machines, but errors do slip through. The logic for us is that it is better to fail in favour of the machine. People who are down money will complain and tell us. Then we can check the logs for the exact time they won, see what went wrong and how much they are owed. It may take longer but it can be put right. If we fail in favour of the player then odds are they will never tell us, or worse they will attempt to repeat the circumstances for free money. It could be months before we even find out something is wrong. This leads into what /u/mredding said - if the machine has been actively tampered with, why the hell would a casino feel obligated to pay out? Fail in favour of the machine and check the logs later. ",
"There's a disclaimer on the machine and at least..all of the machines I've ever come across in Vegas. It says that the casino is not responsible for any malfunction so basically if you play a machine that malfunctions and takes your money they are not obligated reimburse you. What that lady who is suing doesn't realize is that this also means if it malfunctions with a jackpot that it wasn't meant to they can refuse it. This is the simplest way to put it",
"A malfunction does not mean 'broken'. \n\nIf you can prove that you met a winning condition (I.e. A valid poker hand, a winning combination of symbols, etc.) you are entitled to the listed payout for that condition, as long as you achieve said condition through normal operation of the machine. Meaning, you didn't cheat. \n\nIf, by malfunction, you receive a winning condition, you may be entitled to the listed payout of said condition, but no more, regardless if the machine erroneously shows a higher amount.\n\nIf by malfunction, the machine awards you a payout, without a winning condition, you are not entitled to any amount. Which is the case of the story that is on the front page.",
"assuming you refer to the 43 or something million jackpot case that recently happened.\n\nthe machine wasn't completely broken. and normally you'd never notice that it's broken. it's just that if very specific criteria in the code are met, it acts faulty because of something it can't handle. it might have handled hundreds of games correctly before, and it might work without problem in the games afterwards, but it that one specific instance it was broken.",
"Hey!\nAre you from the Warlizard gaming forum!?",
"Every slot machine I've seen in North America has a little sign somewhere that says \"malfunction voids all pays and plays\"",
"[Finding A Video Poker Bug Made These Guys Rich—then Vegas Made Them Pay_](_URL_0_) is an excellent _Wired_ magazine article that I highly recommend.",
"I saw a comment earlier today explaining how it could have been a one-off error due to the specific sequence it landed on, let me see if i can find it. It was a software dev saying something about if the internal math resulted in a negative integer but the software doesn't accept negative integers it would have rounded back around to the max integer possible. So the machine is only \"broken\" if you get a very specific sequence that triggers this event \n\nEdit: [found it](_URL_0_) \n > The reported price ($42,949,672.76) when expressed in cents, is exactly $0.20 (20 cents) less than 2^32 - 1, the maximum value of a regular 32-bit integer variable.\n\n > It's likely that the software ended up with a value of -$0.20 (-20 cents), but because it used unsigned integers (= no negative values), it wrapped back around to the maximum value.\n\n > edit (16:10 CEST, 10:10 EST): In response to some of the comments this post has been edited somewhat. Some comments state correctly that integers can't be used to hold decimal values. However, the machine likely expresses the amounts in cents in its internal calculations, so it can use integers for all calculations and only convert back to dollars when output is needed. \n\n ",
"ELI5 how people can sue for a payout when a machine was clearly broken?\n\nAnswer for both: people are willing to do anything for money.\n",
"My co-worker lost 500 dollar on a table he was playing at, and then he won 1500, they didn't pay him the 1,500 because he wasn't supposed to be playing there. :-/",
"From what I've seen all the slots have a disclaimer that malfunction voids any payouts sooo...",
"Because it's bs, slots all have paytables and any avid slotter (i.e addict) will know whats the max you can win. If im playing my usual slots, max wins are normally 500x up to several thousand. And when your playing jackpot games, progressive or not...you will see what the max you can win is.\n\nIf im playing my favourite slot and it says I've won about 5000 times what's possible it's clearly a fault/display error. If you win an amount massively different to the max win why should you get it? Machines malfunction, your bet will either be void of you will receive what was intended.",
"As others have said, in the particular case that you're referring to they'll have to prove that it was a technical error and that the sum offered was never one of the real prizes. ",
"You know how your computer can crash, or display obviously incorrect information? So can modern slot machines. I'm guessing this was posted in response to seeing the woman denied $42 million dollars; She was just printing out her remaining balance of $2 when there was an error which set the value at a negative, which (because computers are weird) showed up as an extremely high value.\n\nSo, it's not like she won and they refuse to pay out. She never actually won $42 million on the game.",
"As stated in a gold post. I've always hated modern machines, they're coded. The odds are predetermined by a machine, the major jackpot has delays so it can't happen twice in a row, and the small winning you get \"randomly\" are less that what's paid in overtime. Literally it's throwing money away. \n\nWhat baffles is the most is watching people dump money I to these machines constantly. \n\nI went gambling once just to say I did it.. I walked in with $40. Entertained myself for a few hours.. Saved my winnings and by the end I won just enough to buy dinner when I was done. \n\nMeanwhile I've had aunt's spend THOUSANDS on these machines... Literally giving it away. ",
"So what malfunction usually means is this.\n\nLets say you are playing a slot machine and four \"7\" is the jack pot ex \"7777\"\n\nIf you hit \"7777\" you get the jack pot.\n\nWhen a machine malfunctions it means that you spin and you do NOT get four 7's you get anything else like \"1234\" but the machine for some reason malfunctions and pays you a jack pot....\n\nYou didn't really get the jackpot , you got 1234....it was an error that it paid jackpot out. So when you hear this happens its NOT that the person spun , got \"7777\" and a jackpot paid out and the casino stepped in and said \"sorry it was a malfunction\"\n\nYou spin, you get 5589 but for some reason the machine spits out a jackpot prize.\n\nOn the flip side if you spin and get '7777' and get no jackpot you absolutely can force the casino to pay you the jackpot.\n\n\nOr it may mean somehow it did the math incorrectly due to a box. All slot machines have pay tables , like in my above example lets say the jackpot pays 1000X or something like that.\n\nLets say you bet 5 cents but for some reason instead of paying out $500 it paid you out $50,000. Again the rules right on the machine say jackpot pays you 1000X your bet...if the machine pays you 100000X your bet its a malfunction.\n\nA common misconception about these cases is people think you hit the jack pot 7777, it pays you out the 1000X like it rules sate, then the casino comes in and says its broken. That does not happen its one of the following.\n\n\n\n1. your spin didn't really hit the jackpot \"example you got 1234\" but the machine tries to pay it out\n\n\n2. you hit the winning combination but for some reason the machine tries to pay you out more than the rules on the machine state ex Jack pot pays 1000:1 but for some reason you the system wants to pay you 100000:1 on a jackpot",
"I concur on the machines I've seen, at least in the Indian casinos around here they all state on the machine \"malfunction voids all pays and plays\". That should mean anything payed to it, anything it has payed, and the plays on it when it malfunctioned, so they need to either return what a person put in it or return their balance to what it was prior to the play that malfunctioned. ",
"If you're talking about the WTF post I saw earlier with the lady that hit the 41 million jackpot or whatever...the story explains that the TOS for the machine explains that the max payout was like $60k. Nowhere near the amount displayed so it was an obvious display error. \n\n\nDoesn't exactly answer your question but apparently there's a terms of service you agree to before you play the machine. I don't gamble so I didn't know but there's TOS for everything else so I'm not surprised.",
"Software engineer here:\n\nThe \"dinner instead of 42m\" was legitimately a computer error. The max payout on that machine was $6500. \n\nIt's not true that the machine is broken for everyone at once. Computers make errors too, that's what crashes are caused by sometimes, and this can -literally- happen because of cosmic radiation. These usually are 1-bit errors in volatile memory (RAM) that do not get corrected. You need ECC RAM for that, which is way more expensive.\n\nHere is an epic talk of a guy who registered almost all bitflips of google's \"gstatic\" domain. _URL_0_ \nGoogles servers make those errors too. He was able to read searches and even replace the logo.",
"Was this person's slot machine a progressive win machine or just a regular machine with a max winnings? I seem to remember that when you put your money and play, there is an agreement that you can win the max amount that machine can give regardless if it says you won more. ",
"State gaming regulations can specify that anything displayed on the screen is not to be trusted, only the amounts specified in the machine's log are used. Afaik, an actual glitch in a machine that affected payout had not occured a single time during the year I worked on them. Plenty of intoxicated customers had tried to claim such - but it's not difficult to review footage from a camera aimed at the machine and compare that information to whatever is displayed in the machine's history.",
"Saw the top comment about tearing down machines, and that's true, but only for large payouts. I work in a small casino (Oklahoma) and every game has a sticker on it that says MALFUNCTION VOIDS ALL PAYS AND PLAYS. \n\nIts a liability thing. Something going wrong I can't fix, I will prevent anyone from playing it. You won something, good for you. You didn't win, have a good day. You want some free money because I shut down \"your\" machine, i said good day! If you think there should have been a legit payout, and I agree with you that its a possibility, then we fill out some forms and wait a few days for the investigation. \n\nIf you ask me to flip \"the switch\" and make it win, I will smile, I will chuckle a bit, and I will imagine you being mauled by a bear.",
"I was playing a video slot machine in Vegas when it broke down. It was entering the \"bonus round\" when it froze on me. I had put in $10, won $20. We agreed that $75 was fair for the bonus round. I wasn't mad. ",
"paytables. you can access paytables on every slot machine and it tells you all payout scenarios. if payout exceeds stated paytables on machine then more than likely it is machine error or software glitch and property will not pay out. ",
"I design slot machine math.\n\nThe game in the picture looks like a Spielo AKA Gtech game.\n\nIf you look at the screen it say cashout, meaning she pressed the cash out button and the screen told her it was cashing out 42 million dollars. The machine absolutely did not tell her she won a mystery prize, that is a lie.\n\nShe did not win that amount of money, it was an error. Casinos and game designers do not pay for errors, they simply void play. That error doesn't negate all the previous play because the games odds are baked in to return around 86 to 96 percent of the total put into the machine.\n\nThose games don't have any prize totaling anywhere near 43million dollars, even progressives. With her bet of $1.35 there is no prize inside the game pay tables that could ever produce more than a $2,000 win. Let's say she was betting on a community progressive game that max on those is 20 to 30K...but she wasn't max betting, snd she wasn't even award the pay on a spin.\n\nIt was a total error, and she should have fought for the max prize on the machine instead of the 42 million.\n\nIf it happened to me, I would know better, and tell the casino if they don't want years of bad press, to pay me the max win on the machine and let's call it a day. If they chose not to, I would drag their ass through the mud by going on a press rampage like this lady..\n\nBut, at the end of the day, she did not win 42 million",
"It seemed like just a display error. She got paid what she won. Either way, these things are rigged and people are just throwing thier money away. She should have accepted the steak dinner. ",
"I plead guilty \"irrelevant comment\". What should a fit punishment be? Should l be hung upside down and get 30 bamboo slashes on my naked body? Would that please you? ",
"Interestingly, it was broken in a very specific way that probably wouldn't have made any legit winners show as losing.\n\nBasically, the women somehow ended up with a negative balance of about $0.20, but it won't allow that, so it wrapped around the other side.\n\nThe payout number was in 32 bit form.\n\n2^32 = 4294967296\n\nFormatted to money, that's $42,949,672.96\n\nShe \"won\" $42,949,672.76\n\nCrazy coincidence, right? It's $0.20 difference. Nope, it wrapped around. When the balance got to 0, but went down another cent, it went to 42,949,672.95, and then kept going until it was 42,949,672.96 - 0.20 = 42,949,672.76\n\nSo for the error to work against someone, they'd have to win more than $42,949,672.96 and it would loop back around to a very small amount. However, the machine was only setup to do max payouts of $6,500 so no one would have gotten anywhere close to that max number.\n\nSo all those machines are probably going to get worked on to fix this issue, and casino's might even pull all of them just because of the screw up, but it's not as simple as \"broken\" and \"not-broken\"\n\nIt's not like it was mechanically messed up or something.\n\nAs far as the law goes, real life is kind of like Monopoly, in that, if you don't notice someone land on your space, they don't have to pay you. If you have no idea you were cheated out of a win, you're not going to pursue them legally and casinos certainly aren't going to tell you that you should sue them.\n\nI wonder if I could get someone from the Warlizard Gaming Forums to chime in with a brief summary of the above.",
"Note: what I am about to say is following UK legislation. Depending on where the Casino is based, the Casino will have to abide to different set of rules.\n\nSlot machines in UK casinos have a set of stickers/disclaimers printed on them, one of which refers to this very specific situation.\n\n\"Malfunctions void all pays and plays'. I suppose the next natural step is for the casino/manufacturer of the Slot Machine to prove that it was in fact a malfunction. \n\nEdit for sources: I have 10 years experience in the casino industry, and a very good insight in various pieces of legislation about gambling and casinos.",
"If its broken its broken. A machine broken says \"pay 1,000,000$\" while the max payout is 5,000$. How would that casino be entitled to pay the person 1,000,000$? At the same time.. they may not HAVE to pay the person for a faulty machine but they SHOULD give some type of compensation or risk losing customers over bad publicity.\n",
"Are you that guy from the Warlizard forums?",
"To win jackpot you need:\n\n**7 - 7 - 7**\n\nYou get:\n\n **BAR - $ - < BLANK > **\n\nThe machine knows what was displayed, the cameras see what was displayed, it is proven to be a mistake.\n\nNow, if the screen actually displayed **7 - 7 - 7**, I don't know if that could be proven as easily.",
"Well I do work in casino and fault happen a lot and we generally give money to costumers when theh don't get paid due to fault. But I'm guessing you're asking because of the 42m case. It was simply mashine displaying random amount as payout and it clearly says that let's say in that case was 4 symbols and it does state on mashine what you get for that. It even states on mashine whats the max payout mashine can make. ",
"The simple answer is that the law protects them.\n\nIf a game has truly malfunctioned, which is easily proven, then the regulations protect both the manufacturer, property and regulatory body. In most cases these days, its a memory leak, or its a bad value which results in something such as 42 million or 21 million, which are all the limits for many data types. Each game has a predefined set of pays which are not only shown on the help screens but also through documentation and source code provided to the casino and regulatory body prior to the machine/game being installed and available for play.\n\nSome of the documentation that is provided are called \"pays and returns\" sheets, or PAR sheets. An example of one is available [here](_URL_0_) -- This is an example from Wizard of Odds, which is an excellent site btw.\n\nIf a prize is awarded outside of these values that is not a progressive prize (variable prize with a base value that increments based upon given events) then it is a pretty safe assumption that a malfunction has occurred. \n\nWhen progressive prizes are involved, more work is required, but it is easily proven.\n\nSlot machines are thoroughly tested and tightly regulated. \n\nThere's not a huge elaborate scheme going on between the government, casino and game manufacturer to scam the average patron. They have no reason to -- the games are all in favor of the house already, legally. Why do they want to scam when they are guaranteed to receive at least 1% of each cent wagered based on law ?",
"The event that spurned this question was from a woman who claimed she won a 43million dollar jackpot. The display said \"Printing cash ticket $42,949,672.76\" but the ticket printed out and showed earnings of only $2.25. Knowing programming, the displayed amount was actually an error code. When you drop the currency format, you get 4294967276 which converts to 0xFFFFFFEC in Hexidecimal. The machine's display, instead of putting $2.25 in the dollar amount, actually showed the error code with the currency format for the number. On top of that, the machine she was using had a max payout of $6,500 dollars. In this case, it was clearly a programming error that displayed an error code in currency format instead of what she actually won that was correctly shown on the ticket that was printed out. When she saw 2.25 on the ticket, she took a selfie with the display and then was offered a steak dinner and $2.25 in cash because of the error. She is now sueing for that amount and that is why this story has resurfaced.",
"The machines at my casino say \"malfunction voids all pays\" in tiny letters at the top of the machine. That's what all the machines in Montana say. ",
" unsigned int x = -20; // pay back 20 cents in credit\n printf(\"credit = %u cents\", x);\n\nCredit = 4294967276 cents\n\n4294967276 cents = $42,949,672.76 USD",
"I never knew how addictive these machines are until I read an article about how Soccer Club house in Singapore can earn up to 36 million dollars a year through slot machines ! I'm not talking about some fancy club house here. It's just a room in a neighborhood shopping center that are frequent by retirees losing their retirement funds. ",
"A few years ago, my brother came home for the holidays. We went to MGM casino after a night of partying in Detroit. He won a jackpot at a Roulette machine, but it didn't payout the $1,000 or so he won. I stayed by the machine as he went to complain. They said they couldn't do anything and said we were lying. \n\nThe only reason we were there is because we were waiting to get picked up as e took an Uber there the day before. As you can probably agree with, he was pissed off, and I was confused since there are hundreds of cameras lined all over.\n\nWe finally called the police, one of which we knew worked at the DPD from high school. They came and the money was given after they wanted to check the eye in the sky. I thought they'd need a warrant or something, but the panic caused by two police officers showing up made them eat their bullshit and pay my brother what he won.\n\nIt sounds unbelievable, but I hate casinos, so this is imprinted in my brain.",
"Nevada gaming agent here - everything can be verified through manufacturer slot par sheets and system software. Part of what I do is make sure the system is correctly calculating the payouts based on how the machine is set up. It's obvious to tell the machines that are malfunctioning and giving payouts vs. people who lost. But trust me, we hear about all of it and have to look into it as well. Casinos can't just refuse large payouts because they claim the machine is messed up, everything needs to be verified. If it's large enough, we get involved too. ",
"I work at a small casino in Indiana. On all of our machines there is a sticker or sign somewhere saying \"all wins void if malfunction\".\n\n Everytime a jackpot is hit an attendant and a security officer will go and get the information, in the mean time surveillance watches the tape to verify it was an honest win. (A lot of people who owe child support etc. Will win and then have someone switch and act like their friend was the one who won. Which is against the law here). Majority of the time though, it's an honest win. \n\nThe only time I can think of when a game malfunctioned was our craps table. It was automatic and the dice date in a bubble and the bottom shook to roll the dice. Well the machine quit shaking which allowed the dice to stay on the same thing each time. Some people were smart and didn't bet a lot, because there is a limit before an attendant will have to come to pay you. After someone decided to bet big, surveillance found out about it. \n\nIn the end we had lost around $50,000 because it was going on for hours. Our gaming commission did an investigation, and I know they prosecuted all of the ones they could identify.\n\n\nTL;DR\n\nMachine broke, everyone who played it knowing it was broke was prosecuted.",
"It's written into the machine's user agreement. It specifically states how much you're entitled to win on a jackpot spin. So in cases where the machine might claim you've won millions of dollars if the user agreement disagrees you're basically shit out of luck. ",
"Ahh but how do you know if an error occurred giving you no payout when you should have won a jackpot?\n\nSo by this logic they should refund anyone who played if an error was found that could affect the probability of winning.\n\nFat chance though.",
"The casino isnt paying, because she didnt win anything and the machine was broken.\n\n1. Woman plays the machine\n\n2. Doesnt win anything\n\n3. Has $2 credit remaining\n\n4. Decides to cash out and go home\n\n5. Stops playing\n\n6. Hits the \"cash out\" button\n\n7. Machine prints correct receipt of $2 correctly on the receipt\n\n8. Machine displays incorrect 47 million number on screen\n\nIts not a win.\n",
"hey silly. Corporations are created to exploit human needs, hopes, and dreams for profit. You can't fault them for being good at it, they have rights, you know ;-)",
"Slot attendant here:\n\ntldr: all malfunctions void pays and plays\n\nLong answer: we absolutely have the capability of finding who played the game and when within reason (I think our casino keeps records up to two weeks back) but to be completely honest, it's a waste of time and energy to track down the sweet little old lady who put $5 in a week and a half ago. The issue is that the game software malfunctioned and the manufacturer is going to be footing the bill not the casino. We deal with people all day every day who have issues like this but on a much smaller scale. Tickets fail to print, jackpots not logging in our system, reel tilts, bill jams, etc. the big difference between those issues and this issue is the amount. And if the manufacturer can prove (which they can) game failure, then that lady isn't getting jack. I hope this helps answer the question some.",
"Most machines have little tags on them that say something like \"Malfunction voids payout.\" where I worked. It's posted and you chose to still participate..therefor they don't have to pay. I'm sure each state my have differing gaming laws and regulations. This was at a state run / policed casino in Louisiana.",
"This is exactly what happen to me. Went to visit a friend in Florida and we hopped into the car and drove to those river boat casinos in Mississippi. Was playing for a while when the machine started ding ding dinging as in I won something. Waited a few minutes and when no one came to assist me I went looking for what I had to do next. Employees come over and then proceed to tell me the machine malfunctioned????? Not my problem you owe me, tells me nope its your problem your playing a defective machine and walks away. WTF, I wasn't much of a gambler in fact this was my first playing the one armed bandits. Cured me of ever thinking about going to a casino ever again.",
"From someone that just came back from vegas and didn't see a single person win on slots now I know why.",
"I know my dad hit a jackpot and the machine was broken, but instead of the ~$1,000 the machine said he won, the casino told him he actually won ~$20,000 and they gave it to him. ",
"I know in some states like oklahoma machines pay out based off bingo patterns and they say so on the machines. Ive seen 777 or douvle double double not pay out anything because the bingo patter didn't hit the reels just happened to land on that. ",
"The real ELI5 Answer for a 5 year old. \n\nLife is not fair. Sometimes people lie to you, sometimes people cheat, and even if you thought you understand the rules, people with power / adults sometimes change the rules.\n\n* And if the kid is older than 5, lets say the age of 9 (though some kids the age of 7 is mature enough in some 7 year olds.) Casinos are not in the business of fairness, they are in two businesses, making money, and selling you a product which is the idea of fun via chance. Well a completely fair system of perfect chance and perfect fairness is not what makes them money, aka you confused the product and why the buyer wants to buy the product with why the seller sells the product. Well the seller only cares about the seller and not the buyer in reality.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n & nbsp;\n\n & nbsp;\n\n & nbsp;\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\nThere is a great Louis CK bit about this from the TV show Louie about when (dad messed up) and gave the last desert treat to one daughter, when he has two daughters in the house. Here is the article and then the link to the youtube video.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nNote you can also make good arguments that Louis CK screwed up here, and while the life lesson is a good lesson he needs to tell the story later, and deal with the immediate issue, dealing it with the wrong time teaches the kid the wrong lesson for all they are feeling is FEELING at that moment and not the logic. But wait for them to calm down, look them into the eye, and explain the greater life truth and suddenly they get it, they will incorporate the life lesson in their life, but they will also see Dad as special / magical / wizard / sage like, but betray that trust via doing it in the wrong order and they (aka the 5 year old) see dad as the villain.",
"On one hand I don't have a problem with the casino saying \"Oops, it's an error, no biscuit\", but it pisses me off that it's ok that at the same time they're allowed to keep all of the proceeds from a machine that faulted.\n",
"Basically a casino can blatantly prove how the machine malfunctioned for the win. The problem is, a consumer most the time won't know when the machine failed and cost them Money as they'd most likely just assume they'd lost anyways. If a machine mass malfunctioned and instead of taking .05 of your balance but took 50,000 instead, it'd be more noticeable to prove a malfunction. ",
"Well I know a weird trick too win jackpots at casinos but you need to spend 25 years in the blackodge to do it... \n\n\nBut going back to reality you could be the one one to \"break it real good\" and after you win they turn it off or put ab out of order sign on it saying you broke it and then refuse to give you the jackpots but instead give you how much you put in back.... ",
"Slot technician here...\"malfunctions void all pays and play\" you'll find that posted on all the slot machines in canada anyways. That pretty much let's them do whatever they want when the machine has a hiccup...and they do happen",
"Casino employee here for ten years. I've never come across a machine that hit a jackpot and is declared broken. Ever. The only way a casino can NOT pay you out , is of you self exclude yourself (ban yourself) and you hit a jackpot that requires I'd. That money is then donated to a local charity. Our slot technicians are always roaming to fix any paper jams or malfunctions within minutes so you can get back to playing as soon as possible. I think you are meaning a pub or bar slot machine . It clearly states in all bars or on the machine, \"machine voids pay on any or all malfunctions \" . I believe because most bars have little to no security monitoring the Patrons . Some people kick and smash machines, or try to connect any sort of digital software will put the machine straight to \"malfuntion mode\" . I'm not a software developer but I can tell you from lots of experience I've never worked at a casino where a machine malfunctions and the patron does not get paid. Has it happened before?probably , I think Vegas and one in Ottawa happened . ",
"If the only part broken is the payout amount, then no, they don't have to. Second, they don't necessarily have records of everyone who played.\n\nShould they and the servicing company (and possibly the manufacturer) be liable for a penalty, yes. How much, not sure, but an equal ratio between the two or three parties.",
"lol! easy, how do people think they are entitled to something when it's clearly not a reality? Do you scream sexual assault when a man tells you his name is Hugh Mongus?",
"It's not a black and white \"broken.\" The machine printed out the $43m ticket because of a rounding error. This is a very rare and specific occurrence. I can't suggest a solution unless I see the actual code however. This \"malfunction\" doesn't affect play unless a very specific value is hit, causing said error. It has to do with powers of 2, specifically an overflow error at 2^32\nSource: \nP\nI'm a programmer",
"Totally agree with you. Most people ignore tje obvious scam played on those who lost. \n\nIts a little off subject but I think related, when referees go to the monitor for some but not all close calls. Some sports rely on the team or player to request it but when the ref just picks the calls they check? It always rubs me. \n\nOk. One more. Just a pet peeve. The football officials spot the first down ball and the chain crew lines up the marker o the the ball by \"eyeballing it\". Then if the ball is close to a first down they bring tje chains out. This is no more accurate than the eyeball method, since thats what they started with. If the starting point is a judgement call then the ending point should be too. Skip the charade.",
"They generate a constant report of what's happening. All the ones I've seen said error right before the jackpot. Thus they can see when exactly it malfunctioned. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/this-woman-hit-a-42-9-million-jackpot-but-the-casino-refuses-to-pay/",
"http://www.theroot.com/ny-woman-thinks-she-won-42-900-000-at-slots-but-casin-1790857541",
"http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-iowa-casino-error-20150424-story.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_overflow"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6hlwwt/us_woman_sues_casino_that_offered_dinner_instead/dizc004"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/ZPbyDSvGasw"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://wizardofodds.com/pdf/vamos-lv-par-sheet.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.good.is/articles/louis-ck-not-fair"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1znaia | the 5th ammendment. as a non-american, i don't understand how pleading the 5th doesn't directly translate to "i'm guilty". | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1znaia/eli5_the_5th_ammendment_as_a_nonamerican_i_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfv5emf",
"cfv5h7t",
"cfv5nu6",
"cfv5ojw",
"cfv5vfa",
"cfv68dj",
"cfv6wof",
"cfv7zua",
"cfva1vv",
"cfvaayq",
"cfvanrq",
"cfvb4o8",
"cfvcee0",
"cfvdbkw",
"cfvfsbd",
"cfvghsw",
"cfvgwal",
"cfvh6ro",
"cfvhfim",
"cfvhguu",
"cfvhkdn",
"cfvhn2q",
"cfvhod1",
"cfvhz8w",
"cfvi5os",
"cfvidpi",
"cfvil5q",
"cfvisoo",
"cfvj4tb",
"cfvj5sr",
"cfvj8f1",
"cfvkk3f",
"cfvkkfn",
"cfvkl2z",
"cfvkscw",
"cfvkw5s",
"cfvkxp9",
"cfvle9j",
"cfvlh6k",
"cfvlke6",
"cfvmkv9",
"cfvmtvi",
"cfvn7dg",
"cfvng2c",
"cfvngzc",
"cfvnsy7",
"cfvo5u4",
"cfvoo6g",
"cfvp9rp",
"cfvpb8h",
"cfvpmtg",
"cfvprxb",
"cfvpzch",
"cfvq0e0",
"cfvq8zt",
"cfvqz5b",
"cfvr17h",
"cfvroza",
"cfvrpp1",
"cfvryna",
"cfvs4k0",
"cfvsejb",
"cfvsman",
"cfvsuuv",
"cfvswpb",
"cfvtfhr",
"cfvttyh",
"cfvugzw",
"cfvv1rs",
"cfvvy8w",
"cfvwqy5",
"cfw7t03",
"cfw7ze7",
"cfwbhhy"
],
"score": [
124,
1787,
28,
32,
6,
333,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2,
20,
3,
6,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
3,
6,
5,
24,
2,
5,
4,
4,
2,
88,
3,
2,
4,
5,
3,
2,
2,
4,
3,
4,
3,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Pleading the 5th is a fundamental right that prevents the authorities from torturing a confession out of you, or similar behavior. If you don't want to testify then you are not required to do so, and it cannot be held against you. There are plenty of legitimate reasons you might not want to testify including being a nervous and imprecise speaker.",
"Protection against self-incrimination is inherent in our notion of due process. What good is a jury trial if you can just compel people to confess? Sure, you could always lie under oath, but we don't want people's only recourse against self-incrimination to be the commission of *another* crime (perjury). The 5th Amendment offers an escape hatch between these two things. It makes sure the prosecution carries its burden of actually marshalling evidence and proving a case, without requiring the defendant to lie under oath to avoid punishment.\n\nEdit: Because (I thought) OP was originally asking about the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination specifically, I didn't address a defendant's right to remain silent more generally. A defendant in a criminal interrogation/trial can refuse to talk altogether. Yes, this serves to protect against self-incrimination, but it also serves to protect innocent suspects/defendants from saying *anything* that could later be used against them. Police interrogations can be *long* and incredibly coercive. Likewise, testifying in open court can be incredibly nerve-wracking. How many of us in those types of situation would slip up and say something that wasn't quite correct? Or which sounded particularly bad, even though it might be innocuous? And there are *countless* ways a seasoned prosecutor can make innocence look like guilt on cross-examination.\n\nProsecutor: \"You knew Victor Victim, didn't you?\"\n\nDefendant: \"Yes.\"\n\nProsecutor: \"Did you know him well?\"\n\nDefendant: \"I...I guess so.\"\n\nProsecutor: \"Did you like him?\"\n\nDefendant: \"Not particularly.\"\n\nProsecutor: \"Did he have sexual relations with your wife the week before he was murdered?\"\n\nDefendant: \"He...he did.\"\n\nProsecutor: \"How did that make you feel?\"\n\nDefendant: \"Like shit, okay? What do you want from me?\"\n\nHere, the defendant hasn't admitted to anything criminal, and has (presumably) answered truthfully. Things got emotional, sure, but who is immune to that? Even though he's said nothing incriminating or morally objectionable, the prosecutor has pulled an incredibly damning motive out of him. Hearing this evidence on examination of the *defendant* is incredibly prejudicial. \n\nSo at a minimum, the 5th amendment right to silence protects the accused from being used as an instrument of his own destruction. If a defendant doesn't want to be subjected to this, we make the prosecutor put the defendant's motive forward with other evidence.",
"It might not help you in the eyes of the jury if you plead the fifth, no.\n\nThe reason we have that right is because someone who is innocent might have done something suspicious, and so they should have a right to not disclose that if they don't want to. For example, if my roommate got murdered and I was a suspect, I might want to plead the fifth if they ask whether I was at home the night she got killed. I didn't do it, but the jury might say \"well he was there so he probably killed her\" and convict me anyway.\n\nThe jury or judge or whoever is not supposed to take the fact that I refused to comment into consideration. In other words, they're not allowed to say \"well he refused to say where he was so he probably killed her.\" I'm not saying that it doesn't happen (in fact I'm sure that it does), but they aren't *supposed* to.\n\nAlso, even if I am guilty, it's the prosecutor's job to prove it, not mine. If there isn't enough evidence to prove that I'm guilty *regardless* of my testimony, I don't belong in jail. I mean, I do, but they shouldn't be allowed to throw me in if they can't prove it.",
"In American law you must be found guilty by evidence that will be used in court to persuade the jury to your guilt. By not providing help by remaining silent, you are making it harder for the law to bring evidence to court. The prosecutor can't say \"the accused refused to answer the question and therefor is guilty\". The prosecutor must provide evidence to prove that you are guilty.",
"Dutch law has something similar wich states that a suspect/defendant doesn't have to cooperate with the prosecution.\n\nSo he's not obliged to give testimony or hand over information that could incriminate him (further).\n\nIn the Netherlands it's quite legal for the defendant to lie about everything.",
"Let's say Joe is accused of murdering Bob. Joe knows he didn't do it because he was busy having sex with Carl's wife at the time Bob was murdered. Since Joe's a married man, he doesn't want to bring this up.\n\nThe prosecution can't use \"Joe won't tell us where he was at the time of the murder so he must be the murderer\" as their argument. They're required to provide hard evidence that Joe did it.\n",
"another thing to remember is that there are often more than one trial involving a single incident. for example me and my BFF go to rob a a store, and he kills somebody. there will be 2 murder trials, i can plead the 5th at his trial so that testimony can't later be used against me at my own trial.",
"The thing is that the court system cannot prosecute someone without conclusive evidence against that person's case. Therefore, if you plead the 5th, you provide no evidence for or against your case. Ergo, no conclusions can be reached in your case.",
"You should also note that if you \"plead the fifth,\" that **can** be used against you in a civil trial.\n\nYears ago, I defended a college student in the civil trial that resulted from a bar fight he was in. He was also facing criminal charges. If, for example, in the criminal proceeding, he refused to answer the question \"Who threw the first punch?\" because it may incriminate him, a civil jury could presume that he refused to answer because he threw the first punch. This sometimes resulted in him getting conflicting legal advice from the criminal lawyer and from myself.",
"One of the reasons that it doesn't directly translate to \"I'm guilty\" is because it's your right against self-incrimination. At best, you're saying that you don't want to talk about something because it would incriminate you for another crime. Remember that what you say to the police can be used against you, but it can't be used FOR you. For example, if I smoked pot and had a friend who was murdered on the same night, I could plead the fifth because of the pot smoking instead of me murdering a friend.",
"Along the same vein, what would happen if I were asked to take the stand (not necessarily in my own defense, but for any reason), and I say no to the oath they recite when they try to swear me in? Is that punishable, or is it my right to refuse to be sworn in and answer questions? ",
"Here is the definitive version of the 5th amendment:\n\n_URL_1_ \n\n_URL_0_\n\n.\n\nPlease view this so that you can really understand, from a legal professor and a police officer.",
"everyone in here is talking about popular use, not the point of the law.\n\nthe law arose because some guy called king the king of england, implicated guilt of one of his former friends for not signing a document to give an alliby to the king of england. the \"friend\" was found guilty and killed.\n\nthe US didn't want a corruption of judicial authority so they said very explicitly that not wanting to say something can not be held as criminal/culpable. they didn't exactly fix the conflict of interests part, but they did the inadmission of guilt isn't guilt part. which is why you can plead not-guilty.\n\n > so how does it not translate to guilt?\n\nby not having anything to do with guilt? you can say you did a crime, or you didn't do it. beyond actual statements, not saying is implicitly and arbitrarily saying you did not do the crime. and so the prosecution must follow it up.\n\nyou simply can't be forced to incriminate yourself. you can't be tortured into confession. you can't be extorted to confess to a different tort. you can't be reasonably forced to lie in court, any lie you give will be by your choice because you are allowed to give no further explanation.\n\nyou are right that it means you are guilty, but of what and to whom? is the person who would be offended by whatever behavior you don't want to admit to engaging in, a legitimate court. or is it a thing which is legal but would put you reasonably at fear for your life or livelihood?\n\nfor example, premarital sex is legal. but could cause very bad repurcussions for some people to admit. thus their alibi takes them out of the frying pan and into the fire. \n\nthe law is there to keep people from taking 'justice' into their own hands. it reduces vigilanteism, by reducing the capcity for a court having a public trial to find innocent a defendant, only for the public to lynch the person.",
"Quite simple: You have a constitutional right against self-incrimination. If you couldn't assert that right by \"pleading the 5th,\" then the 5th amendment would be useless. You would always be implicating yourself. It should be noted that this protection doesn't apply in some other type of proceedings. If you plead the 5th in a federal administrative hearing, the judge can draw a \"negative inference\" and use the 5th as evidence that you are hiding something.\n\nThe 4th amendment has a similar conundrum. Generally, you need probable cause and a warrant to search something. If somebody comes to my house and tells me that they want to search it, and I say no, my refusal does not \"add in\" to their probable cause. If it did, then the 4th amendment would be largely defeated. ",
"Also keep in mind that it's not just about denying guilt- It's also about protecting someone in the case where they don't understand the questioning or perhaps they feel like they might be walking into a trap, especially based on circumstantial evidence in front of a jury. It can be pretty easy for a prosecutor to set you up to look guilty just based on their line of questioning. A good way out is to invoke the 5th and confer with your legal counsel.",
"This is a misunderstood concept.\n\nIt doesn't matter if people think you're guilty. A judge, in an American court, will not convict you of a crime if sufficient evidence of guilt isn't presented. Juries are instructed to behave in the same way. The 5th amendment simply prevents the state from requiring you to present evidence against yourself. Exercising the 5th amendment might seem suspicious, but suspicion isn't enough to convict.",
"You have a right against self-incrimination. So if I ask you a question, the answer of which could incriminate, you have the right to refuse to answer. You haven't said yes or no, you've refused to answer the question.\n\nExample: If I were to ask you is your favorite color red, and you say I plead the 5th, what inferences if any could I possibly draw about your favorite color?\n\nMore practical example: Pursuant to a traffic stop the standard first question an officer will ask you is \"do you know why I stopped you?\" This is a trick, the officer is trying to get you to incriminate yourself. You do not have to answer this question, the appropriate response is \"No officer, why did you stop me?\"",
"Well just because you choose not to answer a question because it may/might/could be used against you (that's what lawyers do after all) is not an admission of guilt. They are non sequiturs. If some one asks me if I robbed a bank and I don't answer (for whatever reasons I choose), it doesn't mean I did rob the bank. They have to prove I did it, I don't/can't prove I didn't. This shows up in US Miranda rights too where you have \"the right to remain silent\", which you should ALWAYS do. There is literally NOTHING you can ever say that will ever help your situation be it a parking ticket or a murder rap. The cops and lawyers can and will use even the most innocent of statements against you in a thousands ways you've never even thought of. It's a TRAP!!!!! Instead, it's best to stfu and call your lawyer. ",
"An important consideration: even if you do read it as \"I'm guilty,\" you don't know what they're guilty *of.* If you are accused of robbing a store, they might ask you \"what were you doing the night of the robbery?\"\n\nMaybe you really *didn't* rob the store... because you were busy buying drugs from your dealer across town. You are refusing to incriminate yourself by saying what you *were* doing that night, but that doesn't mean you did what they said you did.",
"The defendant doesn't actually have to testify at trial, so invoking the right against self-incrimination happens very little in practice. You're right that it does make the defendant seem guilty, so defense attorneys almost never put a criminal defendant on the stand. In fact, trials in many ways are about showmanship and often a better lawyer can prevail on a weaker case because of that. People like to think fairness of the law is what the Constitution guarantees American citizens, but what the Constitution guarantees is due process, in other words, **you are guaranteed a fair and equal process, not fair and equal application of the law**. \n\ntldr: Yes, \"pleading the Fifth\" in practice makes you seem guilty. \n",
"Have you ever seen this video of [this fast talking lawyer](_URL_0_) explain why you should never talk to the police?\n\nMaybe you've heard the line \"everything you say, can and will be used against you\".\n\nIt's much more likely anything you say will be taken out of context or somehow twsited to work against you. ",
"Look around for discussions and links to YouTube where cops, lawyers, and others explain (to Americans) why you should never talk to the police. (Google \"why you should never talk to the police\", for example.)\n\nBasically, if you are being investigated and you are innocent of the charges, contrary to popular opinion there is pretty much no way your well-intentioned insistence on doing **more** talking can help you. The police have the job not of *finding the truth* like we see on cop shows; they have the job of *closing the case*. Handing over to the prosecutors something they can work with, to secure a conviction or, more likely, a plea deal that the district attorney likes.\n\nSo, any little misspoken word or misremembered detail \"can and will be used against you in a court of law.\" They ask where you were from 8 to midnight on the 21st of April; you tell them you were in Springfield with friends. They ask if you're sure you weren't in Shelbyville (and they know why they are asking you that, but you don't). You say \"I haven't been to Shelbyville in years!\"\n\nLater it comes out that the gas station where you filled up your car on the way to meeting your friends at the bar is actually on the side of the highway that makes it Shelbyville. Honest mistake on your part, absolutely trivial detail, but in court you have now **lied** to police and **concealed** the important **fact** that you were in the same town, around the same time, the crime was committed.\n\n*What else are you not telling us?*\n\nSo, the right to just say nothing can be a critical part of simply not making a situation worse. You're innocent, but they don't know that, and they are trying to find a \"good fit\" in terms of who to charge. They are not exhaustively verifying every element, or keeping the investigation going longer because you aren't a *perfect* fit.",
"Love the law... must reply! \n\nELI5 Version: The 5th amendment protects one from self-incrimination in the most general sense, i.e. a person isn't forced to give evidence against him or herself. Yes, (as is obvious) it protects the guilty from incriminating themselves. It also, however, protects the innocent from providing information which may be *used* as evidence against them in some way. \n\nIf you wish to dedicate ~20 minutes to learning more, watch the first half of this video! The title of the video, \"Don't Talk to the Police,\" is of a parallel subject but the speaker is entertaining and explains well the full implications of the 5th amendment. _URL_0_\n",
"One important point to add -- in the context of the 5th Amendment right not to take the stand in a criminal case against you -- is that a skilled trial attorney can easily make an innocent person look guilty on cross-examination.\n\nEven an innocent defendant-witness is going to be nervous. On cross the prosecutor is dissecting every word the witness says. Most people, when being asked many, many, many questions, quickly and in a high-pressure environment will end up using different words or phrases to describe the same thing in different answers. They'll get confused, think the questioner is asking about something else, answer the wrong question, say the wrong name. A good cross-examiner will make this look like the witness is obviously a liar. The witness gets more nervous, maybe angry, it's only natural. An innocent witness becomes exactly what we think a guilty defendant would act like on the stand.\n\nThis is just one of the reasons why the 5th Amendment is a good idea, and I like to bring it up because it's harder to argue with than the \"it's not fair to make people incriminate themselves\" aspect.",
"Before we can begin: Americans assume everyone else knows we have an adversarial system. As far as I can see, a lot of other countries have a collaborative fact finding system. The judge, the lawyers, magistrates - everyone is a fact finder. Here, we do not collaborate. We fight. And whoever makes their case best, wins - even though the rules say that the prosecutor has the burden to do all the proving. The defense's job is counter the prosecutor's attempt to prove all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt - by offering evidence, testimony, or merely pointing out that the state is doing a bad job (the last is not a great tactic usually...). There are rules, but we fight dirty. The fifth amendment is necessary to protect people from some dirty tricks and to make sure that the prosecution meets their burden of proving each and every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. \n\n\"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.\"\n\nThis means after they frustrate you and you say \"YES I WAS THERE! Yes I thought the diamonds were beautiful! But I didn't steal them!\" They can ask you on the stand, or quote you later as saying \"YES I WAS THERE...the diamonds were beautiful.\" And you can't explain. \"Answer yes or no.\"\n\nAside from that, the accused in the US has no duty to prove his or her case. The burden is on the state/city/government to prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence does not show that, then the government (should) lose. \n\nI've seen so many people who think they \"have nothing to hide\" get completely railroaded - and I'm not even out of law school yet. I've been in the public criminal defense world for all of 8 months and my best advice to everyone is SHUT UP - especially around police. That being said, we put a client on the stand today. This client did great. We have another client who is dirty, smelly, and literally crazy. Will a jury believe anything he says? Can we predict what he'll say? No. Even though I believe he's innocent, there is no way I am counting on people to see past his exterior. A prosecutor could so easily trip this guy up. Pleading the fifth here is an important strategic move - and essential to protecting this guy's right to have the state prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. \n\nProcedurally, like u/TheRockefellers pointed out, the jury is unlikely to see the witness say \"I'm pleading the fifth.\" They are also supposed to be instructed that taking the fifth is absolutely not an admission of guilt. Lots of lawyers test out whether the prospective jury members are likely to believe that pleading the fifth = guilt during voir dire (jury selection). If so, the prospective juror can be dismissed. Further, the prosecutor cannot point out that the defendant did not testify. \n\nThis is a complicated topic, clearly. But, pleading the fifth definitely DOES NOT mean guilty. Any judge or prosecutor worth his or her salt knows this, too. \n\nEdit: clarification. ",
"It's mostly a formality. It basically means that it's not allowable logic to say \"He/she didn't answer this question, therefore he/she is guilty\" (which is the natural conclusion, as you note). It forces prosecutors to find evidence from sources other than the defendant, rather than engaging in a witch hunt where either you confess (and are guilty) or refuse to answer (and are assumed guilty). This may seem weird, but essentially our legal system isn't about determining the **truth**, necessarily; rather, it's about giving everyone an equal chance to **argue** their innocence, while someone else argues their guilt. Think debate team rather than research project.\n\nAs an issue of privacy, it also allows you to avoid answering questions which would incriminate you in a context other than the crime at hand; for example, you won't answer where you were a particular night because you were cheating on your wife, not because you murdered someone.",
"I should like to mention torture as it made the headlines again today. Look up \"hickory shampoo\", it is a euphemism for beating someone with a night-stick. Usually in a police-on-suspect context. It was an (unfortunately) common interrogation technique used against people who were perceived to have weaker civil standing. The fifth amendment, among other things, was meant to be a check against aggressive interrogation. Hand in hand with the right to remain silent. Having served on a jury, I think twelve random strangers do a surprisingly reliable job of judging credibility. Assumptions are made, voiced, and challenged by the members, and at the end of it I think there is little motivation for corruption of justice. Our right to due process is to be cherished. We should be deeply concerned about fifth amendment [violations](_URL_0_) that are tantamount to death warrants. The worst son-of-a-bitch on the planet is entitled to due process under our system of jurisprudence, and we need to make sure we protect that. ",
"I'm seeing a lot of great answers, but no one even really seems to have touched upon why the fifth amendment was important enough to put in the bill of rights yet. From what I understand, forced confessions were fairly common until the late 18th century, right around the time the US was officially founded as an independent country. If the law of the land was that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself, by extension you also disallowed suspects to be tortured into a false confession.\n\nBut, yeah, most of the answers here are absolutely right.",
"I'll just quote Cardinal Richlieu: \"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, and I’ll find something in them to hang him by.\"\n\nEven if you're innocent, if you talk to the cops, you might say something that sounds incriminating. In fact, prosecutors are good at taking anything you say and making you sound guilty - see Cardinal Richlieu.\n\nOr here's an American defense attorney explaining why you should never talk to the police, and take full advantage of your Fifth Amendment rights.\n\n_URL_0_",
"The 5th is actually brilliant. A defendant doesn't have to say a word once arrested. They have a case against you? Prove it. ",
"Basically the thinking of the Founders was this: The State has a tendency to become tyrannical over time. The State has the exclusive right to deprive you of life, liberty, or property. So, those two things combined make the State dangerous. Necessary, but dangerous. What to do?\n\nOne of the protections they provided is the 5th amendment. The State has the right to prosecute me for a crime, but it has the BURDEN of proving my crime itself. I have absolutely no obligation to HELP the State deprive me of my life, liberty, or property. So, if the State is questioning me about something, and something I might say could be USED to make a case against me, I am not obligated to answer, and no court can use my refusal to answer as evidence of a crime being committed.\n\nedit: added an 'N' to tyrannical to satisfy the spelling police.",
"Here is a little example of how the 5th is a helpful tool experienced in my own life.\n\nDoes anyone remember that excedrin recall they had in 2012 because they were accidently bottling percocet in it? Yeah, I had no idea at the time either. Apparently, I got an unlucky batch, and took what I thought to be excedrin for a headache, but was actually some percocet.\n\nI took a piss test the next day and didn't think anything about it. Two months later it came back that I tested positive for a controlled substance, and I was called in to see my company commander who read me my rights. I had absolutely no idea what was going on when they said I failed a drug test (which means I was going to get kicked out of the army, and lose all of my benefits and GI bill for college).\n\nThey said I could talk to them right then and they would help me figure everything out, or I could say nothing and talk to a lawyer. I still didn't know what was going on, so I refused to talk.\n\nTo cut out the fat from the story, I got a lawyer, figured out what specifically I tested hot for, did some research, and found out that my batch of excedrin was recalled for containing percocet, the drug i tested positive for.\n\nThis ended up saving me from getting kicked out of the army. Had I told my company commander I didn't take any drugs etc when they were asking me, I would have been fucked. I did take drugs, I just thought they were something else.\n\nAnyways, I contribute my not getting kicked out of the army due to the fact that I didn't say a goddam thing to my company commander. Fifth amendment, fuck ya!",
"I think the general idea of protection against self-incrimination has been spoken about but I wanted to mention a lot of the other aspects of the fifth amendment and what \"pleading the fifth\" means. To do this I wanted to give a basic summary of where the \"Miranda warning\" comes from.\n\n* [**In general**] The fifth amendment is juxtaposed between article 3 (right to a trial by jury) the 6th (right to an attorney) and 14th amendment (due process and incorporation doctrine) which give it the force of law to apply the \"Miranda warning\" to every situation dealing with the police or other officer of the law. The Miranda warning comes from a famous court case, \"Miranda V. Arizona\" where the supreme court ruled 5-4 about the right for a person to remain silent and for that silence not to be held against them in a court of law.\n\n* [Artical 3] Now, law in the United States is adversarial law, which is different than other countries courts of law. In the United States there are always two parties who are arguing in front of an impartial third party, the judge. This is why you always see court cases like \"The People vs Larry Flint\" and the like, because there is one person representing \"The People\" and another representing \"Larry Flint\". This is an understood aspect of Due Process in the states. A person is always granted an attorney to represent them unless they sign away this right.\n\n* [Artical 5] There is also the right against \"self incrimination\". This directly related to our nations stance against torture. You can read more about it at length in [Brown Vs Mississippi](_URL_1_) but basically it states that a persons right to deny self incrimination is basically a persons right to not be tortured and if they are tortured none of this evidence may be used in court against them.\n\n* [Article 6 and Article 5's due process] Our constitutional rights cannot be taken away from us, and the only way for a court to proceed without going through the adversarial form of law I mentioned before is for someone to sign away their right to do so. But it is incredibly arguable whether or not someone can be said to have signed away their rights if they never knew about their rights. That's like your older brother not telling you about your Christmas present and when you find out about it he says \"Well you didn't want it so I just took it.\" I mean come on, I totally wanted that laptop! I would have taken it if I knew about it, jeeze! \n\n* [Article 14 or Incorporation Doctrine] Now the judgement in Miranda stemmed from a knowledge that police interrogations are often times incredibly coercive with officers leaving out little tidbits about constitutional rights granted to citizens of the United States. These rights cannot be taken away from citizens by any officer of the law where the united states has de facto control (Read recent case law [Hamdi v. Rumsfeld](_URL_0_) I believe) which includes overseas military bases and the like. \n\nSo, \n\n1) if we didn't have protection against self incrimination it's possible that torture or coersion could be used to get confessions.\n\n2) If someone isn't told about a constitutional right they cant be said to have given it up, so they must always be told about them in a Miranda warning.\n\n3) If a confession is gathered with coercive tactics or without a lawyer then there was never an adversarial courtroom with an unbiased third party that is outlined in Article 3.\n\nTL;DR\n\nTo protect due process, our right not to be tortured and our right to council everyone is granted the right to remain silent until they speak with a lawyer and for a lawyer to be present at all interrogations. ",
"No one says \"I plead the fifth\" to a jury in his or her own trial. That's something you say when you're compelled to give testimony like to congress, a legislature, a grand jury or a trial against someone else. \n\nAt your own trial it functions more as a right not to have to testify against yourself. So the prosecution cannot call the defendant as a witness. \n\nThe fifth amendment also does a lot more that protect you against compelled self incrimination. It's kind of a big one. ",
"Cop here with a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Criminal Justice. I'm assuming you are referring to someone being asked in court as opposed to someone who was just arrested. Essentially it comes to the \"burden of proof\" our system uses. If you are arrested, charged, and on trial for a crime it is up to the prosecution to prove your guilt, not the defense to prove your innocence. If the prosecutor fails to provide sufficient evidence to prove that you are guilty you can offer no defense and be found not guilty. How does this relate to the 5th ammendment? By refusing to answer you are not providing any evidence. Does it make a person assume the person is guilty? Sure. However, our system relies on evidence, not assumptions. \n\nFun fact. You must VERBALLY ENVOKE your 5th ammendment rights during questioning by law enforcement (I'm referring to being recently arrested, not during trial) or your silence when asked a question can be used to imply guilt. See the Supreme Court ruling in Salinas v Texas for full explanation.",
"Juries are not allowed to assume not testifying means you're guilty, but it's common knowledge that they almost always do. One of the most famous American criminal defense lawyers, Edward Bennett Williams, always made his clients testify because he knew juries would assume silence = guilt. It's a very understandable human conclusion.\n\nBut you should have the right to refuse to self-incriminate. The government should bear the entirety of the burden of proving guilt and, as a lawyer, I assure you it's not hard to make people misspeak. Being on the stand is fucking terrifying and you could be perfectly innocent yet incriminate yourself. There are dozens and dozens of cases and studies proving this.",
"I would highlight two things.\n\nFirst, when you talk to the police about a crime they suspect you for, even if you didn't commit it, you might lead them to suspect you of *other* crimes that you might not have committed either. That could lead to you getting prosecuted for something else, even though you committed no crime and cooperated fully with the police.\n\nSecond, an innocent person can tell true things to the police that would make them look pretty bad in the eyes of the police or a jury. For example, suppose you had a loud argument with your housemate before going out of town for the long weekend to your mother's house. When you come back, your housemate has been murdered, and because somebody in your building heard you two arguing, the police are investigating you as a suspect. You tell the police that you were out of town that weekend, and that your mother can testify to that. But unknown to you, the police have interviewed a new tenant in your building who believes (incorrectly!) that he saw you during the weekend. Now the prosecutor can use that neighbor's testimony to argue in front of a jury that you lied to the police.\n\nI adapted this second example from [this video](_URL_0_), which I would recommend you watch.",
"You may accidentally reveal information that could be presented in a way that incriminates you. That is just one way the fifth can be used to protect yourself even if innocent. Essentially the fifth helps to secure a fair trial.",
"Unlike other countries, in the US you are innocent til proven guilty. If one is accused of a crime, it is up to the state to prove your guilt FIRST and for you to then offer explanation, reason, etc. as to your innocence. Taking the Fifth basically translates into, \"I'm not saying ANYTHING because some bit of information can be taken by the prosecutor and placed into a context that may or may not be actual proof of guilt, but is presented in such a way that one might assume guilt. You are accusing me of a crime? Fine. Prove it....I'm not saying a single word that might help you. \n\nAlso, it is important to understand the difference of being found innocent, and not guilty. Being found guilty bears a certain level of proof, evidence, etc. If that cannot be show, then the person is found not guilty. It does not mean the party didn't commit the crime....it just means the state did not prove its case with evidence, etc. that you did.",
"It's like checking in poker. Just because you check doesn't necessarily mean you have a shit hand. ",
"It's also a bit different than what I think OP is envisioning. I think the OP is envisioning the prosecution calling the defendant to the stand, and, upon the first question, the defendant say \"I plead the 5th.\" The way this actually works is that the defendant is just never called up to the stand to testify.\n\nIf you're an innocent defendant, why would you not want to go up to tell your story? Because once you do that, the prosecution gets the right to cross examine you and present incriminating evidence. For example, if someone was on trial for the murder of their wife, and found out two weeks prior that his wife had been cheating on him, that evidence could be introduced, and the jury could infer from that evidence what they will. \n\nThe \"I plead the 5th\" thing comes up in other circumstances. Where one person is called to testify in a trial where they are not the defendant, but his testimony would incriminate him in a crime. Or where individuals are called to testify before a Congressional committee, and the testimony the committee attempts to elicit could incriminate them in a crime. ",
"Short version, it has a few intended purposes:\n\n* If you think the person is trying to trap you by having you say things that make you *sound* guilty, when you actually aren't. (For example: \"So you do own a hat just like this guy's hat, but can't prove where you got it?\")\n\n* Without it, their first question for every crime would be \"did you do it?\". If you say no and are later proven guilty, they could also charge you with lying under oath, which is a felony. (Since you said you didn't do it, but the court proved that you did, which means you lied.) This would make everyone have a strong incentive to plead guilty to small crimes even if they are innocent, to avoid the risk of a felony charge.\n\n* It prevents the courts from being used to uncover private, embarrasing, or dangerous information. Without it, a lawyer could ask me \"What are your computer passwords\" or \"tell me the names of everyone involved in undercover work against the mob\" and I would be required to answer.",
"Simple.\n\nYou are innocent until proven guilty. The burden to show proof is on prosecution. You are not required to testify against yourself. They have to prove without a reasonable doubt that you did thing.\n\nPleading the 5th amendment is 100000% NOT a showing that you're guilty of something. EVERYONE should plead the 5th EVERY TIME. You don't need to prove ANYTHING.",
"Very well put: In the UK silence can be used against you... Do you see how insanely powerful that is? I, the state, accuse you of any crime I wish, you are silent on the matter, therefore you're innocent? How is that logical? \n\nIt isn't. The US system has evolved from that exceptionally backwards and illogical system to putting the burden COMPLETELY on the state to prove my guilt. If the state cannot do so, I am free to leave. This is a critical check on the power of the state. \n\nThe right to remain silent (our rights that are protected by, not created by, the 5th Amendment) is a check on the power of the government meaning that it must prove my guilt or leave me alone. \n\nRemember: the American system was built upon a foundation of exceptionally important principles which were, and are, antithetical to old-world thinking. One of which is that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to infringe the rights of an innocent one. \n\nA guilty man run amok may injure the rights of a few people; a state run amok ___will___ injure the rights of the whole country. ",
"_URL_0_ watch and learn. don't talk to the police",
"I've had a cop read me my rights. I Decided to tell him what actually happened after the fact. Changed what I said in the report and still took me to jail. Basically because cops are pieces if shit and can lie, break the law, coerce admission, and interrogate you ( with no food or sleep) for up to 24 hours. It's basically a simple way to protect yourself from falsely admitting a crime. Check out The Manhattan 5 documentary on Netflix if you want a little better understanding. ",
"Under our criminal justice system, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This isn't just an expression; it literally means that the government (the state), has the complete burden to prove that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With this comes our right to due process and protection against self-incrimination. Being innocent (not necessarily literally innocent, but innocent under the law, until proven otherwise), you have the complete right to remain silent and not say anything that may incriminate you, because of the fact that the burden is entirely on the state. By assuming that a defendant is only silent because he is guilty, it shifts the burden onto the defendant to have to prove his innocence, which goes against our notions of what is fair and just. ",
"Fucking Raymond Tusk",
"Consider this example, one day you were doing something illegal like growing drugs, robbing a home, performing a scam on someone...The cops want to arrest you but have no basis.\n\nSuddenly, you happen to be a possible suspect in a murder case. Now, you know for a fact you weren't at the scene of the murder because you were busy doing something illegal. Do you tell us the illegal act you were doing and get arrested, just to avoid a murder charge you are not guilty of? \n\nNo, because A. You are not guilty of the other crime, no reason to hurt yourself to avoid getting punished for it. and B. You may in fact incriminate yourself by admitting to something illegal, making the jury find you even more guilty.\n\nSo, you plead the fifth. Now it's on the prosecution's shoulders to PROVE you did something, rather than for you to prove your innocence. And why is it like that? Because you are just one man, and the prosecution is the government, they have the means and the power to go after you...you don't need to help them do it though.",
"Fun fact: people in court don't \"plead the 5th.\" That happens in TV and movies, but not so much in real life. \n\nEveryone on that stand in court knows exactly what s/he is saying beforehand, and so does his/her attorneys.",
"There are lots of great comments in this thread, but I want to offer a slightly more straightforward explanation:\n\nIn an informal context, pleading the fifth basically *does* translate to saying \"I'm guilty.\" (For example, if a politician invokes the fifth during an investigation, it would be very hard for him to get re-elected, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, precisely because the public will interpret it as saying \"I'm guilty.\")\n\n*HOWEVER!*\n\nIn a formal context, it also translates to *\"But you have to prove it.\"*\n\nThe fact of the matter is that any form of eyewitness testimony is really, really shitty. People's memories are awful, they're easily biased, even in terms of how a question is asked, the list goes on and on. \n\n(For example: a [study was done](_URL_0_), in which participants were shown a video of a car crash. Some participants were asked \"How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?\" while others were asked, \"How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each others?\" They were later asked \"Did you see any broken glass?\" People in the *smash*-group were much more likely to say \"Yes.\" The catch? There wasn't any broken glass in the video at all.)\n\nThe ramification here is that if the prosecution has such a weak case that they'd only be able to find the defendant guilty if s/he were compelled to explicitly confess their guilt, then they don't have a good enough case and the defendant should not be found guilty. The Fifth Amendment is another tool we have that is designed to ensure that innocent people aren't wrongly found guilty. It forces the prosecution to actually do its job.\n\nGenerally speaking: if someone pleads the Fifth, then any competent prosecution should be able to muster enough objective evidence to warrant a conviction. (Usually, not always.) It's important for everyone that the prosecution actually does the legwork to find the defendant guilty. Otherwise, there's no paper trail, there's no accountability, there's no attempt at objectivity.\n\n",
"So what exactly do you tell the officer when getting pulled over for an infraction say, speeding when they ask if you knew how fast you were going? Say the limit, you don't know, or remain silent with a nod?",
"The reason , despite popular belief, is you cannot be forced to testify against yourself.\n\nMeaning, that if you are on trial for a crime they cannot force you to speak, in your defense or otherwise.\n\nThe reason why is because the burden of proof is not on you, but your accusers. \n\nThey must have enough evidence to believe they can get a conviction to charge you with a crime.\n\n If it were necessary to force you to speak, then they don't believe they have enough evidence on their own and you are wrongfully charged.\n\nYou can't charge someone with a crime on the pretext that you can force them to testify and hopefully get them to say something incriminating.\n\n\n\n\n",
"Simple: Not claiming that you're innocent is not the same as claiming that you're guilty. It's the prosecution's job to find and show to the court evidence of your guilt. It's not your job, as the defendant, to help them in any way. If you feel that speaking might help the prosecution, you don't have to speak.",
"The fifth prevents you from being forced to speak then having your perchance poorly worded statement, innocent as it may have been, used to incriminate you.",
"This video [Don't talk to the police]( _URL_0_) sums it up pretty nicely. ",
"Have you been watching House of Cards? ;)",
"This isn't an american thing. Any legal system worth it's salt will have something similar.",
"Sometimes people who aren't guilty still want to respect their privacy and not explain where they were or what they were doing, or their spouse. In many cases it is from being guilty, but in many others it comes from them having an excuse which is embarrassing or illegal, or shameful. For example back in the day someone might plead the 5th if the cops wanted to know where they were and they were with their gay lover. Back in the day being gay could get you killed, beaten, or treated differently, so it might be better to be thought as straight and guilty than gay and innocent. It can also be used as a tool in court. Needless to say, one has many reasons to plead the 5th despite being innocent or guilty. Anyone who \"assumes\" the person is guilty is doing the system a disservice, as jurors are supposed to operate off of facts (evidence.) So pleading the 5th is lack of evidence, not guilt. Otherwise please see unknown, unknowns. \n_URL_0_",
"It's always possible the prosecution can build a case on circumstantial evidence, and use your testimony as part of that circumstantial evidence. The right to remain silent during it all puts the burden of TOTAL proof on the prosecution, where it should be. If you were forced to testify, the prosecution could use a tactic of asking you things that make you look bad, or make you uncomfortable, but are not relevant to the case. Like asking you if you got a BJ from Monica Lewinsky while trying to build a case about a land deal.",
"In America the law is a joke. Its not there to protect the good, or help the innocent, its a weapon. You can kind of consider it a sort of dueling weapon, and the court room is combat to the death. It doesnt matter who is right, or wrong, but who can twist the law to suit thier needs and get a judge/jury to agree to it. EXAMPLE:OJ SIMPSON.\n\nWhen you are brought into contact with one of the highly trained \"legal gladiators\" that you will encounter in the system (police officers, prosecuters, detectives questioning you, judges, etc) you are allowed to admit that you have no idea what the fuck your doing by pleading the 5th, and request someone come champion your best interests in this legal contest. You then summon a lawyer to your side to sort thru the HOLYWTFBBQ legal storm that just got dropped in your lap.\n\nIn court you can also plead the 5th, which is a nice way to say \"Fuck you, prove it\" without getting yourself thrown in jail for contempt.\n\nIn conclusion, \"pleading the 5th\" doesnt neccesarily mean Im guilty, it could mean Im refusing to speak until I have a legal translator and advisor present (lawyer) or Im not going to admit anything and now the burden of proof lies on the accuser.\n\nPROTIP: For the record, whenever your speaking to any \"legal gladiator\" in America, for any reason whatsoever, you should plead the 5th and request a lawyer. NEVER, EVER, EVER answer any questions or admit anything. EVER. NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY. Its your right to have your own \"legal gladiator\" in your own corner to defend you. Without one, your fucked.\n\n\n\nWhatever your offense is, if you get caught, you need a lawyer to navigate the giant maze of laws and lawyer-speak that you will be overwhelmed with as a commoner unninitiated into the crazy world that is a court room.",
"You can only make your situation worse by talking, never better. Do you think the cop is going to let you go if you deny guilt? That doesn't mean anything, most criminals deny guilt. Talking can't make it better. It can however make it worse. E.g. a cop says you're arrested for murder, five minutes later you say \"I didn't kill anyone!\", but cop has forgotten he mentioned it was about murder, and now you're on record for knowing it's about murder without anyone having told you, clearly a sign of guilt! It can and will be used against you.\n\nIn short, the fifth is there to protect you from digging your own grave, whether guilty or innocent.",
"The 5th allows defendants to refuse to testify if their testimony would make them ***look*** guilty. Something as innocuous as being in the same part of town (as opposed to bring in another country) would tend to prove guilt regardless of whether the defendant was actually involved.",
"The text of the Ammendment includes several protections for people accused of crimes, including such things as the double jeopardy rule, the due process requirement, etc:\n\n\"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.\"\n\nI'm assuming based on how you asked your question that it's the \"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself\" piece you're interested in.\n\nThe distinction is fairly simple. Saying \"I'm guilty\" is a confession - it's something that can be used in court to prove your guilt if you later say you're not.\n\nClaiming your Fifth Ammendment rights can NOT be used in court to in any way imply your guilt.\n\nAlso, as others below have said, it prevents the prosecution from forcing you to testify in your own trial, which means they can't force you to say things that would make it sound like you're guilty.",
"Its to protect yourself from self incrimination. Most countries actually have a law like this. In Canada it involves actually saying you can't testify due to it incriminating yourself, rather than just pleasing the 5th.\n\nFor example: if you're robbing a store and you witness a murder. You would plead the 5th to avoid telling the jury that you were doing something illegal. This example is an extreme though. ",
"I'm not sure if this has already been said but during the Second Red Scare (late 40's-early 50's) many federal employees were dismissed as being \"5th amendment Communists.\" The logic behind this was, as your question implies, that if answering questions related to your potential 'communist' activity would incriminate you, then you must be guilty. This is what led to the persecution of several Hollywood executives. There were, however, numerous other reasons why people pleaded the fifth when accused of communism. Many, for example, did it out of protest. Others still did it not because it would incriminate themselves, but because it would incriminate others. This was just off the top of my head so I apologize for any errors. For more see \"Nightmare in Red: The McCarthy Era in Perspective\" by Richard Fried.",
"The first 1:40 of [this clip from Star Trek: The Next Generation](_URL_1_) discusses the issue. The basic idea is that there are MANY reasons why a person would not want to discuss something in public. Some are for reasons of guilt. Others are related to [embarrassment or pride](_URL_0_).\n\nThere is a more fundamental reason, though. A justice system must make an early choice: what do we think about a person before we know the facts? Do we think he's probably guilty, or do we think he's probably innocent? Most ancient societies started out thinking people were guilty, and then the person had to prove that it wasn't true. That's HARD. Can you PROVE you didn't rob a liquor store on January 18th, 2011? Can you provide us with any witnesses who would swear that you were somewhere else that night? Can you give us receipts from purchases you made at that time? Can you demonstrate that it didn't happen? Imagine if that's how our courts operated -- being suspected meant you would be found guilty most of the time, whether you did it or not, simply because proving that you DIDN'T is so hard.\n\nBecause of bad experiences with this structure for justice, America went a different direction. We start off assuming everybody is innocent, and then the government has to PROVE that the accused is guilty. Punishments for crimes are often very unpleasant, so our founding fathers believed it was better to let 100 guilty people go free than to let ONE innocent person suffer for crimes they didn't commit. People complain all the time about guilty people going free, and they say that our justice system has failed because of it. They're wrong -- that's exactly what our justice system was DESIGNED to do. Every court makes mistakes once in awhile; we wanted to make sure that almost all of those mistakes were \"guilty people not punished\" instead of \"innocent people punished.\"",
"I am probably late to the party but please watch this video it will explain in general why you should never talk to cops, and that is in any country and any circumstance.\n\n[link](_URL_0_)\n\nIt is a lecture by a law proffessor, and is actually quite funny.",
"Here's the thing: the jury does not see you plead the fifth amendment. In fact, if you have to plead the fifth during a jury trial, my understanding is that usually the trial will get thrown out.\n\n\nThis is called a mistrial.\n\n\nThe American judicial system is like a science for the uncovering of facts through the testimony of witnesses. What this means is that people will testify, but if they are going to testify something that is just designed to be scary to the jury, or make the jury cry, or make the jury happy, but doesn't have anything to do with the facts, then the judge will most likely have a closed debate (I think called a \"Sidebar\") where the lawyers can argue.\n\nThis is the key to American law: the lawyers argue. Each gets to pick a side and stick to it. So, if you have to plead the fifth, and have a good lawyer, that lawyer will argue with the judge and the other side so that the jury never sees you \"plead the fifth.\"",
"It's the same as when a police officer doesn't have a warrant to search you. In the States at least, you often don't open up your bag or house for random police officers. Not because you're guilty, but because you don't want to be incriminated for something that you a) didn't know was illegal/incriminating (similar clothes to a murderer) or b) something you didn't know you had, like a stoner friend leaving a baggy of weed at your house.\n\nIf our rights to privacy weren't in place, the police would search every house on a whim, whether we were guilty or not. The 5th Amendment gives Americans the chance to not give away information, just like we wouldn't give away the right to search our house.",
"America's criminal justice system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. So in a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove you are guilty. It is not the defendant's burden to prove he is innocent. The 5th amendment stems from this concept and allows for the concept to actually be applied in the real world. Defendants exercise their right to remain silent and prosecutors try to satisfy the burden of guilt.\n\nIt does seem very suspicious when a criminal defendant pleads the 5th, but it is a constitutional right and the Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that there can be no adverse conclusion drawn from the exercise of that right.\n\nHow is this applied in court? (i'm in NY so these are from NY rules of evidence.)\n\nFirst off, it only applies to criminal cases, or cases that would lead to penalty or forfeiture. So if there is no threat of prosecution, or penalty or forfeiture (for example, because you were granted full immunity), you cannot invoke the 5th amendment.\n\nSecondly, it only applies to \"testimonial\" evidence. Testimonial evidence reveal's a person's subjective knowledge or thought process, whereas non-testimonial evidence would be like fingerprinting, photographing, appearing. So you cannot invoke the 5th amendment to attempt to prevent your fingerprint from being recorded, even though the fingerprint may incriminate you more than any statements (besides \"I did it!\") ever could.\n\nNow, to the participants of a case; \n\nThe jury - The jury or the trier of fact may not draw an unfavorable inference from the defendant's refusal to testify.\n\nThe prosecutor - The prosecutor may not comment before the jury regarding defendant’s failure to testify in an attempt to invoke an unfavorable inference (the prosecutor may comment in summation, on the witness-defendant’s opportunity to tailor his testimony to fit into the other evidence).\n\nThe Judge - The Constitution requires a trial judge to give a \"no inference charge\" if the accused requests it. Basically, a no-inference charge tells the jury that they may not draw an unfavorable inference from the defendant's refusal to testify. It is reversible error if trial judge refuses to give the no-inference charge where the accused has requested it.\n\n\nRemember, the 5th amendment deals with self-incrimination so these are the rules in criminal court. The privilege against self-incrimination can be invoked in a civil case that involves penalty or forfeiture, or that would lead to prosecution if incriminating statements were made. However, a major difference in a civil case is that an unfavorable inference may be drawn against a party from the exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination, without any regard to the reason for the silence.",
"however interesting this discussion is, you all seem to forget racial-bias in the US legal / justice system. How do you deal with that while pleading the 5th? ",
"Invoking the 5th amendment in basic terms allows to you lawfully avoid criminalizing yourself. You don't necessarily have to be guilty to not want to speak. The way the law works is that the opposite side (persecutor) will try to use whatever possible to win on their side of the case. It is often prudent to withhold giving any information unless absolutely necessary, and give it carefully at that. It's basically a basic human right that essentially allows you to prevent giving your opponents weapons, in the legal sense.",
"The 5th doesn't only apply to the crime the police are talking to you about.\nIf the police are conducting a murder investigation, and they arrest you for say, parking tickets you got out the front of the murder site.\nThey'll ask what you were doing there.\n\nIf you were buying drugs and admit to it, They'll arrest you.\nIf you lie to defend yourself, they'll get you for lying to them, as well as the drug thing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld",
"http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/278/case.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.holah.co.uk/study/loftus/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=youtube_gdata_player"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://slowrobot.com/i/35544",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ9SUbEPrhk"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&index=13&list=FL4UcV6no5gSApTVssh40PBw"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3cjn7w | what does a camera do differently when taking a panoramic picture? | What is my camera doing differently when it takes a panoramic picture vs. a regular picture? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cjn7w/eli5_what_does_a_camera_do_differently_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"csw4j85",
"csw5fte"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on the camera, but mostly nothing except stitch together the photos. Some cameras have ways to assist with making a better panorama",
"The camera uses software that takes multiple images and attempts to make them look like one image. It has to do a lot of math and manipulation to pull this off."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4b8efc | why is anarchy and communism treated both as extreme left ideas? | I am studying the Redscare / intolerance from US history
Simply, the extreme left has a greater involement of the government, in everyday life and distribution of wealth. And anarchy which Is the complete opposite of that; placed in the same extreme left band?
Example : _URL_0_
Why?
Edit: Thanks for the responses, I the link I provided wasn't literally my confusion, it was just an example. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b8efc/eli5_why_is_anarchy_and_communism_treated_both_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"d16xe4j",
"d16y81k",
"d1706zx",
"d172f1d",
"d1732zr"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The Left wants to create a \"Fairer and more equal\" world. Most people on the left want to use the government to do this while Anarchists believe that a government creates a group of people that are more powerful than others and so is counter to the goals of the left. ",
"The ultimate goal of communism is the creation of the stateless society, basically the same as anarchy, the question lies in how to achieve that state, and how far to go with it in terms of the final impact on people's lives. \n\nMy brief refresher through the wikipedia pages seems to show that Anarchist theory centers around how anarchist society would operate and what personal responsibilities would be, while Communist theory tends to include how to get from a capitalist society to an anarchist society. The differing schools of communist thought appear to deal with how much force to use in making this happen, hence the greater involvement of government in \"guiding\" society in to this future structure.\n\nNeedless to say, this is a simplistic observation, and ",
"While there are politically right leaning anarchist ideologies (certain types of libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism etc) a greater and more vocal majority of anarchists subscribed to the more communal forms of anarchism, particularly in the time period you're talking about. While anarchism ultimate goal is the abolition of the state to be replaced with direct democracy and mutual aid, the methods to achieve that for many streams of anarchist thought overlaps with state centered leftist philosophies. Socialism, communism and many leftist forms of anarchism all include ideas about organizing the working class, direct democracies and more egalitarian ways of living. As such, they tended to organize together, though infighting was pretty common. Additionally, as u/specializedinfo stated, the end game of communism was to create a stateless society, this just got coopted by the Lenins and Maos of the world. \n\nLastly, anarchists are often thrown in with the left because people just don't really know where to put them due to the nature of how we classify political ideologies. The left-right method isn't really all that functional, but that's just what most people are taught and so they use it. A method of categorizing political ideals that includes an x and a y axis (left-right and state centered-stateless) reveals a lot more about ideological leanings. An anarcho-syndicalist and a libertarian will often have much more in common than an anarcho-syndicalist and a leninist-marxist. Check out the political compass (_URL_0_) for more info on a more complete categorization of political ideologies. \n\nedit: Just clicked the link you provided. That scale has a pretty obvious bias towards American style republics and is just a ridiculous scale that even the most sloppy political scientist would have thrown into the garbage. The scale from freedom to slavery at the extremes is just stupid and completely unrelated to political ideologies (the US was neither fascist nor an anarchist state when it had institutional slavery.) Additionally, while German and Italian fascism varied in form to some degrees, they come from the same ideology and to claim that Nazism and Fascism are separate entities is incorrect. That scale was made by someone with very little to no understanding of the ideologies listed.",
"If you start from the premise that \"human nature\" is essentially capitalistic then the idea that anarchism and communism are similar seems really weird. \n\nMost anarchists start from the premise that capitalism is basically artificial and requires a huge of state sponsored violence to exist. Anarchists believe that if you got rid of the state then anything like modern capitalism would be basically impossible. Their conception of a society without a state would (broadly speaking) socialist.",
"There are several flavors of anarchy, some of collective and left to the left, some of libertarian and lean to the right. It is not accurate to character it as left or right...in many ways, it is where left and right become so extreme they are the same thing.\n\nAnarchy and leftist ideas are often lumped together because they both call for revolution. They both attract a lot of the same people, those who are unhappy and marginalized by the current social and political structure, and favor radical change...often without regard for the specifics of that change. They communist, the anarchist, and the nihilist might all throw rocks for the same reason, even though it is in the name of different philosophies."
]
} | [] | [
"https://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/left_right_political_spectrum_011.jpg"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"www.politicalcompass.org"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
a2y1l5 | the u.s. yield curve just inverted. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2y1l5/eli5_the_us_yield_curve_just_inverted/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb28twd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There’s a link within an article to another one explaining what yield curves are and why the flattening is important: \n\nThe Yield Curve Is Flatter! Remind Me Why I Care _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-11/the-yield-curve-is-flatter-remind-me-why-i-care-quicktake-q-a"
]
] |
||
6f2rgd | how do railroads work? are they just like freeways for trains? could i buy a train and drive it anywhere i want? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6f2rgd/eli5_how_do_railroads_work_are_they_just_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"dieyh39",
"dieyhsa",
"dieyxae"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
20
],
"text": [
"Railroads in the united states are all privately owned. Engines and railcars are all owned by the railroad companies. You can rent whatever to use, but you still must follow the rules of the company who owns the track. There are very specific rules for when, how and weight limits for and given length of track. Only one train can use a track at a time for example. You will see colored lights every so often signaling the conductor much like a traffic light would for a car. Check with your local railroad for more specifics. I know for most of the railroads, you need an engineers license to drive an engine. ",
" In America, the railways own the track and a certain distance on either side (for instance 15' from center of track). \n\nSo no, you would have to sell the idea to the owner of track before using it. \n\nFun fact, there's a contracted lease for every single power line and road crossing that exists. ",
"Nope. Either you own the tracks, or you negotiate the right to use it with the owner (\"trackage rights.\") Most railroads in the U.S. are privately owned by companies like Norfolk Southern or Union Pacific. \n\nAmtrak is a peculiar case: It's a for-profit corporation, but partially government funded. Outside of the Boston-Washington corridor, it mostly uses privately-owned tracks from other companies, meaning Amtrak trains often have to wait for more-profitable freight trains.\n\nIn many countries, the rail network is fully government-owned, like the SNCF in France. I don't know the exact legal framework, but I'm confident they don't allow people to use them without asking."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
62qo29 | why do we have an almost irresistable urge to place our hands on our hips when we are extremely winded? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62qo29/eli5_why_do_we_have_an_almost_irresistable_urge/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfokceu",
"dfolpth"
],
"score": [
5,
14
],
"text": [
"Rib cage expand. At least that's what I've always been told via sports. But it's April fools so nothing is real. ",
"The actual urge is to sit down, elbows on thighs and bent forward. It's called tripoding and assists with respiration by decreasing effort by providing a mechanical advantage. Hands on hips achieve a lesser but similarly enticing advantage."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
26d16c | moore's law suggests that technology will continue to improve itself exponentially, on and on into the singularity. peak oil theory suggests that we will run out of gas fairly shortly. the endpoints of both trajectories are slated to occur within our lifetimes. how is this going to play out? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26d16c/eli5_moores_law_suggests_that_technology_will/ | {
"a_id": [
"chpvpkg",
"chpvr6z",
"chpvrsf",
"chpw9w6",
"chpwpxw"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's the future, no one knows. And no one can try and answer without violating ELI5's rule against speculation.",
"Moore's law is set to die in the next 10 years without some radical breakthrough. ",
"Moore's law doesn't say technology will improve exponentially, it states that the number of transistors on the same size silicon wafer will double every 18 months or so which has more or less held true since the 60s. And it has an upper limit that no one has proven to break yet. Doesn't apply directly to medical science or to things like quantum computing, new materials for transistors like Graphene or GaN transistors, etc. just look at battery technology and antibiotics, they aren't growing exponentially and can't keep up with demand. ",
"I suspect that a flu outbreak will significantly reduce the human population and inadvertently correct climate change. ",
"Robot hobos begging for spare oil."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2bvquh | which point would lightning most likely strike: the taller point or the more favorable material? | Let's say I'm standing by a tall tree or house, and holding a fishing rod or something of the sort (something metal). Which object would lightning strike? Can lightning make "calculations" and decide that there is metal further down than the closer point, which is made of something like wood or plastic? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bvquh/eli5_which_point_would_lightning_most_likely/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj9damk",
"cj9fgwv"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It takes the path of least resistance, always.\n\nBeing closer reduces resistance. Being made out of a better material reduces resistance.\n\nIf you look at a [very slowed-down movie of a lightning strike](_URL_0_), you'll see it \"probes\" out with a bunch of feelers before it selects the \"final\" path. Whichever one hits first gets the full jolt.",
"lightning isnt just one strike, it's many of them and it also progresses through a tree pattern before establishing contact with the ground\n\n1/ the tree progression, looking for fractures until it hits ground\n\n2/ the many strikes on the line that was established\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://gfycat.com/CloudyConsciousBellfrog"
],
[]
] |
|
3pahs3 | why is it so hard to capture rain on camera? | I remember watching a DVD extra on one of the Harry Potter movies and the director said that it was pouring the whole time they were shooting one of the scenes but you couldn't tell because it didn't show in the recording. Is this a universal thing? Why does it happen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pahs3/eli5_why_is_it_so_hard_to_capture_rain_on_camera/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw4lkq4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because water is translucent, rain is small, and the camera is not focused on it so it is this diffuse, small, translucent stuff that the camera doesn't have the definition to pick up. FYI: Akira Kurosawa, who primarily shot in black and white, usually dyed water with black dye in order to make it visible on screen. When dyed black, it was no longer translucent."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2hs76i | what's supercharge, turbo, cold air intake, ect. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hs76i/eli5whats_supercharge_turbo_cold_air_intake_ect/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckvi3uo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"All different\n\nSupercharger - A (normally belt powered) air compressor in the intake of an internal combustion engine. Allows for a richer air/fuel mix in the combustion chamber to produce more power\n\nTurbo - similar to a supercharger, but power by exhaust gasses. Generally produces more power (because it is not robbing the engine to compress air), but at a slower rate (the engine must be revved up to produce enough exhaust pressure to compress the incoming air)\n\nCold air intake - An air intake system that is insulated and/or islotaed from the engine compartment temperatures ( a lot of so-called cold air intakes are not, they are just a straighter pipe than stock)\n\nect. - uknown"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3jfgxk | how is a "massless" particle possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jfgxk/eli5_how_is_a_massless_particle_possible/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuosrt0"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Mass is no different from any other fundamental property. Just like there are particles with zero charge such as neutrons or zero spin such as the Higgs boson (maybe), there can be particles with zero mass."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
wyq1r | how the laws of supply and demand work when the supply is effectively infinite (eg. digital content bought online)? | When supply is infinite (like on the iTunes store, for example), how do the laws of supply and demand apply? I would think that with an infinite supply, the price would always be zero, but this is obviously not the case. So how do the laws of economics work in this case? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wyq1r/eli5_how_the_laws_of_supply_and_demand_work_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5hmzmg",
"c5hnb2w",
"c5hqymx"
],
"score": [
7,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"The price on music doesn't drop to zero because iTunes have to pay for having the music in their store. So at most iTunes would sell the music for this price.\n\nFor the price to drop to zero, you are assuming a perfectly free market with no transfer cost and perfect knowledge (you know the price in all places and there is no cost to switching to something else).\n\nBut because of copyright music is not a free market. Apple can't just go to somebody else and buy the some song (they can buy another song, but then you would be annoyed at getting some other song than the one you brought) because only one person (or company) has the right to that song.",
"I think you misunderstand the law of supply and demand.\n\nThe law of supply and demand applies to goods or services sold in a free marketplace. The price of a good tends to equate to the price of **what the market will bear**.\n\nWhat does this mean?\n\nWell, there are two sides in a market. Buyers and sellers. There is demand, driven by buyers, and there is supply, provided by sellers.\n\nIn the case of online music, the supply of legal digital music is offering music at a very low price (either ad supported like spotify, or through itunes at 99 cents a song). There is no one offering \"free\" (legal) music, so there is definitely no infinite supply in this case.\n\nIf something were in infinite supply, and there was none-zero demand, it would unlikely that there would be anyone \"selling\" such a thing because there would be no profit in it.\n\nEdit: on top of that, digital music is NOT free. There is the cost of running the thousands of servers for itunes. The cost of developing the software. The cost of paying for the distribution rights to the software. The cost that the record companies get for each song. Even though it costs \"zero\" to copy a file, it costs a significant amount of money to run the service and setup the infrastructure. Also, there is the free market motive to provide the service in the first place: profit.",
"Most of this falls under what is termed \"zero marginal cost\". The concept of \"marginal cost\" is basically, \"now that we've made 100 of these things, how much does it cost to make the 101st?\" The cost of making one more copy of a thing, after you've already made many copies before, is called the \"marginal cost.\"\n\nWith digital content, making another copy is so close to free that it's not even worth worrying about it. This is why people say that there is \"zero marginal cost\" - there's almost no cost to make a copy of the original. So your costs of production are basically:\n\nA) The cost to create the original thing. E.g. for a song you're paying people to write the lyrics, rent a studio, play the instruments, record and mix it, etc. This is why the supply is not infinite. It still takes time and effort (and money) to make the original.\n\nB) Fixed costs. These are costs you have to incur no matter how many copies you sell. With iTunes this would be like the cost of the servers, the cost of renting the internet connection and data center space for the server, the salary of the sysadmin who takes care of the server, etc.\n\nFor certain things, the above two costs combined may be **much** less than the cost of doing things the traditional way. iTunes is a great example. To distribute music the traditional way, you have to make actual vinyl records, cassette tapes or CD discs. Which usually means making them in China or somewhere else far away in huge batches (big upfront investment) and then having them shipped by cargo boat (slow as hell) and then finally arranging for trucks to drive them to every record store in America. It's slow and risky, because if the ten million CDs you made aren't a hit, you spent all this time and money getting them to stores and now they're not selling. You lose money. Even if it is a hit, you might have made too many copies and end up not selling them all, or too few and end up not making money that you could have made.\n\nOr, the non-traditional way: People just go to a website and pay for whatever they want right there and download it. You make their copy for them, on the fly, for zero marginal cost. In addition to being a lot more convenient, this gives people much faster access to a wider variety of media because you (the supplier) don't have to take a big upfront hit for the cost of producing a material thing (vinyl, cassette or disc) that holds the music. So you can sell not just music but also podcasts and downloadable movies and etc. And, again, the distribution costs are much lower.\n\nThis business model works well for things that are easily digitized and converted into a file on a computer. In other words, things that are basically information. But for other things, it's not nearly so good. For instance, it's hard to download pizza. For things that absolutely have to be made of real matter, internet distribution is no good, and we're stuck doing things the old fashioned way."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3y5egn | how can the un work if countries like the us and russia can just veto any proposal that does not serve their own interests? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y5egn/eli5_how_can_the_un_work_if_countries_like_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyaow4h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It depends on what you think the UN \"working\" is. It's *not* designed to be a single world government. The UN isn't in charge; in fact, General Assembly resolutions (which are the resolutions all UN members have a vote on, and which can't be vetoed) are not binding. Rather, the UN's main job is to help countries cooperate and to facilitate diplomacy between countries. The UN means a small island nation in the Pacific can much more easily work with fifty other countries scattered around the world.\n\nThe only thing that's subject to veto in the UN are substantive Security Council resolutions. Not coincidentally, they're also the only thing binding on all members (the International Court of Justice's decision in an actual lawsuit is also binding, but only on the parties to the case and a member state can choose not to be sued in the ICJ against its will). UNSC resolutions are to preserve international peace and security; the resolutions are generally intended to be backed with military force.\n\nCountries are not actually equal. The permanent members are strong enough militarily that anything binding on them can't actually be practically enforced without a war. If there's going to be a war with Russia, the UN isn't going to be any help. At the high end of the scale, the permanent members can in fact do what they want unless other actual countries with powerful armies say otherwise. By recognizing this, it means a UNSC resolution that *does* pass is much more likely to actually be effective. Without veto power, the UNSC would pass more resolutions, but those resolutions would be nearly irrelevant. (This leaves out that without the veto power, there wouldn't *be* a UN -- the P5 wouldn't have joined without it)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
40jtk2 | why does the game show jeopardy require the answer in the form of a question when the game show is clearly concerned about the factual knowledge? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40jtk2/eli5_why_does_the_game_show_jeopardy_require_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyup6d1",
"cyup8kp",
"cyup9ng",
"cyupceo"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's just a gimmick. When Jeopardy first started, trivia/quiz game shows were extremely popular, and you needed a cool gimmick to set your show apart from the rest of the pack. Remembering to answer in the form of a question is part of the challenge.",
"There was a series of cheating scandals in game shows in the 50s, where one contestant had the answer ahead of time. As a result, question and answer game shows on TV pretty much died out. Jeopardy is the reverse of that- just give everyone the answers and then it's a fair game! It's not really any different, of course, but it was a clever enough pitch to viewers that it's stuck around for 50 years, long after most people have forgotten the scandals.",
"It requires different knowledge to receive details and give the subject.\n\nMost trivia shows work the opposite way. So it sets it apart and provides some variety.",
"It dates back to the quiz show scandals that had rocked the game show world previously (the shows had been picking charismatic winners by feeding favorable candidates the answers). This was a big enough scandal that TV executives were subject to Congressional hearings and very embarrassing. Jeopardy was the first attempt to do a trivia game show after those scandals. To help separate Jeopardy from those scandals, the producers used the format to pitch the show as giving everyone the answers, but the contestants must give us the questions. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a306mc | when having trouble sleeping, is there any benefit to laying in bed with your eyes closed or you might as well get up? | It seems like your body is still resting without being actually asleep, so does that count for anything? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a306mc/eli5_when_having_trouble_sleeping_is_there_any/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb2bvyi",
"eb2bwmv",
"eb3j6n3"
],
"score": [
34,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"If your mind is fighting you: get up and do something relaxing. Have some tea, read something, or listen to relaxing music.\n\nWhat you should NOT do is watch TV, play with your phone, or get on your computer.\nThe light tells your brain to wake up. (There's more to that, but, I'll keep it brief). Don't shower either. It sounds like a good idea, but, whenever I (personally) do it it signals my mind that it's time to be active.\n\nThe bed is for 2 things. Sex and sleep. Don't use the phone, watch TV, or do puzzles. When you lay down your body needs to know, and be trained to know, that it's time to shut down.\n\n*Posted at 4:37am PST, whilst I am laying in bed skimming through my Reddit app.",
"Yes, resting in a darkened room is better than getting up and doing things, as you are resting and might still get some rest by dozing/napping. Personally though, I would say that if you're being kept up by anxiety it might be better to do something that calms you down for a bit before attempting sleep again.",
"No. The benefits of sleep are in the sleeping parts, the multitude of processes that happen throughout your body in the various stages of sleep, such as sorting out your memories, repairing muscle damage, and flushing the gunk that accumulates in your brain. You can't really replicate this outside of sleep.\n\nIt's best to associate your bed with restful sleep. Laying in bed awake tends to make people frustrated and angry, and that's a hard cycle to break once it sets in. It's not uncommon for people to start dreading bedtime before they even get to the bed part: \"Ugh, I'm just going to lay there anyways. What's the point?\" To state the obvious, these emotional states inhibit sleep rather than promote sleep, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.\n\nMost sleep folks recommend that you get out of bed if you haven't fallen asleep in about 30 minutes. Do something quiet, like read, until you feel tired, and then go back to bed. If you lay awake and hit the 30 minute mark again, get up again. It may mean that you have shit sleep for a few days, but this system does work for many people. If you continue to have poor sleep, it's a good idea to talk to your doctor. A few nights of shit sleep isn't going to harm you, but poor sleep for months or years at a time does a lot of damage."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
25lns0 | why can our pupils dilate or shrink within less than a second, but we have to squint to get used to the light after a long period of darkness? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25lns0/eli5_why_can_our_pupils_dilate_or_shrink_within/ | {
"a_id": [
"chiejke",
"chien3a",
"chienol"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There are two types of receptors within your pupil that process light- rods and cones. Rods process low level light as black and white. Cones process bright light or color. \n\nWhen there is a lot of light, your rods are \"bleached\" and therefore take time to readjust and begin processing low light levels again. You can become conscious of this by noticing that in a dark room at night, you see most things in black and white.\n\nYour pupils dilate to allow as much light in as possible. When you move from a dark place (outside at night, say) into a bright place (maybe your living room), your pupils are wide open. Light pours into your pupil and your sensitive rods start the process of \"bleaching\" again. \n\nTL:DR Your sensitive rods hurt like a sunburn (kinda), until they readjust.",
"It's because your eyes have two major types of cells: rods and cones. Each of these work to help you see better in darkness and light, respectively. When you spend time in the light and then move somewhere darker, it takes a while for your rods to \"warm up\" to allow you to see well. The reverse is true for moving from darkness to light. [Mythbusters did a whole myth revolving around how your eyes adjust if you're a visual learner.](_URL_0_) Your pupils dilate and shrink as a reflex response to the amount of light, while your ability to perceive things in changed light takes a bit longer.",
"The pupillary response can average up 8-10 seconds. You see it move much faster than that, but that's not the fully range of response. It has to \"warm up\" if you will, to really crank it up. I don't think that's it though. The biggest factor is the adaptation of the cones, the non-color receptors that respond permit dark adaptation. A cones cell can detect as few as 6 photons and handle as many at 10,000, but it can't swing from one extreme to the other. It can take a 30 minutes to fully adapt to darkness and up to 5 minutes to fully adapt to light. That, more than anything is what causes the pain."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/QAhUkluZiCc?t=8m52s"
],
[]
] |
||
6jvxhi | how can we not yet replicate the composition of expensive aged drinks like old whiskey and cognac | If it all comes down to chemistry, and there are some burnt oak traces and such... Shouldnt it all be reverse engineerable at this point in time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jvxhi/eli5how_can_we_not_yet_replicate_the_composition/ | {
"a_id": [
"djhi1x8",
"djhj2sg",
"djhjzi3",
"djht7pp",
"djhwkep"
],
"score": [
15,
8,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Which would you rather have? An autographed original rookie babe Ruth baseball card? Or a replica? Which would you rather pay more for?\n\nCould some whiskey be made in sped up fashion to replicate an aged 100 year old product? Maybe. Do the type of trees used still exist? Do the types of crops, growing conditions and distillery still exist? Will people pay for a replica? Or is the age, rarity and brand value important?",
"In practice it is possible to speed up the aging process of whiskey but the nuances that are attributed to low oxygen exposure and the \"breathing\" over the barrel over time due to seasonal fluctuations is not able to be exactly replicated. \n\n",
"This reminds me of this little ball that oysters make. Machines can now replicate the process and do it. And it costs nothing. The real thing on the other hand is real jewelry. Which would you rather give to your loved one? Which has the most value?",
"Synthesizing chemicals isn't as simple as arranging the bricks of a very tiny Lego set. Just because we know the molecular formula of a chemical doesn't mean we can produce it in a lab.",
"Aged spirits are not in a static state. They evolve and change composition over time and through exposure to their surroundings. Even once bottled, they continue to subtly change. Once the bottle is open it also changes even further as it interacts with air, some volatile chemicals air out and leave the solution, etc. \n\nFor example, imagine we took ice cream and placed it in a special container which was hermetically sealed, and also completely impervious to heat. We then take that bottle and put it in a blast furnace for 20 hours, take it out and let it cool down. What is in that bottle has the exact same elements in it still. Nothing has been added or left it, but you would not want to drink what's in that bottle because it looks, smells, and tastes nothing like ice cream now. It's a runny sludge that smells like petrol. \n\nSo it's not a matter of knowing the composition of whats in the bottle. It's a matter of being able to precisely re-create it and that's not easy. Even if we had not dropped the ice cream in a blast furnace, if we had just let it melt, then re-froze it, it would still taste nothing like the original because actual ice cream has air whipped into it and very small ice crystals. So even the physical structure counts for flavor. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
b2l2om | why are the lanthanides and actinides so weird? | It's been a while since high school chemistry, but it's my recollection that the Period Table is organized like it is because elements in the same column have similar properties to each other, largely due to having the same number of valence electrons, which cycles as the atomic number increases.
I also understand that the reason the lanthanides and actinides are located outside of the table is because they have such similar properties that it makes more sense for them to all be in the same two squares. What exactly does that mean, and how is it possible? Do they all have the same numbers of valence electrons? What's so special about these 30 element that causes them to completely violate the expectations, only for the expected behavior to resume at Hf and Rf? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b2l2om/eli5_why_are_the_lanthanides_and_actinides_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"eitaxsk",
"eitazky"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"The Lanthanides and Actinides are not located outside the table because they're weird; they're put there to make the table easier to read. They properly belong between groups 3 and 4, but that makes the table really wide and narrow; [have a look.](_URL_0_)",
"If I interpret your question correctly, this is due to the fact that the periodic table also arranges the elements due to their electron configuration with accordance to the Aufbau principle.\n\nThese two blocks are located at the bottom because of reasons that include but are not limited to:\nThey house within them a level of electrons that are much farther than usual, they would’ve been located in between the p and d level but it was decided that rather than making another “valley” looking ditch in the table, that they be placed under."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Periodic_table_\\(32_columns,_compact\\)"
],
[]
] |
|
1iy8tn | what had caused the interest rates to go up and the housing prices to go down at the burst of the housing bubble? what was the trigger? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iy8tn/what_had_caused_the_interest_rates_to_go_up_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb99r3y"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Banks were giving out lots of lots of subprime mortgages to people who couldn't realistically pay for them. Then, the banks just packaged those mortgages into securities which were sold to investors, so the banks didn't even have to deal with any of the risk. It was a total perverse incentive because the banks were making commission on risky mortgages left and right but then passing their risk onto others.\n\nBecause there was so much mortgage money floating around, housing prices went up rapidly, and developers built lots of houses to satisfy demand. This just wasn't sustainable over the long run. There are only so many potential home owners out there. Sooner or later you reach a point where supply of homes is greater than demand, and housing prices start to drop. The subprime mortgages were okay as long as housing prices keep going up because it was possible to refinance, but once housing prices start to drop it's a problem. People begin to foreclose on houses, and then it's a vicious cycle where as foreclosures increase, housing prices get even lower, and then the whole house of cards collapses."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2jjy0w | why does a home loan at 4% end up taking 70% of my monthly mortgage payment? | Let's say you take out a $200,000 home mortgage advertised at 4%. You pay a $40,000 (20%) down payment and you are required to carry home owners insurance. Even if you never make a single payment after your down payment and the bank repossesses your home, they still have your $40,000 and a home they can now resell.
4% of $200,000 is $8,000, but it's very clear that you will end up paying much, much more. Why is this allowed. If a person is expected to pay $40,000-$50,000 in interest on a home loan, why are they not forced to advertise it as such? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jjy0w/eli5_why_does_a_home_loan_at_4_end_up_taking_70/ | {
"a_id": [
"clcex2m",
"clcf3wf",
"clcf5sz",
"clcfbf5",
"clcfk95",
"clcfv6j",
"clch3iq"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"That's 4% *per year*. So over a 30-year span, it adds up. The interest paid goes down as your principle goes down, but you'll usually still be spending a lot on interest.\n\nEdit: Note that this is how all finances dealing with interest rates work. Savings accounts, credit cards, car loans, student loans, etc all give an interest rate that equates to what percentage of the balance would be paid after one year assuming the balance never changed.",
"They are forced to include:\n\n1. the APR. You are also expected to understand what that is. It's an interest rate.\n\n2. an amortization schedule. this tells you how much you will be paying each month and for how long. this doesn't have to be advertised, but it has to be disclosed to you in a pretty clear fashion before you sign.\n\n",
"The standard way of stating interests rates on ALL loans is x%/year. That 4% is paid every year that the loan is outstanding (depending on the loan it's actually done monthly or bi-weekly).\n\nThis is the standard way of presenting interest rates regardless if we are talking about a credit card, vehicle loan, mortgage or anything that you pay (or revive) interest on.\n\nThe reasoning is that you could repay the loan early and then would pay less interest overall, so that makes it difficult to advertise the total interest paid amount. ",
"It's only that percentage of your monthly payment at the very beginning. At the end, when your outstanding principal is much lower, it will be almost 0% of your payment.",
"Interest accrues daily based on the amount you currently have borrowed (called a *per diem*). This means the beginning of your loan, when your actual balance is the highest, is when you are being charged the most interest (actual dollar wise, not percentage wise). \n\nSince your payment is a set amount, a larger part of that payment is eaten up by interest at the beginning since the interest is an actual higher dollar amount. Since a part of your payment each month goes towards the principal, your actual balance borrowed lowers each month, meaning your interest accruing each day lowers, meaning eventually more of your payment goes towards principal each month instead of interest.\n\nELI5 - 4% Interest on 100k is a lot more than 4% of 20k. If a 1000$ payment was made towards each, more of that 1000$ would go towards interest owed on the 100k debt (since more interest is owed), than would go towards interest on the 20k debt (since less is owed). Any left over amount would reduce the principal owed.",
"Many people end up selling a house before the full term of the loan. Because of this, it's not a bad idea to describe the cost of the loan in terms of cost over time. The interest rate listed for a mortgage is in percentage of the loan balance per year, although there is some math that most people don't understand which translates that to a monthly rate. Since almost all loans are advertized this way, it is a good basis for comparison.\n\nJust in case you don't understand how interest works, there are laws which require that the borrower be presented with certain documents which are intended to clearly describe the payment arrangement, including the total interest which will be paid on the loan should it be paid off according to the standard schedule. People may quibble over how effective these things are, but it is very difficult to get a mortgage without many opportunities to discover how much the mortgage is actualy going to cost.",
"First of all, you are paying 4% per year, and that is how mortgages are advertised, as a yearly rate. This is commonly understood, and if you missed it, that is on you.\n\nSecond, that is just how the math works how. With *any* system of evenly spaced payments over time against an annual interest rate, the first few years, most will go against interest and not principle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9zg030 | how do humans know that we've only discovered a fraction of the species on earth? and how is that possible given we're 8 billion strong? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zg030/eli5_how_do_humans_know_that_weve_only_discovered/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea8vhq0",
"ea8wg31",
"ea967uh"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's an awful lot of species that are too small to really see, or live at the bottom of the ocean (which is a huge percentage of the surface of the Earth). We've documented the surface pretty well for things big enough to hold in our hand or larger (and even of those, new species pop up quite often), but when you get to figuring out microscopic mites that live on things deep in the jungle, and worms that live in mud three miles below the surface of the ocean, we're probably a long ways away from finding all examples.",
"Can you differentiate between different species of beetle that almost look the same? Can you determine that the one the live in you area is different that the one that live some distance away? Can you do that for any insect?\n\nIf the answer no you have something in common with me and almost all other humans on earth. That is we are nor help in discovered insect . There are ~1.7 million classified plants and animals. The estimation is that 4 million insects are not classified. The problem is that the are hard to differentiate. So most human are no help. \n\nSo what is undiscovered is large animals. There might be some large mammals that live in some remote area that is not discovered but that is a small amount. If there is a new species of large animals the likely reason it that we discovered that two known population of the animal might look the same but the difference of you look closer and the DNA there is enough separation so they are two species. \n\n\nFor mammals the discoveries are small animal that often are nocturnal. Most new rodents as they make up 40% of all mammal species. Bats are 20% of all mammals. So new mammal species are that type of animal that humans are not that exposes or know a lot of.\n\n\nSo it is not strange that most species are not discover as the are small and live in a small area. You need to be a specialist in the field and actively look for them to be able to identify most. There are very few that look for new bugs in rain forests or in other remote areas.\n\nThe same is true for life in the water. We know abut large common fish and common plant but uncommon and small animals and plants are hard to find and to for you to knew that something news,\n\nLook at _URL_0_ for estimated number of undiscovered. species in the world.",
"We keep finding new ones. Hell, the other day we discovered a new kingdom, so something that is not plant , animal, fungus, or bacteria, but is still living."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-of-undiscovered-species-living-on-earth.php"
],
[]
] |
||
2g1u0f | how did japan overcome the radioactive fall out of two major nuclear bombs? | I've always heard terrible things about Nuclear radiation caused by Atom Bombs, but Japan seems to have shrugged off two major Nuclear events.
Perhaps someone could also explain the differences between the Cherynobl radiation leak, and the Nagasaki/Hiroshima incidents. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g1u0f/eli5_how_did_japan_overcome_the_radioactive_fall/ | {
"a_id": [
"cketr8i",
"cketv8v",
"ckeukj0",
"ckezrn0"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
8,
4
],
"text": [
"A bomb produces much less radiation than - for example - a power plant. The design of the bomb is to totally use up the radioactive material as quickly as possible. So...there isn't all that much, on a relative basis. There is approximately 300 to 400 times more radiation produced in the chernobyl release than in hiroshima.",
"In comparison to what we recognize as nukes today... the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty tiny.\n\nAlso the radioactivity of a bomb is miniscule compared to a reactor meltdown that just spews radiation into the air.\n\n[Hiroshima is the tiny one in the middle of the circle](_URL_0_)",
"In addtion to the reasons already given, the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just that, *over* Hiroshima/Nagasaki. The majority of the radiation went into the air and went around the globe where it spread so thin that the effects weren't as drastic. If the bombs exploded on the ground there would have been much more local fallout and radiation damage",
"The atomic bombs in 1945 were air-burst which were designed to minimize the impact on radiation it had on the ground. Most of them went up in the air and spread into other side of he globe. That's why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still alive today due to that reason.\n\nCherynobl radiation leak is ten times a lot worse because the technology catches up to the point that bombs needed more power, hence more radiation and more energy structure."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/images/bomb-2.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2khwjt | how come ups and fedex can operate nationwide with huge profits, but usps hasnt profited in years? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2khwjt/eli5_how_come_ups_and_fedex_can_operate/ | {
"a_id": [
"cllgclc",
"cllgpqi",
"cllh7lr",
"cllhzc1",
"clli0mu",
"cllis0k",
"cllmxfh",
"cllosw0",
"cllqv4b",
"cllruo5",
"cllu7ec",
"cllwv0b"
],
"score": [
21,
63,
9,
104,
10,
14,
10,
3,
5,
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"USPS is legally required not to compete with other package carriers, and is required to engage in unprofitable operations like delivering letters at the cost of a stamp.\n\nAlternatively, FedEx and UPS do not have these same restrictions, and can charge what they want for their services.",
"Private carriers can refuse service. They don't have to deliver packages to East Nowhere, Alaska if they don't feel like it. They can charge as much as they want. There is no service you can get from a commercial carrier for less than a dollar.\n\nThe USPS is obligated to go pretty much everywhere in the US to deliver. They cannot adjust their rates at will. They have to deliver letters that private carriers would refuse.\n\nThe USPS also has a huge pension obligation that Congress has saddled them with that the private carriers do not.\n\n",
"The problem with the USPS is that they are required to charge lower prices, and a few years ago they were required to have funds set aside to cover the retirement funds of all active and retire employees as though they were retiring tomorrow instead of slowly growing the funds to meet the actual retirement load. ",
"Congress has mandated \"retiree health benefit prefunding\" specifically for the Post Office using a rule much more stringent than any one else in the US has to meet. If not for this requirement, the Post Office would be running a profit. \n\n > Operationally speaking, the **USPS nets profits every year. The financial problem it faces now comes from a 2006 Congressional mandate that requires the agency to “pre-pay” into a fund that covers health care costs for future retired employees.** Under the mandate, the USPS is required to make an annual $5.5 billion payment over ten years, through 2016. These “prepayments” are largely responsible for the USPS’s financial losses over the past four years and the threat of shutdown that looms ahead – take the retirement fund out of the equation, and the postal service would have actually netted $1 billion in profits over this period.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n > But what has been lost in the political debate over the Post Office is why it is losing this money. Major media coverage points to the rise of email or Internet services and the inefficiency of the post model as the major culprits. While these factors may cause some fiscal pain, almost all of the postal service’s losses over the last four years can be traced back to a single, artificial restriction forced onto the Post Office by the Republican-led Congress in 2006.\n\n > At the very end of that year, **Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006** (PAEA). Under PAEA, **USPS was forced to “prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years in an astonishing ten-year time span”..., something “that no other government or private corporation is required to do.”**\n\n > **[I]f PAEA was never enacted, USPS would actually be facing a $1.5 billion surplus today.**\n\n_URL_1_.\n\n \n\n > The most immediate financial burden facing the \nPostal Service does not result from providing first-class service to the public or delivering \nthe mail on Saturdays, but rather from a 2006 congressional mandate ordering USPS to \npre-fund decades of future retiree healthcare benefits.\n\n > Pre-funding retiree healthcare is rare. USPS is the only enterprise in America that is \nrequired by law to pre-fund future retiree healthcare benefits. ... only about one-third of \nFortune 1000 companies who offer retiree healthcare benefits pre-fund. \n\n_URL_2_\n\n\n\n",
"Additionally. USPS does operate at profit. Problem is congress mandated pension prefunding. It means USPS has to put retirement money into it's account for postmen that haven't retired yet. ",
"Fun fact time: The USPS is FedEx's largest customer (for long hauling mail in bulk) and FedEx and UPS are the USPS's largest customers (for last mile delivery).\n\n*spelling",
"The USPS has an operational profit, this means that the amount of money they make is enough to cover their operation costs (employee salary, heating the offices, putting gas in the trucks, etc.), but they have to fund their pension in an utterly ridiculous way, according to a 2006 law the USPS must prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years in a ten-year time span. This is a more intense level of prefunding than any private corporation or government agency is subject to. This means that the USPS has to put away enough money to pay the health care benefits from employee pensions for the next *75 years* by 2016, which is costing them well over *$5 billion* a year.",
"simple:lawmakers are FORCING the post office to fail so the \"private\" companies can take their business.\n\nremember USP and FedEx DO NOT deliver to ALL locations and even they use the post office do deliver to those. \n\nUSE the USPO whenever possible and FUICK USP and FED-EX! ",
"The USPS makes a profit. However, the way they are forced, by law, to make additional expenditures into the retirement funds of it's employees. This is the only federal entity that has to do this, and the payments are very high, for the FUTURE retirees. This causes them to run in the red on paper when in reality if they were held to the same standard as any other federal agency they would be making a profit.\n\nWhy? Congress, Congress passes these laws, and then Congress turns around and acts super shocked that they had the exact effect they knew they would. It is a non-issue that the Republicans mainly can latch onto and make a big deal out of, like the funding of NPR.",
"Possibly conspiratorial. But I truly believe that they wanted the USPS to fail. It's the only place where you can mail something and is illegal to search without a warrant. \n\nOr am I mistaken with my facts? \n\n",
"UPS and FedEx are for-profit companies which choose product lines and services that they think will be profitable. USPS provides the services set forth in their government mandate.\n\nIt couldn't be much simpler than that. Ignore the hyperventilating conspiracy theorists.",
"I dunno, I'll take publicly funded fire departments over the private businesses they replaced, for one. The point often is that the free market option is often to simply not serve some markets. There's probably not a business case to be made for delivering an individual letter from rural Idaho to a congressional office in D.C. for less than $.50, but knowing that such a thing is an option enables people to communicate in useful ways. \n\nBut, in point of fact, the USPS is being made to publicly struggle because it serves a narrative purpose in republican politics, not because odd any underlying problems with its performance as either a business or a public service."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-u-s-postal-service/11433/",
"http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/28/330524/postal-non-crisis-post-office-save-itself",
"http://deliveringforamerica.com/resources/PreFundingFactSheet_final.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9tisg7 | why long stays in low gravity impairs vision | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9tisg7/eli5_why_long_stays_in_low_gravity_impairs_vision/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8wkcuj"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I believe it has something to do with the lack of or lesser gravity effecting the pressure of fluids in the eye. Because the human eye evolved at earths gravity, it is used to that pressure. But when you let the gravity pressure off, fluids in your eye can sorta float around more and cause damage. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
22oiqn | why does taking a small amount of melatonin work better than taking a large amount? | Why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22oiqn/eli5_why_does_taking_a_small_amount_of_melatonin/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgov6gh",
"cgozors"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Taking melatonin works by replicating the natural release of melatonin in your system at sunset. You could get the same response by dimming all your lights and switching to redder light an hour before bed, but who wants to do that?\n\nIf you take a small dose, you trick the brain into thinking that the sun has set, and it is time to sleep.\n\nIf you take a large dose, the melatonin levels are outside the normal levels, and the brain doesn't know what to do with it.",
"When I take a 5mg pill, I not only pass out soon thereafter, I also feel ridiculously tired for the entirety of the following day."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2v852f | why are serial killers so difficult to catch? | I have been watching a few documentaries on serial killers (notably John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy) and they manage to kill dozens of people without attracting the attention of law enforcement for years, if ever. It seems like solving crimes of that amount would be top priority amongst criminal investigations.
In case anyone was wondering: _URL_0_
_URL_1_
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v852f/eli5_why_are_serial_killers_so_difficult_to_catch/ | {
"a_id": [
"cof9w0a",
"cof9z8q",
"cof9zwg",
"cofa9on",
"cofag69"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
18,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, by definition, serial killers are good at killing people without getting caught. If they weren't skilled at avoiding capture and leaving behind little/no evidence that could identify them easily, they wouldn't have been able to kill so many people before being apprehended, right?",
"Various reasons. Many of the most famous serial killers target people that the police won't necessarily \"focus on\" (Jeffrey Dahmer...), they also dispose of the bodies in remote places (Gary Ridgway, Ed Gein...), they are fairly respected in their community (Gacy)...\n\nNo serial killer fits all these criteria, but sometimes one is enough. Jeffrey Dahmer killed for years because his targets were homosexuals and therefore the police didn't give much of a damn.",
"Most murderers kill people they know. If one spouse dies it was more like than not the other spouse that did it. It's just a matter of finding proof. \n\nSerial killers are known for being quite anonymous in their killings. So even if you find evidence like dna or fingerprints you still have to find who they belong to. \n\nThey also kill people that don't attract much attention like prostitutes and homeless. (but not always) ",
"Because \"serial killers\" who are bad at covering their tracks get caught while they're still just regular \"killers\".",
"The reality is that if there's no obvious motive or connection between the murderer and the murdered there's not much of a chance the police will catch them. So if your family member or spouse is murdered and you find yourself questioned a lot you might want to get a lawyer even if you're innocent. \n\nA lot of serial killers also stay on the move, killing in different states, counties and localities so a serial killer is never actually identified just individual unsolved murders spread across several unconnected police departments. Henry Lee Lucas is the notable example in this case. \n\nAnd of course if a serial killer is murdering whores, run aways, and drifters there's not much motivating police forces to put a lot of manpower into the cases. Which is a sad statement about where we're at as a culture. \n\nI was listening to the Horror Etc podcast and they were discussing real life Canadian serial killers and one of them sat in on a Q & A with an expert in the field. He asked the expert to estimate the number of active but undetected serial killers in North America and he put it at over 100. If I have the time I'll listen to the podcast again and post the source for that. \n\nEdit: Here's the link to the Canadian serial killers episode. Its pretty interesting because there's such little focus on our polite little neighbors (neighbours?) to the north's blood lust. _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.horroretc.com/2014/12/30/episode-370-canadian-serial-killers/"
]
] |
|
1ldjnb | how can any country or coalition expect to challenge the united states and its allies in total war? | Even with Russia and China both having nuclear weapons, the level of technology and number of foreign military bases the United States controls seem insurmountable by any coalition of nations. With people talking about a Syrian strike being a catalyst for World War 3, how can any country or coalition actually expect to fight and win a war against the United States and its allies?
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ldjnb/eli5_how_can_any_country_or_coalition_expect_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cby5gk8",
"cby5myf"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
" > With people talking about a Syrian strike being a catalyst for World War 3\n\n\nThe only people talking about a world war coming from the current kerfuffle in Syria are those with no real grounding in politics or history. ",
"Who says there's anybody seriously expecting to take on the USA right now? Or that this is going to be WWIII for that matter?\n\nThat said as of right now all the countries that might be able to take on the USA excluding Russia and China are members of NATO and therefore have good reason to not attack the USA - being in NATO right now pretty much makes you immune to invasion by virtue of all the allies ready to defend you."
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7ejqeo | why do ladders have one or two steps towards the top that you are not supposed to climb? | If you are clearly not supposed to use them because they are unsafe, why include them? Seems like a waste of material. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ejqeo/eli5_why_do_ladders_have_one_or_two_steps_towards/ | {
"a_id": [
"dq5ew5m",
"dq5fful",
"dq5fs7s",
"dq63n5f"
],
"score": [
44,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"1. They still provide structural integrity in holding the ladder together;\n2. When those steps are flat (as with folding ladders) you can rest tools and materials there.\n3. They still provide support in the sense you can lean forward a bit and have something you can rest your legs, knees, or shins against.\n4. If you got rid of those top two steps then the next two steps would be the top two steps and therefore unsafe to stand on. Repeat until there is no ladder left.",
"The extra steps on top of a ladder, that you aren’t supposed to climb are there for structural integrity and stability. This is so the climber doesn’t fall.",
"The fact that it is not safe is because it is the top step. No matter how tall the ladder is, there has to be a top step, and that step will be unsafe. ",
"I think that you're referencing A frames, but I think it'd be good to mention why you need to be careful on ladders leaning against walls.\n\nAs you climb higher up the ladder you exert a larger force against the friction holding it from sliding out and falling. That is why it is important to have someone holding the ladder at the base as climb up, and not letting go half way, thinking that it's safe because it hasn't slipped yet.\n\nYou can see a demonstration [here from 19:58 to 20:55](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/0NegJkO_ZM4?t=1198"
]
] |
|
18jere | what is the strategy of nascar driving? how important is the team? the driver? game plans for specific races? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18jere/eli5_what_is_the_strategy_of_nascar_driving_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8ffhgs",
"c8fghyb",
"c8fgrl6",
"c8fnncc"
],
"score": [
21,
6,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"I'll try to answer this to my best ability. As for strategies, it's really what you plan to do to get to first. Whether you sit in the back and move yourself forward towards the end of the race (Jimmie Johnson) or perhaps, you are a driver who enjoys getting up-front and staying there. Either way, a lot of wrecks occur during a race and the only real strategy is to stay away from them. \n\nAs for the team, they are also very important. First of all, you have the crew chief. This is the guy that will communicate to his driver and explain to him how he is doing on gas mileage, when he should come in to pit, and a lot more. You also have a spotter, who is usually on top of the grandstand press box. The spotter will describe to you your surroundings while passing or in traffic. Essentially, the spotter is your best friend; he is your second pair of eyes on the track.\n\nThe driver himself must be ready to sit in a car and go ~150mph for around three hours. It is very mentally draining and physically, as most drivers will burn hundreds of calories while in the heat of the cockpit in the vehicle. Drivers are the ones who drive the car, obviously, but your team is really what wins you the race. How you perform on pit-road falls on your crew, how you stay out of wrecks relies on your spotter, and your crew chief must ensure that your entire crew stays attentive, together, and most of all, motivated.\n\nAs for the specifics? A stock car can be modified (within NASCAR's standards) to drive in many different ways. This is why teams are given numerous practice sessions to find out what will fit the car and the driver the most. ",
"Gameplanning is extremely important. As it is \"stock\" car racing, there are extremely strict requirements in the setup of the car. Small changes in the aerodynamics or handling of the car effect the way the driver performs, so a ton of time is spent finding exactly the right setup. This is complicated by the fact that the weather can effect it greatly. The temperature of the track makes a large difference in how well the tires grip the track.\n\nThere are also different strategies for different tracks. For a particular example, Talledega is one of the longest tracks, and is one of the fastest. So aerodynamics and drafting play a large role. Usually, the drivers tend to stick together in groups of two to advance to the front. Other tracks that are shorter, like Bristol, focus more on handling and braking.\n\nThe crew chief is usually in charge of planning pit stops during the race, and making sure the car stays within good fuel windows and loses as few positions during pit stops as possible. Crew chiefs can also make decisions to change only two tires instead of four, which is a trade-off to gain many spots on pit lane, but the cars that replaced four tires will usually make up for this on longer green-flag runs as the two unchanged tires start to wear out and hurt speed/performance.\n\nThe pit crew are chiefly responsible for getting the car on and off pit lane as possible. Since pit lane is speed-restricted, tenths of seconds on pit stops can mean the difference in a couple positions once the race goes green again.\n\nOverall, there's a lot of game plan and technical trial and error that takes place before the race (discounting all the work the driver does during the race, which KayakMarket touched on)",
"As to how a car moves up. NASCAR pretty much has cars on a level playing field. They have engineers to extract as much as they can in the confines of the rules but for the most part nobody is going to make a speed demon to run circles around the other cars. So drivers instead have to maneuver around each other and they're constantly doing so. Its like if an entire free way just started trying to get in front of each other, *except now we're tacking on another 100 mph*. And at those speeds, aerodynamics starts to REALLY take hold, little things regular drivers will probably never encounter in their lives suddenly starts affecting everything. The main exploitation of aerodynamics is called \"drafting\" where you can gain speed by going behind another car and use that to move ahead because the air behind a car is dispersed than if you had nothing in front of you (picture being inside a convertible where if you stick your head up above the windshield your hair will fly around everwhere). It gets a bit more technical from here and there are tons of other moves like drafting to the side, people teaming up to draft each other and avoiding a drafter and so on, but if you can imagine how grueling it gets with people trying to get past each other and switching places over and over it becomes clear as to what a fight a race is. ",
"As for specific race game plans, it really depends on the track. Especially today with the rules and restrictions put in place, super speedway races have become little more than a fuel mileage game. Driver ability and car setup has something to do with it, but you don't often see a car dominate a super speedway. At smaller tracks like Martinsville, Richmond, and Bristol, it's about driver ability and car setup way more than mileage. There are enough caution laps in those races to where fuel becomes less of a variable. During these races, the cars may never see more than 100mph, so the key to winning is tire management, suspension setup to get to top speed in a hurry, and avoiding the inevitable wreck that may involve a significant number of vehicles. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a357bi | what causes nuclear bombs to mushroom inside of itself, but not regular explosive bombs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a357bi/eli5_what_causes_nuclear_bombs_to_mushroom_inside/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb3fyin",
"eb3g0ml",
"ebao613"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Conventional weapons - if powerful enough - do create mushroom clouds as well. They're also visible around natural events, like volcanic eruptions.",
"The size of the explosion. Regular explosive bombs will also create mushroom clouds if they are big enough, the MOAB being an example of one that will do this as well.\n\nA mushroom cloud is simply an example of the convection of air. When heated air becomes less dense (enabling things like hot air balloons to work) and so it rises as the more dense cold air is pulled down by gravity. The bomb heats a large amount of air around it so that part rises, pulling up dust and smoke in a column. As the air rises it expands and cools, spreading out and stopping its rising motion.\n\nThe result of this is a mushroom cloud, a column of smoke with a spreading puff of a cloud at the top.",
"Yeah, any sufficiently explosive event will cause the mushroom cloud. Volcanoes, conventional explosions, nuclear ones - its all the same: very hot air going up, and dragging smoke/debris/dust upwards.\n\nIts commonly associated with nuclear weapons, because you seldom see a conventional explosive powerfull enough to generate required yield, in real life. And movies are usually preoccupied with fireballs as far as conventional explosions go.\n\nAlso, some nuclear systems are small enough to not really generate a proper mushroom cloud. For example, the good old tactical M388 Davy Crockett: _URL_1_ was pretty much on par with very large conventional munitions as far as explosion goes, apart from the flash, thermal pulse and intense radiation. It was a variable yield with only 10 to 20 tons of TNT equivalent, in a package weighting 23 kilograms.\n\nOne of differences is, most conventional explosives are usually too small, and nuclear weapons are way larger than what it takes to generate that cloud shape. Scale is different too - movies largely underestimate the size. Cloud from the Hiroshima's little boy went up to the stratosphere. The largest test ever- russian Tzar Bomba - had a mushroom cloud 64 kilometers high, with the head being over 90 kilometers in horizontal diameter, and stem being 40 kilometers wide! source: _URL_0_). What is shown in the movies - is a firecraker, seriously, compared to a real thing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#Test",
"https://youtu.be/eiM-RzPHyGs?t=225"
]
] |
||
1kuhsz | how to get the percentage between two numbers (exact question in text) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kuhsz/eli5_how_to_get_the_percentage_between_two/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbsq6dw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"ELI5 isn't for math homework, try /r/homeworkhelp or /r/answers. Removing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
qhd30 | differences between video file types (mp4, avi, mkv, etc) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qhd30/eli5_differences_between_video_file_types_mp4_avi/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3xn2wj",
"c3xn4rw"
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text": [
"They're basically all the same thing, just written differently.\n\nThink of it like books (sort of) in a different language.\n\nIt's the same story about a bunny being buddies with a bear and all the crazy adventures they go on, but one version of the story is told in English, while another is told in French, and so on.\n\nThere's also a difference in the way the story is told. Some filetypes have no compression of quality, so you get a really detailed file as if Tolkein wrote the bunny and the bear, whereas some filetypes try to tell the most story in as small a filesize as possible, so Dr. Suess writes it instead.\n\nThat's why certain devices can't play certain filetypes, because they're receiving too much or too little of the wrong information in the wrong place.",
"I had the same question; [here's](_URL_0_) a really good basic explanation of video codecs vs. containers (filetypes)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q5vpg/eli5_difference_between_video_formats_and_codecs/c3v3akf"
]
] |
||
4cc6sm | why did turkey not become a modern international power like france, germany, italy, england, japan, russia and china? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cc6sm/eli5_why_did_turkey_not_become_a_modern/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1guggb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"For many centuries, Ottoman Empire sat between Europe and Asia. This meant that trade between the two had to pass through them, and they were able to profit from that. European powers, wanting to cut out the middle-man, eventually found routes around Africa that didn't require them to go through the Ottomans. Later, they established their American colonies that brought them even more wealth, while the Ottomans didn't do the same.\n\nThat wealth allowed the Europeans to eventually industrialize and strengthen their economies even more. WWI was the final nail in the coffin. The Ottoman Empire picked the wrong side, and their empire collapsed with the British and the French taking over their Middle Eastern holdings, which would later give them access to the oil that was becoming a valuable commodity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6qy47a | the persistence of end-of-the-world claims. | Even people that don't believe in religious texts can get swept up in end-of-days panic. In this century alone, we've been through two abruptly canceled Apocalypses (Y2K and 21/12/2012). Is it psychological, something people are simply prone to believe? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qy47a/eli5_the_persistence_of_endoftheworld_claims/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl0ujy6",
"dl0uvs2",
"dl0wprp"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Y2K was not \"abruptly canceled\". It was prevented, through an incredible amount of work. We saw it coming, and we fixed it, with millions of hours of coding and bug-fixing. The cost of all the work to prevent the problem is estimated at over $400 billion in today's money.",
"Since early civilization, people have feared an apocalyptic end to the world. It can be found in countless mythos around the world - just by chance? \n \nIt is human nature to fear the end. It is that fear you also hold for the earth we came from, and all other living things. \n \nSo naturally, we are predispositioned to greatly fear an apocalyptic scenario of any kind, as it means the end of our species - and life is all about resisting death by reproducing. So it is our ultimate nemesis. \n \nIt is the ultimate evil in our existence. Nothing else comes close.",
"Y2K was fixed, as another commenter said. 21/12/2012 was a widespread misunderstanding.\n\n > Is it psychological, something people are simply prone to believe?\n\nYes. But it's not an unfounded fear, either. There is ample evidence that worldwide cataclysmic events take place with alarming regularity. \n\nFor example, if you look at graphs of ice core samples, around 11,000 years ago there are drastic swings in temperature coinciding with deposits in the sedimentary layers that point to asteroid strikes. These kinds of events happen all the time, and if one happened now it would be a wordwide disaster the likes of which we have never seen.\n\nHeading into speculation here, so don't crucify me, but humans have been anatomically modern for about 200,000 years. If we have records of these disasters as recent as 11,000 years ago, it would stand to reason that humans would have an innate fear of these kinds of events above the normal rational fear."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
b6y7o7 | why does just thinking about tequila make me want to throw up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b6y7o7/eli5_why_does_just_thinking_about_tequila_make_me/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejntdol"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because your brain and your body are deeply connected. Your body once threw up after drinking tequila, and told your brain, “we don’t care for that at all”. So your body is just reminding your brain of that. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6gb1yx | why when you miss somebody can you physically feel it in your chest? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gb1yx/eli5_why_when_you_miss_somebody_can_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"diow2cm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's called *heartache.*\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_4_\n\n_URL_5_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_1_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/64b0ev/eli5_why_do_we_get_heartaches_when_feeling_sad/dg0zyg7/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wgxk5/why_does_my_heart_actually_feel_heartbroken_or/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3noj6u/eli5_what_is_the_feeling_in_your_chest_when_hurt/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ehu9q/eli5_why_does_heartache_physically_hurt_my_chest/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24u26f/eli5_why_does_my_heart_feel_heavy_when_im_sad_or/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33n4if/eli5_why_do_we_get_a_heartache_when_sadpanicked/"
]
] |
||
cslkaz | why plants don’t suffer negative effects from inbreeding | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cslkaz/eli5_why_plants_dont_suffer_negative_effects_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"exfi8ix",
"exfib05"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"There are issues with inbreeding plants. A major issue is that they will all be susceptible to the same diseases. Bananas are all clones, and if there's a particular disease that develops, it could wipe out all of the bananas in the world. In fact the world used to commonly eat the Gros Michel banana, but it got decimated by a fungus in the 1950s and now we eat Cavendish bananas instead.",
"It does, but the effects aren't always so visibly obvious because it's pretty hard to break a plant.\n\nThe broader concerns of narrow gene pools are still present, down to the extreme example of the all-clone banana crop's severe infection weakness."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4f5eci | are the 7+ magnitude earthquakes in japan and ecuador related? | Seems strange to have multiple 7+ magnitude earthquakes hit a city in each hemisphere within a week. Are these events related? Are the earthquakes in Ecuador a result of the earthquakes in Japan? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4f5eci/eli5_are_the_7_magnitude_earthquakes_in_japan_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2626ii"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Earthquakes happen pretty frequently, far more frequently than most people realize. Most of them are very small and don't catch much attention, though anyone of them could turn out to be damaging. That's the thing about Earthquakes they can be pretty unpredictable, and two being about the same strength and news worthy happening around the same time is more of a luck of the draw thing. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3cs4wk | why after shaving do i get pimples? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cs4wk/eli5_why_after_shaving_do_i_get_pimples/ | {
"a_id": [
"csyf8pq",
"csyl4we",
"csyllob"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Small nicks or cuts on your skin get infected. Hairs once cut smooth to the skin have a chance of becoming ingrown and infected. And you can sometimes push dirt and bacteria into a pore causing it to become infected. ",
"Always. Always disinfect your blade. So much bacteria live on razor blades. Then people use them to expose areas of their bodies (face, neck, legs) to the bacteria while cutting the hair. You introduce bacteria, you get pimples. Clean your razor very, very well. I tend to use extremely hot water, and some rubbing alcohol before razor shaving, and I get far fewer pimples and less razor burn.",
"Razor bumps are ingrown hairs. Either you shaved too close, and the hair is growing beneath the skin (which looks like a big pimple and hurts like crap); or you pushed the hair over into a neighboring follicle (mild red bumps that don't hurt or puss as much).\n\nOccasionally, I would get the former (growing beneath the surface) along my chin line. Mainly, this came from shaving up (against the grain) with shaving cream. It was a nice smooth shave, but I would pay for it the next day. Now I just \"take off the top\". I shave down with hot water. I haven't had a bad ingrown hair yet. But I do still get the mild bumps, probably because I don't replace my razor often enough."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1qwe5h | how are commercials cost-effective to a company? has anyone ever seen a comercial and thought, "wow! i'm going to go buy that." | I'm thinking about Superbowl ads...millions of dollars for 30 seconds of glory. Do companies just have an absurd amount of money to spend? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qwe5h/eli5_how_are_commercials_costeffective_to_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdh5wle",
"cdh609b",
"cdh65nb",
"cdh7lp7",
"cdh9ea6",
"cdhdgd4",
"cdhhqmu"
],
"score": [
27,
20,
4,
4,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not about pushing units.\n\nWell it is... but not always. Commercials and marketing have a lot to do with brand recognition and outreach.\n\nSo when Bud Light is paying millions to show you a super bowl ad, they aren't expecting you to leap up and buy more bud light. They are trying to give you a positive view of their brand (hence why those ads are usually funny/heartwarming) so that the next time you are in the market buying beer Bud Light will stick out to you.",
"ROMI or return on Marketing Investments are generally very difficult to objectively quantify. Many companies justify the costs of large marketing campaigns not because of the immediate return (i.e. I want that! I will go out and buy it now) but rather the purchases made by brand or product awareness. In these cases, most customers are casually shopping and will purchase the advertised brand simply because they have seen it before 'somewhere' and trust the legitimacy of the product or service. \n\nBrand awareness is also has longer term value as customers who become familiar with a particular product will stick with the brand out of convenience rather than researching potential unfamiliar alternatives even if competing products may be superior.",
"Most of the time it isn't \"Yeah, I'm gonna go buy that\"\n\nIt's \"I want stuff, I'll buy that stuff\"\n\nThink of Coke vs Pepsi, you are a Pepsi person all the way, and then you see a superbowl ad, or some other ad for coke and when you are buying pop, you go \"Maybe I'll get coke this time\"",
"I understand the intent behind the marketing (brand association, etc), but I was hoping for more of a quantifiable assessment which /u/Rootle pointed out is difficult. Even in a non-superbowl marketing environment, it just seems as if companies spend absurd amounts on commercials and I was truly curious as to the ROI they got. One can assume Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Ford, etc has a tremendous ROI due to marketing and was curious if there was data to back it up (other than company's profits & worth).\n\nMaybe I'm just hard to persuade, but I've never bought a product because of a commercial. At least not knowingly. ;-)",
"Spending millions (billions) of dollars on ads is the difference between Coke-a-cola and RC cola. \n\nNobody wants a freaking RC cola. Even though objectively, they are the same thing really.",
"Marketing/Advertising is all about making sure that when its time to make a purchase, your product/service/company is part of the equation. \n\nTwo forces in any market are competition within the market, and the threat of substitutes. Through marketing and advertising, companies can try to lessen the impact those forces have on their marketshare and bottom line. \n\nTake Coca-Cola for example. Their flagship product, Coke, is one of thousands if not millions of the non-alcoholic beverages available to consumers. When you're thirsty, Coke isn't just competing against Pepsi - they're competing against every beverage available to you at your point of purchase. \n\nIn order to make sure that when you are getting a beverage Coke or one of their other products is what comes to your mind first or is at least near the top of your list CocaCola spends in the neighborhood of $3 Billion (yes, with a b) per year on advertising. They don't expect you to see their commercial or magazine ad, or corporate sponsorship badge and go buy their product; they want you to associate their product with good things and various situations and therefore make you more likely to purchase Coke instead of Pepsi, or Mountain Dew, or FIJI Water, or Snapple.. etc. ",
"Consumer exists on a spectrum of interest from completely disinterested to heavily researching and committed to buy. \n\nCompanies create commercials to affect the consumer on every area on the spectrum, because if someone slides down the continuum from \"disinterested\" to \"interested,\" their initial evaluations of their purchasing options are impacted by \"brand awareness.\"\n\nYou're not going to be able to hard-sell someone who's watching TV into going out and buying a bottle of Coca Cola or a bag of Doritos, and advertising reflects this. They don't exhort the particular qualities of their food (or makeup, or chewing gum or gasoline or whatever) over others so much as they try to create a memorable experience associated with that brand name, and in general associate it with good feelings (pretty people parting with cans of Dr. Pepper or a funny mascot selling Cheetos). That way, when you are at the grocery store and deciding between whether to buy Speed Stick or Old Spice, you have a stronger memory of the Isiah Mustafa commercials, and are more likely to buy if you are not already committed to one product over the other. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bz0jav | how do things like marijuana and alcohol get consumed through the mouth/stomach/lungs and then have an affect on the brain? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bz0jav/eli5_how_do_things_like_marijuana_and_alcohol_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"eqodmaa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you inhale, most of the stuff you're inhaling goes right into your blood. That's what the lungs are for, getting oxygen from the outside into your blood.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSame with the digestive system. Your blood is what delivers nutrients to your body, so it has to get into your blood.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nNot everything in your blood can get into your brain. There is a blood-brain barrier to protect your brain from blood irregularities, but some things make it through."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1kn576 | engine torque | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kn576/eli5_engine_torque/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbqmrc5",
"cbqqkqs"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Torque is a measure of how much force you apply to cause something to twist/rotate. So when you use a screwdiver, or open a bottle of soda, you're applying torque to the screw or bottlecap respectively.\n\nAn engine's torque tells you how much torque the engine applies to your wheels -- which is a really handy measure because, as useful as horsepower is, ultimately if your wheels aren't spinning fast enough to use all that horsepower, you're not gonna be pleased going around just telling people how many HP it has.",
"Torque is the ability of the engine to do work. A car with 150 lbs/ft will feel half as strong as a car with 300 lbs/ft because it can only do half the work. This is why big V8s can have the same horsepower rating as another car but just feel faster all around. Horsepower is also the rate at which torque is applied so torque also determines a vehicles maximum horsepower as well.\n\nEdit:Math"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
830ic2 | when we close our eyes do we actually see the color black or do we see something different that our brain is telling us is the color black but it's not? what's our brain telling our eyes to see when we close them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/830ic2/eli5_when_we_close_our_eyes_do_we_actually_see/ | {
"a_id": [
"dve5wua",
"dve6klr"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Any \"color\" you see is ultimately your brain's interpretation of the signals is receiving from the eyes, which itself is formulated based on the cells that are stimulated by the light striking them. When you close your eyes, there is a (relative) absence of light, and so an absence of stimulation, and so no image for your brain to form. ",
"Mistake me if im wrong but arent we just looking at the flap of skin we call eyelids? Because they are so thin we can sometimes see illumination coming externally. \n\nAnd just like the other user said, any colour we do see are signals from the brain, dreams, day dreams, and so on.\n\n And any signal being sent from the optic nerves would only be of said shut eyelid until our eyeballs begin to shutter in rem."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
33axco | why does it seem like nascar is for red necks but formula1 is a high class sport? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33axco/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_nascar_is_for_red/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqj5jpk",
"cqj5lel",
"cqj5ole",
"cqj6jqi"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Because F1 is European. They don't have rednecks in Europe. That makes all the difference.",
"It's how the two evolved that is the key here. NASCAR grew out of stock car/drag racing which was open to anybody who could afford a car and knew how to soup them up AKA mechanics and good-ol-boys. It was a US creation.\n\nF1 has always been a rich man's sport. It is the Nth of what one can do with unlimited cash in the racing world. The same class of people who owned F1 racers own racing horses, yachts, etc. It was an elite EU creation.",
"Because you're preconditioned to believe that only southerners watch NASCAR and that all southerners are rednecks. \nI found the most recent study I could find and it states that [1 in 3 adults watch NASCAR or 75 million people and broadcasts in 150 countries.](_URL_0_) ",
"F1 grew out of the tradition of top auto manufacturers racing their cars against each other to prove that their automobiles were the best. It was about building the fastest, most reliable, and most technically powerful car.\n\nNASCAR grew out of a history of selling illegal moonshine liquor. To evade the police, bootleggers would strip their cars down as much as possible to make them light and fast. They thought it was fun, so they started racing against one another on the side. \n\nBasically, F1 has always been about million dollar companies facing other million dollar companies. NASCAR didn't become like that until much later."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveodland/2012/02/27/nascars-back/"
],
[]
] |
||
bis3cg | on products like sodas or snacks it states something along the lines of “not for resale” or “not to be sold individually”. how do things like concession stands get away with this? | I could be misunderstanding the intentions of what this means but my current understanding is that you can’t buy this box of candy and resale them individually. If someone could educate me on this & what the label actually means that would be great | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bis3cg/eli5_on_products_like_sodas_or_snacks_it_states/ | {
"a_id": [
"em2m0eh",
"em2m1es",
"em2m7kw"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
6
],
"text": [
"Don't quote me on this, but this label is put on products by manufacturers who want to sell items in bulk (chips, sodas, etc.) It prevents retailers from opening up the bulk packaging and selling items individually, often at a higher price per-item. I don't think it was intended or applies for fundraisers or Junior-Varsity basketball game snack bars.",
"The manufacturer sells them in bulk to be used for things like concession stands, but they aren't barcoded and they don't have the appropriate nutritional information on them to be sold individually as there are packaging laws that have to be followed.\n\nConcession stands are exempt from these sorts of rules, as they aren't really a \"retail\" outlet. So it's legal for them but would be illegal for a 7-Eleven to do the same thing.",
"Depends on where you are at, but the issue here is the labeling. With bundled items like this, the nutritional and other information is on the container, not each individual item. However, this does not always translate into an actual legal restriction on individual resell. It's more of a notice to the potential buyer that there may be information about the product they aren't aware of because it is printed elsewhere."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1t7vtd | how does the it department handle which sites to block in a corporate environment? (more in comments) | Hi all,
I recently landed a job working in a corporate environment, financial industry. Kind of like Office Space, bunch of cubicles everywhere. Anyways I was able to visit reddit all of last week (couldn't load pictures but the comments were okay) but when I came in on Monday this week it was blocked. Could someone please explain how IT finds this sort of stuff? I feel like it was clearly me that ruined everything.
P.S. No Private viewing available, it is grayed-out at work. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t7vtd/eli5_how_does_the_it_department_handle_which/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce58i5c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Monitor traffic. Anything not work related, block."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1xrdkd | the reports of people shining lasers in the eyes of pilots, how much of a hindrance is this? | I get the basics, someone shines a laser towards a plane, the pilots have problems seeing. I've owned laser pens before and I can't imagine they would have any impact at all on an airplane so I'm assuming they're using some other type of laser.
What types of lasers are we talking about here? How much 'blindness' could they possibly cause? Why would they bother? It's not like the planes are suddenly lurching or that they get any reaction at all. I just don't see the motivation (even to screw with someone).
Edit: And how could they even hit a plane? Planes are huge but it's has got to be hard to direct it at the small window of a plane, flying towards you at a fairly high rate of speed. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xrdkd/eli5_the_reports_of_people_shining_lasers_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfdyhgf",
"cfe3i36"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_1_ and _URL_0_ From a small distance it's a tiny red dot. When you aim it at a plane, they see a blinding green image where if caught by surprise can disorient the pilot. This isn't really catching a plane at 30,000 feet. Think of the low flying smaller plane or helicopter. ",
"If the pilot's eyes are dark adapted, he could be dazzled for several seconds.\n\nAlso, some cockpits use a type of glass the scatters laser light, causing the entire windows to light up and become opaque.\n\nAnd while they probably overestimate the dangers, if a pilot was doing something tricky, like trying to land with a crosswind, a few seconds of poor vision could mean a disaster."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://youtu.be/e1R4-OD0iWg?t=54s",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI7Qq1mYQlI"
],
[]
] |
|
2dx3ft | difference between anarchism and communism | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dx3ft/eli5_difference_between_anarchism_and_communism/ | {
"a_id": [
"cju1b3b",
"cju1hqq",
"cjud0fg",
"cjupj5w"
],
"score": [
4,
19,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"Anarchism is a way of living where everybody decides for themselves how things should be run. There is no government or no bosses to tell us what to do. We make up the rules ourselves.\n\nCommunism is another way of living where there is no money and everything is owned by everybody. People are free to take what they need and everybody works to make lots of stuff so that everybody can be happy and rich.\n\nAnarchism and communism are very similar. Most anarchists are also communists but do not agree with other communists about how we should make communism. Some communists think we should use the government, which anarchists disagree with. Though all communists (anarchist and not) agree that communism is a good idea!",
"If socialism is defined as the broad movement to outgrow/overthrow exploitative economies, then anarchism is a libertarian branch of socialism. As the 19th-century anarchist Mikhail Bakunin succinctly put it:\n\n > Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.\n\nWe can define communism as being a form of socialism which has completely moved beyond markets and commodity production. In Marxist theory, state-managed socialism is considered the first or \"lower\" stage of communism, with full communism emerging as the state itself \"withers away\" (to use ~~Lenin's~~ Engels' phrase).\n\nAnarcho-communism is a tendency within anarchism which favors a full-communist economic system (*edit:* without first transitioning to a state-managed socialist stage). An early proponent of anarcho-communism was the Russian prince/scientist/philosopher Peter Kropotkin. His basic sketch of anarcho-communism, [*The Conquest of Bread*](_URL_0_), is still very readable today.",
"Anarchism (an - without, arkhos - ruler) is a ***political philosophy*** that popped up at the tail end of the industrial revolution. It was a revolt against the capitalist system and (along with some very similar schools of thought) became one of the two major branches of the socialist movement. That branch is called libertarian socialism. Anarchists are [like fraggles](_URL_1_). They drew on enlightenment ideas about liberty and justice and decided that people should all be their own bosses, instead of renting themselves to a class of owners -- the capitalists -- and taking orders from on high. They believe that workers and their communities should control the land, facilities, infrastructure and resources to produce stuff and run an economy, which is the central stated goal of *all* socialists. They want to abolish private property in the means of production **and** the nation-state that enforces it. They believe that \"the people who work the mills should run them\" and that there should be no distinction between \"the government\" and the governed. \n\nCommunism can mean one of four things:\n\n- [a ***stage of history***](_URL_3_) that Karl Marx described as:\n\n - [without state government](_URL_2_) (no sovereigns, no nations, no borders)\n\n - without social class (no economic pecking order)\n \n - without money or property (all work for self and community, take whatever they need)\n\n- a ***political philosophy*** that advocates and wants to advance that stage of history\n\n- (informally) a country *not* in the \"stage\" described above, but where the state is controlled by a (usually) ***\"Marxist-Leninist\"*** political party, which purports to advance communism *through its control of the state*, which itself, at some indeterminate point, is supposed to fade away and disappear\n\n- a synonym for \"fuck you\" when really ignorant and/or stupid people are having an argument\n\nSo, a society existing under the condition (\"stage of history\") of communism is compatible -- if not interchangeable -- with an anarchist society. Not *all* anarchists, though, necessarily advocate *exactly* such a society. Some anarchists may not want (or may not think it's conceivable) to abolish money, even though they do want to abolish class and capitalism (i.e. private ownership of the means of production) in favor of worker cooperatives, community-run nonprofits, other self-governing organizations, etc. \n\nTo sum it up:\n\n- all anarchists are socialists (and no, goofy [recuperation](_URL_0_) like \"anarcho-capitalism\" is not anarchism to anyone except the few clueless American rich kids who call themselves \"anarcho-capitalists\")\n\n- all communists are socialists\n\n- some (probably most) anarchists are communists\n\n- some communists are anarchists",
"They're incredibly similar. Marxism and Anarchism weren't distinct groups until after the First International. The primary disagreement revolves around the \"dictatorship of the proletariat\". Dictatorship of the Proletariat is an incredibly poorly defined and nebulous concept. Both Communists and Anarchists seek to achieve a *classless, stateless and moneyless society* (aka communism). The path to get there is the main disagreement. Marxists believe that the working class can, after smashing the bourgeois state, take control of the state-form to usher in socialism and eventually communism as the state withers away. Anarchists think the state-form is fundamentally incapable of ushering in these changes.\n\nTLDR; Marxist Communists wish to use states to usher in socialism/communism, Anarchist dislike states and wish to usher in socialism/communism through other means."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_\\(politics\\)",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o_U8--_ee0",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#Communism"
],
[]
] |
||
jpnf1 | if water can't be compressed in the same manner as air, why do we talk about both air pressure and water pressure? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jpnf1/eli5_if_water_cant_be_compressed_in_the_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2e3akw",
"c2e3g38",
"c2e3wao",
"c2e8jah",
"c2e3akw",
"c2e3g38",
"c2e3wao",
"c2e8jah"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
3,
2,
9,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the deeper you go, the more water presses on you. The more books you place on your head, the heavier the pile on your head is, right? It's the same way with water.",
"Water DOES compress, just minimally. \n\nThe main difference between the two is one is a gas and the other is a liquid. \n\nIn any liquid, the molecules are all close together and don't have much room to compress. In all gasses by comparison, the molecules are MUCH farther apart, allowing room for compression. \n\nSo water does compress, just so minimally you don't notice the size/volume difference as much as the pressure of all the air \"on top\" of it. \n\nFun fact: Air pressure works the same way, where the pressure on the surface of the earth is all the air above you stacked and pushing down. This is why mountains have lower pressure on top, less air stacked above you. ",
"Water pressure doesn't have to do with water being compressed, per se. Due to gravity and all the physical forces between water molecules, any amount of water exerts pressure on any container it is put in. \n\nThink of it this way. When any amount of water is placed on the ground, what does it do? It spreads out as much as it can. When you place it in a jar, it can't spread out...it's in a jar. Instead, it exerts pressure on the walls of the jar because it WANTS to spread out but can't.\n\nWater pressure can also be talked about in terms of moving water from a high container (water tower) to a lower container (your house/shower). The bigger the difference between the two, the more pressure at the lower container. Mostly due to gravity.",
"Pressure isn't about compression. It's about forces applied over a certain area. Take a metal ball and push it against your palm. Now take a foam rubber ball and push it just as hard. If the two balls are the same size, the pressure against your skin is about the same.\n\nAlso, don't forget about DENSITY. Water doesn't get much smaller when squeezed. But we can squeeze air and make it much more dense. For example, pump air into a tank and the tank becomes quite heavy. Air density is normally 1.2 grams for a cubic volume 10cm on a side. That volume of air inside a scuba tank at 200 atmospheres should weigh 200x more.\n",
"Because the deeper you go, the more water presses on you. The more books you place on your head, the heavier the pile on your head is, right? It's the same way with water.",
"Water DOES compress, just minimally. \n\nThe main difference between the two is one is a gas and the other is a liquid. \n\nIn any liquid, the molecules are all close together and don't have much room to compress. In all gasses by comparison, the molecules are MUCH farther apart, allowing room for compression. \n\nSo water does compress, just so minimally you don't notice the size/volume difference as much as the pressure of all the air \"on top\" of it. \n\nFun fact: Air pressure works the same way, where the pressure on the surface of the earth is all the air above you stacked and pushing down. This is why mountains have lower pressure on top, less air stacked above you. ",
"Water pressure doesn't have to do with water being compressed, per se. Due to gravity and all the physical forces between water molecules, any amount of water exerts pressure on any container it is put in. \n\nThink of it this way. When any amount of water is placed on the ground, what does it do? It spreads out as much as it can. When you place it in a jar, it can't spread out...it's in a jar. Instead, it exerts pressure on the walls of the jar because it WANTS to spread out but can't.\n\nWater pressure can also be talked about in terms of moving water from a high container (water tower) to a lower container (your house/shower). The bigger the difference between the two, the more pressure at the lower container. Mostly due to gravity.",
"Pressure isn't about compression. It's about forces applied over a certain area. Take a metal ball and push it against your palm. Now take a foam rubber ball and push it just as hard. If the two balls are the same size, the pressure against your skin is about the same.\n\nAlso, don't forget about DENSITY. Water doesn't get much smaller when squeezed. But we can squeeze air and make it much more dense. For example, pump air into a tank and the tank becomes quite heavy. Air density is normally 1.2 grams for a cubic volume 10cm on a side. That volume of air inside a scuba tank at 200 atmospheres should weigh 200x more.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
33wj6a | why did i not develop seasonal allergies until well into my 20s? | As a kid I never had seasonal allergies, at least not until about 24-25 years old. As an adult they seem to be getting progressively worse each year. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33wj6a/eli5_why_did_i_not_develop_seasonal_allergies/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqp17me",
"cqpb95z"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"I got them after I was pregnant. I was hoping the second pregnancy would take them away again...no such luck ",
"Both your body and the environment change over time. The changing environment is easy to understand (especially if you've moved). The body is just as complex though, and sometimes things \"break\" or new things start due to various factors. Think about acne, arthritis, body hair in new locations, cancer, etc. All these things are due to your changing body."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5xadrf | why are most dvd and video game cases still so big? | I know that DVD cases were meant to be the size of VHS boxes and then video games followed suit, but no one really uses VHS anymore. Is there a reason DVDs and video games still practice wasteful packaging, especially now that a lot of video game manuals are digital and rarely included in the case? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xadrf/eli5_why_are_most_dvd_and_video_game_cases_still/ | {
"a_id": [
"degl31f",
"degl63s"
],
"score": [
17,
9
],
"text": [
"1) Marketing - people have been conditioned to look for the DVD-sized case ever since DVDs came out.\n\n2) Theft deterrence - it's harder to fit big things in your pockets. ",
"Stores want the packaging to be large enough that shoplifters can't easily stuff tons of them into their pockets, especially for items like these that are easy to trade for cash at used video game/movie stores."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
61kotl | why are some pale skinned people able to tan easily but others just burn and peel? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61kotl/eli5why_are_some_pale_skinned_people_able_to_tan/ | {
"a_id": [
"dffama3",
"dffdn0f",
"dffdogu",
"dffezms",
"dfff8mj",
"dffgrad",
"dffh0ql",
"dffhz4q",
"dffk4x0",
"dffkihp",
"dfflids",
"dffr5mr",
"dfgcp8y",
"dfghgri",
"dfgipzy"
],
"score": [
167,
439,
5319,
3,
22,
42,
65,
365,
2,
22,
12,
2,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's all dependent on the genes you inherited and the amount of active melanin your body has. Darker skinned people still may experience burning if they inherited that gene, while other lighter skinned people may never burn but have very little active melanin.",
"To everyone in this thread so far: yes we know it's genes. If you don't know more stop guessing and get out",
"The color in skin is from a pigment called melanin. Melanin protects the skin from UV rays in sunlight. Too much UV causes a sunburn. Depending on your genes, you make a mix of eumelanin (brown color) and pheomelanin (red color). The brown blocks UV best. The red can actually make the UV do more damage. Fair skinned people all look pale, but those with more pheomelanin will burn more. ",
"I'm very pale. I don't tan, burn easily or peel. If I do burn, it turns back to white the next day. What's up with that? ",
"Here's something I learned when I was younger when I wanted the best tan of my life (young, unemployed and living in central fl) and I thought was interesting:\n\nThe sun tan actually comes from the UV rays, not the heat of the sun. The heat has nothing to do with it. The UV rays are the strongest between like 10am-3pm meaning that's the best/most effective time to go outside. The UV rays cause your body to produce more melanin to prevent the sunburn. The sun burn is a radiation burn. \n\nI bet most of you already knew this though. I thought it was interesting. ",
"Most of the functional information we have about genes comes from mutational analyses in invertebrates. In fruit flies for example, melanin and pigmentation has been pretty extensively studied. The problem is 2-fold when it comes to humans: first humans can have anywhere from two to four copies of every gene present in the \"blueprint genome\" (the fly genome), because there have been genomic duplications (i.e., duplication of the entire genome) twice throught evolution: once before teleost fishes evolved and once after. So there is a lot of genetic complexity involved. And it's hard to tease apart gene function without mutational analysis, traditionally difficult in mammals with long generation times. The second problem is that skin pigmentation is also tied to metabolic skin function. Vitamin D production for example (critical for calcium absorption). In warmer climates (e.g., most of Africa), skin is exposed to sunlight, and therefore able to utilize the UV irradiation of the sun for the final step of vitamin D production. There's a tradeoff though ---- that extra sun exposure also acts as a strong selection pressure to keep melanin around, to ward off skin cancers (melanin's chief function in the skin). In northern European populations, where climates mean the skin is doing minimal skin synthesis of Vitamin D because the sun disappears abd because clothing protects against cold---- populations have adapted by maintaining lactose tolerance beyond childhood (vitamin D is present in high concentrations in dairy products). And because there is so much less UV irradiation, the selection pressure for maintaining upregulation of melanin disappears. So so far, we are seeing melanin involved in protection against UV irradiation, but it is also involved in dopamine production and metabolism in the brain. So that adds ANOTHER layer of complexity to the puzzle. \n\nIn other words, it's clear that there are a lot of unanswered questions because the complexity of the issue makes it hard to get a big-picture handle on it all.",
"[The Fitzpatrick Scale](_URL_0_) is used by dermatologists to label skin colors. White people, the most prone to burning of all races, can fall anywhere from 1-4 on those charts because of slightly varying genetic backgrounds. So while a person of Celtic background may burn, a person of Italian background may tan because although both people's skin may be light colored, the Celtic person's skin has less tools to deal with the sun once exposure has happened.",
"B.S in Biology but I'll try my best anyways. \n\nAssuming you've read everyone's explanation of how genes play a role, I'd like to explain why these genes are present in certain individuals and answer your question as to why certain individuals burn while others don't. \n\nEvolutionarily, it all comes down to how certain shades helped individuals based on their location. It's beneficial for someone who is closer to the equator to be darker and absorb less sunlight since it's almost always readily available. In comparison to places further away from that center point where sunlight isn't as abundant throughout the day. A more pale complexion would allow you to maximize the amount of sun you take in. \n\nSo if your genes originated from a place where absorbing the maximum amount of sun is best and you're out in the sun for extended periods of time, you'll eventually end up burning simply because that's what the sun does when you have little protection. While others who's genes may have originated from a place with varying degrees of the sun, will be able to tan. That may be why we lose tans in the winter. Evolutionarily, tanning would be to increase your protection against the sun to not burn. The best catalyst for this reaction would of course be prolonged exposure to the sun which would be signaling extra protection needed. You would then lose this tan in the winter, or when you stop being in the sun as much, since you would need to absorb more. \n\nExtra information: Since Humans as a species have been fairly good at adapting as needed, this may explain why we have lighter people in places where it'd make sense for everyone to be darker toned. Things such as umbrellas, sun block and houses would allow those with little natural protection to the sun to easily live in places where it is over abundant. ",
"I live in the Caribbean so I see plenty of sun. I believe it simply has to do with how much sun you take in a given period of time. For example its not the same to sunbathe for 5 hours in one day than 1 hour every day for 5 days. In the second case your skin has time to heal and produce a little melanin before being exposed again. This way your skin cells wont all die causing sunburn. Obviously genetics will also play a factor but this is my experience in what i have seen. I have 100% spanish genetics but i have fairly tanned skin and am exposed to the sun many times a week for short periods and have not sunburned unless i go to the beach on a sunday from 10am to 5 without any protection.",
"I know I'm late but question: is it possible to take a melanin supplement and make it easier for you to obtain and maintain a tan?\n\n\nAsking for a friend. ",
"Who are these \"pale-skinned\" people who tan easily?",
"I also have a pale skin and I just can't burn down no matter how long I sunbath, but I can't tan neither. Why?",
"Having run a tanning salon for 5 years, can tell you it all comes down to your skin type! Each type has successfully more melanocytes (pigment cells) . I'm a type three, black hair, hazel- green eyes and CAUCASIAN+American indian heritage and I tan almost the instant my skin is exposed due to any amount of sunlight hitting the pale melanocytes in my skin - though my legs remain bright white year round unless I work to darken them. I work in my garden every day and by summer's end I'll be very dark usually - though have never had any skin issues and normally use a very cheap Curel skin lotion right after showering. This year for th first time in my life I've seen a couple of old age spot on my mid back - old age barnacles! I removed them at home using Apple Cider Vinegar over a few days period, the skin under was very pale when I got done. Human skin has specific cells place in specific areas where it is most useful to protect your body from UV harm; like faces, shoulders, and back of arms and tops of feet. Imagine the sun shining down directly on you from over your head... each place normally exposed to the direct UV light is where you'll tan or get burned most often. (You don't need special tanning cells under your boobs or between your legs.) So, people tend to work on those areas in tanning salons. Our salon recommends slow steady tanning... a burn is to be avoided, and skin checks are mandatory WE cannot tan anyone under age 18 by state law. \n Skin types: Type one is usually a fair or red head, blue eyes and few freckles and type five is usually negro with almost black skin, brow hair and eyes. \nyes, negro's do go to get tanned, especially if they have low Vit D naturally in their blood.... they need more sunlight than I do to keep my Vit D levels up. Our black ladies would come in if they have a farmer's tan from wearing shirts And shorts in the sunlight and want to be tanned all over EQUALLY. (and IN places where the sun don't shine... I've even done spray tans on these ladies with excellent results on legs, bellies, you name it. Where ever they wanted darker or more even skin. When I ran my salon I had the reputation as doing the best spray tans in the area... my best clients were strippers (we'd minimize some contours by reducing the liquid and maximize areas needed the most - if they had cellulite we'd work on darkening the skin (white skin shows bumps more under stage lights than dark skin) We'd do sample testing to see how much chemical to use (liquid sun tan takes 4-6 hours to develop.) I\"d end up doing spray tans for my clients by appointment only. I even had a few gay guys coming in for spray tans. $50.00 a pop! \nUV radiation penetrates the tissues of our skin and can damage (mutate) the DNA of our cells. Our bodies are usually very good at repairing any DNA damage, but lengthy and regular exposure to UV can cause more damage than the body can cope with. If mutations to the DNA are left unchecked, this may change the way in which the cells behave, and they can become cancerous. this is why we never suggest a person tan over an area that has been burned - it damages it further. \n We also offered a chemical that prevented a burn from peeling! iT's not a secret... you just have to be very careful and proceed very slowly to keep the tan, keeping the skin moisturized to prevent peeling helps. The secret in this is citric acid.(used for canning.) \nI've worked with some type one's using a low pressure bed slowing increasing duration of exposure to the UV bulbs on a daily basis with a \"cold start\" bed and these people slowly were able to get a slight tan without burning. (we also did a UV skin test with them, before starting... putting a sheet of paper with holes on it, slowly exposing the holes one at a time in sequence so that the first hole opened got the maximum time and the last hole only got 30 seconds of UV exposure.) I've seen type one's burn at 2 min's of UV exposure from hand held bulb at 12\" at full blast. \nWe'd have the customers apply a tanning booster to the skin in areas they wanted to be darkest. and a sun block to areas they wanted to protect.\n Even hair can be damaged by UV rays. \n Seriously you know you can still get a tan thru your clothing - if your skin is moist from regular lotion. Dry skin tends to allow the light to bounce off somewhat while tanning lotion promotes the full effect of the UV light. Sun penetrates to the skin at about 35% depending on the fabric. I've gotten burned thru a T-Shirt in the past and had it peel on me within a day or so after I applied an aspirin based topical to the burn area. \n I've had my run-ins with people bad mouthing the tanning industry - but the almighty buck kept my business afloat at that time - I eventually sold the business at double my original costs and took a low pressure bed home with me for occasional use. The money represents my retirement! ",
"This is very interesting! I've always wondered that too because I can go from paper white to dark brown very easily without burning. I tan so quickly, that my body parts are all different shades - my hands are brown, my arms are lighter, my face is pale yellow, and my legs are white. \n\nI don't need to wear foundation but if ever I want to wear face makeup, I have foundation that is considered green/yellow bc any sort of typical flesh tone looks red on me. \n\nI kinda look ridiculous... ",
"Some of us tan and burn and peel the first couple of times every fucking summer. \n\nEither we have to stay tan (after the first burn) to keep the \"shields up\" or we have to stay in shade or use a ton of sunscreen to ease into the tan. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fu1rzg | products like lysol claim to kill germs. how does it do that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fu1rzg/eli5_products_like_lysol_claim_to_kill_germs_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmab8c5",
"fmabfkw",
"fmabj7h",
"fmabqut"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"“Germs” can’t survive in high concentrations of alcohol. \n\nCertain cleaners contain anti-fungal or anti-bacterial agents also, which are different chemicals that kill fungus or bacteria. \n\nBleach kills most living cells of anything, so bleach is a widely used “germ killer”. \n\nDepending on the product, it can have different things in it that actively attack and destroy “germs”.",
"Typically it damages the makeup of the organism in some way - breaking down the outer layer, damaging its method of transportation or preventing replication. \n\nLike with the big C right now - it's outer layer is lipids. Fat. Which is why you can defeat it on surfaces with soap and water! The soap breaks down the outer lipid layer.",
"Lysol's (and most of other commercial disinfectants) active ingredient is benzalkonium chloride. Basically, the disinfectants dissolve the lipids in the membrane of bacteria/fungi and in the envelope of the virus, thereby killing the cells and/or inactivating the viral particles.",
"Lysol contains hydrogen peroxide, which is toxic to most things. Hydrogen peroxide releases these things called hydroxyl free radicals which are kind of like little bullets shot at germs. These bullets can damage the cell membrane, which is the protective layer around a virus or bacteria cell, the DNA, which tells the cell how to operate, or really any other part of the cell.\n\nEdit: Not all Lysol's have hydrogen peroxide, some have benzalkonium chloride. This chemical is supposed to work by disrupting the negatively charged part of the lipid bilayer. In simpler terms, the chemical is positive and pulls the negative part of the cells protective coating off, breaking it down. This chemical isn't always effective though and has shown that it is less likely to destroy viruses such as coronavirus than alcohols or hydrogen peroxide."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1wszs5 | why were homo sapiens the only species of its kind to prosper, against the neanderthals and other species. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wszs5/eli5_why_were_homo_sapiens_the_only_species_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf558xm",
"cf55hkk",
"cf561jc",
"cf56dbj"
],
"score": [
13,
4,
2,
16
],
"text": [
"One current hypothesis is that we're a bit better at maintaining extended social networks, allowing for the development of groups beyond the slightly extended family",
"Neanderthals used a method of hunting that required them to get up on the think of it when trying to get their food. A lot of hunters died from the animals they were hunting injuring them. Homo sapiens developed a more ranged style of hunting that protected them from this threat. Of course that's not the only reason. Actually its accepted today that Neanderthals and homo sapiens did interbred. There are people today who still have small amounts of Neanderthal DNA in their overall DNA make up.",
"The book \"Guns Germs and Steel\" (and also the PBS Documentary of the same name - now available on Netflix) does a pretty good job of explaining this.\n\nThe reason why Homo Sapiens took the role we have on this planet was due in a large part to the availability of cereal grains in our native homelands. \n\nWheat and barley grew naturally in the \"fertile crescent\" (modern Iraq/Iran) and rice in middle-Asia, which early Homo Sapiens somehow figured out how to plant and farm. \n\nInstead of relying on the traditional, and inefficient, hunter/gatherer form of food collection, these newly formed societies could farm and store food using only a portion of the population, freeing the other members of the tribe to focus on leadership, tool production, leatherworking for clothing, etc, which allowed them to become infinitely more productive, secure, and well fed, inspiring rapid expansion of the species.",
"It's generally accepted that in places like Europe and Asia, where humans and neanderthals coexisted for some period of time, interbreeding occurred, and that direct descendants of those unions are still alive today. In fact, if you are of European or Asian descent, there is a good chance that between 1-4% of you genetic composition is neanderthal in origin. \n\nAs far as why the modern human genetic mixture isn't more like 50% neanderthal, or even 95%, you might get some clues from the other posters. \n\nAll that being said, there are a couple of other fascinating things to consider when pondering these types of questions. \n\nFirst, it's fairly conclusive that direct descendants of the neanderthal species are alive and walking the earth today, and it's not only likely that you know some of them, it is likely that you are one. \n\nSecond, neanderthals weren't the only \"proto-humans\" who's descendants are still alive today. The [Denisovans](_URL_1_) were stomping around the same parts at around the same time as humans *and* neanderthals, and likely interbred with both, and research has shown that the natives of Papua New Guinea have a genome that is as much as 6% derived from the Denisovans. Part of the reason most people have heard of neanderthals but not the Denisovans is that we have several almost-complete neanderthal skulls and skeletons, while the Denisovans are known primarily from a finger bone and a couple of teeth. \n\nFinally, there is a fascinating story about a [guy](_URL_0_) who found out his y-chromosome was significantly older than any previously recognized by the scientific community. To explain better, almost every single male on earth has a y-chromosome that can be traced back to a common ancestor who lived approximately 200,000 years ago, but in the case of the man in the article, his y-chromosome can be traced back to around 340,000 years ago. What this means is that there was interbreeding occurring between people who had been genetically separated from each other for at least 140,000 years. Further, the man in the article isn't the only person to carry this ancient chromosome, as it can be found in a large portion of the men who live in a small village in Cameroon in Africa. \n\nTL;DR:\n\nYou are not quite as \"human\" as you think you are. You are probably a little bit Neanderthal (or Denisovan).\n\n \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23240-the-father-of-all-men-is-340000-years-old.html#.Uu5zcfldWWQ",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin#Interbreeding"
]
] |
||
35w1b6 | what exactly is turbo? | I know it has something to do with taking your exhaust and feeding it back into the engine somehow, and that it gives you more horsepower.
But how exactly does this work?
Also, does it make the car more efficient as a whole, such as by giving you more MPG? Why don't all cars have it, if this is the case? Is the only downside cost? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35w1b6/eli5_what_exactly_is_turbo/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr8ckjb",
"cr8covl",
"cr8cric"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Your engine requires oxygen to burn the fuel. The thinner the air that your car is breathing, the less oxygen is being fed into the engine and the worse the car will perform. A turbo works like the big fan at the front of a jet engine, and serves to cram and pressurize the air that is being ingested in to the intake to make it \"thicker\", so to speak, which improves performance.",
"A turbocharger is a exhaust driven gas turbine. Your engine works by sucking in oxygen rich air, adding fuel, compressing it and sparking it to make an explosion. The more oxygen is in the charge, the more fuel and more bang comes out.\n\nA turbocharger use hot exhaust gas to spin a turbine to suck in more air than the engine normally can, compressing it, then provide it to the engine.\n\nTurbochargers provide more power when power is needed. At great cost to fuel efficiency. Turbos don't add mpg when you're cruising at light load. They improve power when you're at med to high load, like when accelerating.",
"A turbocharger is a device which uses exhaust gases in an engine to power a fan (turbine) which pressurizes air and pumps it into the intake of a car. A turbo does not feed exhaust gases back into the car, but rather takes advantage of the otherwise wasted energy of high pressure exhaust gases.\n\nAt low pressures, a turbo can help an engine 'breathe' and use that otherwise wasted energy to make power more efficiently. But at higher pressures, it increases performance at a cost of efficiency. This is because a precise amount of air and fuel must be delivered into a combustion chamber, or gasoline won't explode properly. More air into the engine means more fuel is needed to maintain that ratio, which amounts to a lot more power but also a lot more fuel.\n\nTurbos are prone to breaking, add complexity and cost to an engine design and can potentially wear an engine out faster. If a non-turbo engine (naturally aspirated) can make the target power and efficiency without it, manufacturers often opt for not adding one.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4szxr3 | how is .99 repeating a rational number? | My understanding is that for a number to be rational, it needs to be able to be represented as a fraction, and that all repeating decimals can be represented as (repeating portion)/(same number of 9's).
.99 repeating would then be 9/9, which is 1. I don't understand how it can still be concidered a rational number | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4szxr3/eli5_how_is_99_repeating_a_rational_number/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5dh0se",
"d5dh5or"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"I don't really understand the question. As you said yourself, .99 repeating can be represented as 9/9. Since it can be represented as the ratio of two integers, it's by definition a rational number.",
"It's a little funky, but the answer is the 0.999 repeating [*is* equal to 1!](_URL_0_...).\n\nThere are various ways to prove this, ranging from simple algebra to more complicated series and limits, but the simple fact is that 0.999(repeating) is equal to 9/9 which is equal to 1, and those are all just different ways of writing the same (rational!) number."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999"
]
] |
|
blgfki | why can't soiled cardboard be recycled? | I know that in the process the oil floats with the paper pulp and can't be separated which creates poor quality paper. My question is more specifically, why is there no chemical or physical process that can be used to separate the two? Is it a lack of innovation, a cost prohibition, or something else? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/blgfki/eli5_why_cant_soiled_cardboard_be_recycled/ | {
"a_id": [
"emofw0o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Separating and extracting the oil from the pulp requires too much effort and has too many risks for the crew and the facility (oil and food contaminants attract pests and bacterias).\n\nI assume it is more cost effective to trash the oily batch and use it for composting..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
m36ss | how mma fighters can cut over 20 pounds in a day | i think a lot of it is water weight but TWENTY pounds?! it's crazy. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m36ss/eli5_how_mma_fighters_can_cut_over_20_pounds_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2xq4fk",
"c2xqqrx",
"c2xrfow",
"c2xq4fk",
"c2xqqrx",
"c2xrfow"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
7,
2,
5,
7
],
"text": [
"You're body is something like 60% water. If you significantly dehydrate yourself, then shed as much weight as possible, shit, piss, sweat etc, you can lose a significant amount of weight",
"When I was competing, I cut no more than 7-10 lbs for a fight. A few techniques I used were cutting carbs out of my diet, running with a sauna suit, and sitting in a steam room. Also, I would normally do this over several days up to a week, not one day.\n\nAlso, it's all water weight. Once I made weight, I would fill up on carbs, drink a shake, and maybe some pedialyte that night, and I would be right back where I was by morning.",
"I was with a camera crew that followed around WEC/UFC fighters for a couple days up to the fight and we interviewed them while they were trying to cut. Their corner men do everything for them (bringing them the remote control in their hotel room, carrying their bags, etc) because they aren't eating or drinking (more than *absolutely necessary*) and are understandably weak. In another room we were in, one guy was wrapped in plastics and doing jumping jacks with his people until he gave out, and when he went to the floor, everyone swarmed him, rubbing him so that he still continued to sweat even if he could no longer work out. It was surreal.",
"You're body is something like 60% water. If you significantly dehydrate yourself, then shed as much weight as possible, shit, piss, sweat etc, you can lose a significant amount of weight",
"When I was competing, I cut no more than 7-10 lbs for a fight. A few techniques I used were cutting carbs out of my diet, running with a sauna suit, and sitting in a steam room. Also, I would normally do this over several days up to a week, not one day.\n\nAlso, it's all water weight. Once I made weight, I would fill up on carbs, drink a shake, and maybe some pedialyte that night, and I would be right back where I was by morning.",
"I was with a camera crew that followed around WEC/UFC fighters for a couple days up to the fight and we interviewed them while they were trying to cut. Their corner men do everything for them (bringing them the remote control in their hotel room, carrying their bags, etc) because they aren't eating or drinking (more than *absolutely necessary*) and are understandably weak. In another room we were in, one guy was wrapped in plastics and doing jumping jacks with his people until he gave out, and when he went to the floor, everyone swarmed him, rubbing him so that he still continued to sweat even if he could no longer work out. It was surreal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2syrkm | why can the us postal service be given responsibility for the delivery of our mail, but when it never shows up just say "well we scanned it delivered so you'll have to talk to the seller" and not actually have repercussions? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2syrkm/eli5why_can_the_us_postal_service_be_given/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnu3jr0",
"cnu3nc2"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"If you didn't pay for package insurance, there's not really much they're obligated to do. It's not their job to ensure the physical security of a package once it's delivered unless you've paid for additional services.\n\nThe post office just takes a note of a missing package. If there's a large number of missing packages in a particular area or a suspicious number of missing packages associated with a missing postman, that might trigger an investigation but when they're delivering hundreds of millions of pieces of mail per day, a single missing package is hard for the to justify putting any effort into.\n\nAs for the shipper - it's just the cost of doing business. Insurance & delivery confirmations are cheap - if they don't want to eat the cost of a missing/misdelivered package, they should be paying for extra security.",
"Well, they're not responsible to *you* because they don't have a package to deliver to you. They can't magically make one appear.\n\nThey *are* responsible to the person who shipped the package, if the person who shipped the package paid for mail insurance. But most shippers would rather pay less for mailing and handle the risk of a lost package on their own, so the postal service doesn't provide it by default."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
bup8zr | why is it that people hate waking up even after getting 7-9 hours of sleep? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bup8zr/eli5_why_is_it_that_people_hate_waking_up_even/ | {
"a_id": [
"epfagfj",
"epfb4y4",
"epg6tkg"
],
"score": [
13,
38,
21
],
"text": [
"The whole \"get 8 hours of sleep and you'll be fine\" is a myth(but still a good rule to live by). Genetically, everyone has different sleep needs. Some may feel fine after 5 hours, where some will feel groggy waking up after 9.",
"It depends on what phase you wake up in during your sleep cycle. If you finish your 90 minute sleep cycle and wake up around then, even if it’s only been 3 hours, you won’t feel as tired as of you wake up in the middle of your REM cycle, even if you have already slept 7+ hours. \n\nAlso some people need more sleep than others or are on a different sleep cycle (variations of naps during the day and less time at night)",
"People hate waking up because they dread what is to come that day. I realized that I love waking up after changing careers, and hated waking up when I was stuck at my other job. That is why waking up on the weekend feels better than waking up on a workday."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5hkoob | if energy can't be created or destroyed how can the universe expand at an exponential rate, seeing as the same amount of energy has theoretically existed since the big bang? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hkoob/eli5_if_energy_cant_be_created_or_destroyed_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"db0wetv",
"db10dcl"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"In physics laws of conservation (like the conservation of energy) rely on a fundamental symmetry, which means that if you can transform a property of your physical system while not changing how the system itself works (in smartass terms it's invariant under a transformation), then there's a conserved quantity tied to this invariance. This principle is called [Noether's Theorem](_URL_0_)\n\nThe conservation of energy can be derived from a time invariance of a system. Meaning you can start a process (like dropping a ball) whenever you want and get the same result every time (it drops to the ground), and here's where to problem comes into play.\n\nAn expanding Universe is clearly __not__ time invariant, since you can easily distinguish an earlier state from a later state by the fact that galaxies are further apart. And hence the conservation of energy does not apply to an expanding universe (at least not globally).",
"The expansion of space-time isn't linked to any clear understanding we have of energy because space-time isn't a mass-energy entity in and of itself. Theories and some experiments indicate it contains rapidly created and destroyed pairs of particles and anti-particles for a net-zero energy.\n\nRight now the energy associated to space-time expansion is being called \"dark energy\" the same way \"dark matter\" indicates mass we can detect by influence on other masses but not detect by any additional means (like seeing the object)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem"
],
[]
] |
||
l8lgi | how a turbo works in a car. | Thanks for the responses.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l8lgi/eli5_how_a_turbo_works_in_a_car/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2qnm34",
"c2qnnru",
"c2qntav",
"c2qoa61",
"c2qojwc",
"c2qonwh",
"c2qosvn",
"c2qox0q",
"c2qp0zn",
"c2qpko6",
"c2qnm34",
"c2qnnru",
"c2qntav",
"c2qoa61",
"c2qojwc",
"c2qonwh",
"c2qosvn",
"c2qox0q",
"c2qp0zn",
"c2qpko6"
],
"score": [
12,
78,
192,
7,
2,
3,
2,
2,
31,
3,
12,
78,
192,
7,
2,
3,
2,
2,
31,
3
],
"text": [
"Assuming you know basically how a normal (naturally aspirated) engine works...\n\nA turbo basically has two halves. The two halves share a shaft that is connected to more or less a fancy fan on each side. So this shaft spins freely and is connected to both sides -- if you spin the fan on one side of the turbo, the other fan on the opposite side will also spin.\n\nSo, you connect the the exhaust portion of your turbo to the exhaust of your engine. As your motor revs up and puts more and more exhaust gasses out, the gasses enter the turbo, spin the fan, and exit to the rest of your exhaust system (and out the car). So by spinning the fan on the exhaust side, it also spins the fan on the intake side. So on the intake side this basically creates a vacuum pulling in the air from outside, and forces that air into the intake manifold of your engine. \n\nWhen you have more air going in, you can have more fuel going in -- which translates to more power output from the motor.",
"Turbo is no more than 2 fans connected by an axle.\n\nAs the exhaust gas hits the exhaust fan/impeller, it turns. Very quickly (40,000 rpm).\n\nNow, because the exhaust fan is connected to the intake fan, the latter spins, thus creating pressure. Also called, boost.\n\nHigher pressure means more air particles. Add fuel in the proper ratio, and you're stuffing more combustible in the engine, which means you're getting more torque and power.\n\nIf this were ELI6, I would also point out that turbos generate a lot of heat, and adding intercoolers (between the intake fan and actual intake) helps keep the temperature down, increasing the air density and generally making the engine run better.\n\nAnd ELI7, we'd debate over turbo size, flow, lag and whatnot.",
"To make a car faster, you need to fit as much air as you can into the engine.\n\nA turbo uses the exhaust gas coming out of the engine to spin a little wheel that pushes a lot of air into your engine, much more air than the engine could get by itself.\n\nMore air = more fuel can be burned = more power.",
"Whats the difference between this and a supercharge? ",
"It sounds like something for nothing, like a perpetual motion machine. I found it hard to believe they actually worked, but the magic is in the wasted energy in the exhaust that, when harvested, does not really impede the engine much, and the multiplier effect of that extra oxygen, you get a lot more combustion for not that much compressive force.\n\nStill might be magic.",
"Everyone here is right. If you were wondering about the PSHHHH! when you let of the gas, that's called a blow-off valve. Pressurized air from the turbo is forced through throttle body (and thus, the intake manifold) when you're on the gas pedal, but when you release the pedal the little plate on the throttle body closes and causes pressure to build up inside the pipe. That's when a pressure sensitive valve opens up and releases all that built up air into the engine bay.",
"A turbo: exhaust gasses go into the turbocharger and spin it, witchcraft happens and you go faster.",
"Just to clarify: forcing all that extra air into the engine requires more fuel - petrol, whatever - to stop the mix burning too lean. It's not *free* extra power, by any means. ",
"The fart from ur car spins a fan which give more air for your car to breathe and make more power to fart harder. :D",
"I drive a DSM from my understanding they don't work",
"Assuming you know basically how a normal (naturally aspirated) engine works...\n\nA turbo basically has two halves. The two halves share a shaft that is connected to more or less a fancy fan on each side. So this shaft spins freely and is connected to both sides -- if you spin the fan on one side of the turbo, the other fan on the opposite side will also spin.\n\nSo, you connect the the exhaust portion of your turbo to the exhaust of your engine. As your motor revs up and puts more and more exhaust gasses out, the gasses enter the turbo, spin the fan, and exit to the rest of your exhaust system (and out the car). So by spinning the fan on the exhaust side, it also spins the fan on the intake side. So on the intake side this basically creates a vacuum pulling in the air from outside, and forces that air into the intake manifold of your engine. \n\nWhen you have more air going in, you can have more fuel going in -- which translates to more power output from the motor.",
"Turbo is no more than 2 fans connected by an axle.\n\nAs the exhaust gas hits the exhaust fan/impeller, it turns. Very quickly (40,000 rpm).\n\nNow, because the exhaust fan is connected to the intake fan, the latter spins, thus creating pressure. Also called, boost.\n\nHigher pressure means more air particles. Add fuel in the proper ratio, and you're stuffing more combustible in the engine, which means you're getting more torque and power.\n\nIf this were ELI6, I would also point out that turbos generate a lot of heat, and adding intercoolers (between the intake fan and actual intake) helps keep the temperature down, increasing the air density and generally making the engine run better.\n\nAnd ELI7, we'd debate over turbo size, flow, lag and whatnot.",
"To make a car faster, you need to fit as much air as you can into the engine.\n\nA turbo uses the exhaust gas coming out of the engine to spin a little wheel that pushes a lot of air into your engine, much more air than the engine could get by itself.\n\nMore air = more fuel can be burned = more power.",
"Whats the difference between this and a supercharge? ",
"It sounds like something for nothing, like a perpetual motion machine. I found it hard to believe they actually worked, but the magic is in the wasted energy in the exhaust that, when harvested, does not really impede the engine much, and the multiplier effect of that extra oxygen, you get a lot more combustion for not that much compressive force.\n\nStill might be magic.",
"Everyone here is right. If you were wondering about the PSHHHH! when you let of the gas, that's called a blow-off valve. Pressurized air from the turbo is forced through throttle body (and thus, the intake manifold) when you're on the gas pedal, but when you release the pedal the little plate on the throttle body closes and causes pressure to build up inside the pipe. That's when a pressure sensitive valve opens up and releases all that built up air into the engine bay.",
"A turbo: exhaust gasses go into the turbocharger and spin it, witchcraft happens and you go faster.",
"Just to clarify: forcing all that extra air into the engine requires more fuel - petrol, whatever - to stop the mix burning too lean. It's not *free* extra power, by any means. ",
"The fart from ur car spins a fan which give more air for your car to breathe and make more power to fart harder. :D",
"I drive a DSM from my understanding they don't work"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
50qtjv | why do some books have spiked, uneven page edges opposite the binding, whereas others are flat? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50qtjv/eli5_why_do_some_books_have_spiked_uneven_page/ | {
"a_id": [
"d768ryy",
"d768w5t"
],
"score": [
21,
6
],
"text": [
"This is called a deckled edge. It's a stylistic choice that makes the book seem older. Printing technology used to produce pages with an uneven width by default, but today this only happens as a result of an intentional aesthetic choice.\n\nThink of it as the book equivalent of distressed wood floors or jeans that are manufactured with holes in them.",
"This is called a \"deckle edge\". It's an aesthetic choice by the printer that made that run of books, replicated a past where all books were printed that way. There's some contradictory information about exactly why older books were like that (whether it's because they were printed \"uncut\" versus other reasons) but you can find [one set of ideas here in this old r/books thread.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/jqn72/what_is_the_point_of_deckle_edge_paper_for_books/"
]
] |
||
1ujv8l | the economic and social argument why capitalism is better than all alternatives? | Why is capitalism preferred to all other kinds of ideologies? Economically speaking, is it more prosperous? What about socially and politically?
Can something like communism ever be argued as more economically beneficial than capitalism? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ujv8l/eli5_the_economic_and_social_argument_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceixqic",
"cej4ewn",
"cejgwzd"
],
"score": [
56,
17,
6
],
"text": [
"Well I think a good way to answer this question is to look at those that defend capitalism, and those that defend other economic systems. There are definitely exceptions to the rule, but those who tend to love capitalism, are those that are doing well in it. That's the middle class and up. Those below middle class don't get too much air-time. You can look at the way capitalism works to see why only those two groups might be in favor.\n\n1. Capitalist invests money into starting business by buying the means of production.\n2. Capitalist hires workers at fixed wage.\n3. Workers create surplus.\n4. Capitalist takes surplus, some as profit, some to reinvest in the business, for still more profit.\n\nThe important thing to note here is that the workers are hired at a fixed wage, yet they create a surplus. That means the labor of the workers is worth *more* than they are paid. This means that the labor of the capitalist is worth *less* than they are paid. Repeat this process over a few cycles, and wealth is generated for those that are paid a wage plus profits, or those that are only paid in profits (investors).\n\nSo it's obvious why the upper class would be in favor of this system. It generates wealth through the work of others. The middle class is interesting because they're technically paid a wage, but they're paid just enough to supplement their income through investments. They're kind of in the middle group between the wage labor force, and the capitalists.\n\nIf you ask those that are squarely in the working class, you'll find a lot more varying opinions about capitalism, because they're they people that generate wealth for other people, but receive none themselves.\n\nAnother reason people defend capitalism is that it's been ingrained into American culture through Cold War propaganda and what not. Look at any /r/AskReddit thread with a title that says \"What works great in theory but not IRL\", and the top answer is usually \"Communism\". Ask them why and they'll probably say something along the lines of \"human nature\", ask them to clarify that, and you won't get an answer. Most people can't even define the words or systems, they're just taught from a young age to reject anything that isn't good ol' American Capitalism.\n\nIf it's not painfully obvious to you, I don't think capitalism is the best system, but I can explain why some people think it is.",
"[The myth of capitalism debunked in 5 seconds]( _URL_0_)",
"Capitalism is a circlejerk based doomsday device. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJLaRhTKzw8#t=1m22s"
],
[]
] |
|
2fky5q | - why do i keep hearing the same scream of a man dying in films? ive heard it so many times. | Is there some secret reason the same sound bite is always used? Seen in the likes of kill bill and Star Wars | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fky5q/eli5_why_do_i_keep_hearing_the_same_scream_of_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cka7x34",
"cka7xwj"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"It's called the [Wilhelm Scream](_URL_0_). The first clip in the video is the original.\n\nIt's kind of a tradition.",
"You're probably hearing the [Wilhelm Scream](_URL_0_).\n\nIt's a stock sound effect, but also one so used that at this point it is actually used explicitly because of its relative notoriety. Sort of a tongue-in-cheek bit. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://youtu.be/cdbYsoEasio"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_scream"
]
] |
|
20kicl | why can't aircraft flight data be stored online, like the icloud? | Could all the data recorded on the blackbox not be stored online? This would eliminate the risk of not finding it/ it being damaged. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20kicl/eli5_why_cant_aircraft_flight_data_be_stored/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg44nby"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It can, but have your forgotten that \"the cloud\" and \"data anytime, anywhere\" is actually a pretty recent thing?\n\nUntil someone makes it law, or planes start to disappear more regularly, there's no incentive for anyone to spend the money to make it happen."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3w559z | humans having unprotected sex can very easily contract stds. wild animals on the other hand always have unprotected sex and ive never heard of an std epidemic. why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w559z/eli5_humans_having_unprotected_sex_can_very/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxtg5ga",
"cxtg5y8",
"cxtg97l"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Check out Koala chlamydia. It's actually a really big problem with them; it has been in the news not so long ago.",
"Because people generally aren't very concerned with animal STDs and you aren't a veterinarian or zoologist so you've never looked into the subject.\n\nAnimal STDs do exist.",
"Because you're not looking in the right places.\n\nThe Koala population has declined markedly in the last decade and Chlamydia is believed to be at least partly responsible. Infection rates may exceed 90% in some populations and it often renders them infertile.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
94lj37 | the difference between chemical and biological weapons | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/94lj37/eli5_the_difference_between_chemical_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"e3lw793"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"In basic terms, bioweapons are just living things used as weapons (or close to living, since there is some debate as to whether or not viruses are truly alive). So, bacteria, fungus, viruses, insects even, all count as bioweapons if they're being used to attack somebody. They don't necessarily have to be infectious or spread, they just have to be alive (or a virus).\n\nChemical weapons use chemicals with toxic properties. They're different from bioweapons because they're not alive, and they're different from conventional weapons because the chemicals in question are used for their toxicity, not because they explode or whatever."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8l185q | what is the difference between anglicanism and catholicism? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8l185q/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_anglicanism/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzc37s2",
"dzczx43"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"The Head of the Church of England is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.\n\nThe Head of the Catholic Church is His Holiness Pope Francis.",
"Worth mentioning that the Anglican Church is a subset of the Protestant branch of Christianity, other forms of Protestant Christianity are available and all share the single biggest difference, which is that the Pope is not considered to be God’s appointed head of Christianity on Earth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6nxhhr | why is it that when you ask someone to guess a number there's a high possibility it will be 7? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nxhhr/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_you_ask_someone_to_guess/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkczw7u"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"This is an interesting quirk of human psychology. Humans don't pick things at random, but they will try to. You end up with a weird situation when they pick the most 'random looking' number. Here's the general thought process:\n\n* Pick a number at random between 1 and 10\n\n* 1 is out, that's the lowest it's not random\n\n* 10 is out, that's the highest it's not random\n\n* 2 is out, and so are all the even numbers, they don't look random enough\n\n* 5 is out, that's exactly half way, definitely not random\n\n* 9 is out, it's three times three, totally not random\n\n* 3 is out, it divides 9 exactly, not random enough\n\n* 7 is most random. It's not even, it's not exactly half way, neither the biggest nor the smallest and isn't related to 9 or 3 in any way.\n\n[Here's a poll that backs up that seven is the most random.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/449086/results"
]
] |
||
5j2vnp | why is there a social stigma against prostitution and similar professions? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j2vnp/eli5_why_is_there_a_social_stigma_against/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbcx89g",
"dbcx8l7",
"dbd29qm",
"dbd30qf",
"dbd48bk"
],
"score": [
7,
65,
38,
58,
42
],
"text": [
"because of religious roots. back in the day, pretty much everyone was one religion or another. only recently have people been more uncaring for organized religion. ",
"Before birth control it was a profession that led to the creation of bastard children that society doesn't want to deal with. ",
"Sexually transmitted disease. \n\n\n\n\nThe stigma was established at a time when syphilis was a death sentence for women and especially for newly born children. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nThere's no reason to perpetuate the stigma now though since sanitation and disease management are well established fields. But, it's a difficult topic to debate in public and religious fundamentalists won't let the law change. ",
"I know the real answer to this, but you're not going to like it.\n\nTraditionally men took care of women, that is, a man would marry a woman, and he would hunt, or farm, or work, whichever was appropriate to the timeframe and region, and in exchange for this, the woman would do domestic work and raise the children. \n\nWhen you have women who are willing to have sex with men outside of marriage, you disrupt that social order. If men can get laid without entering into this social agreement, that means many men won't want to get married and support a wife and kids. \n\nThat leaves unmarried women who traditionally were not allowed to work or own property with no one to take care of them. The reason why prostitution was illegal and other women \"shamed sluts\" was to keep the social order. \n\nNow that women can have jobs and use birth control, views are beginning to change, that's why we now have things like Tender and Netflix and chill.",
"Historically, virgin females had a high social worth, but had to repress their desires to keep it. With higher social worth came elevated status, and those that are socially elevated naturally came to look down upon and despise those below them. Women that sold their bodies for money were seen as the most worthless by those that didn't, and by keeping it this way, ensured that their high worth was maintained. We continue to see this today with \"slut shaming\" and other forms of social stigma to maintain high perceived social worth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a6h6by | why we still need to do the whole "left eye/right eye, option 1 or option 2" when getting glasses? why isn't there a machine that can test this just by looking at our eyes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6h6by/eli5_why_we_still_need_to_do_the_whole_left/ | {
"a_id": [
"eburv4x",
"ebus1kq",
"ebv8w6s",
"ebwnj4a"
],
"score": [
14,
92,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are now. My optometrist has a “pre-test” that gives a ballpark range to the classic machine they put on you. So instead of an unending series of better or worse, you read a line and have one or two corrections. ",
"Vision is a really subjective experience, affected by many factors including the exact shape of lots of different parts of the eye. You've got two choices:\n\n 1. Get a complicated, expensive machine that gives you an OK pair of glasses; or\n 2. Buy a simple, comparatively cheap set of lenses, and check to see what lenses make it easier and harder to see until you've got a great pair of glasses.\n\nI know which I'd choose.",
"There is such a machine, which is the start, it measures how light passes through the eyes.\n\nHowever, sight isn't just the eyes, they need to get positioned by ocular muscles, then what You see is transmitted to the brain and only then can one see it.\n\nImagine You have perfect eyes but a minor obstacle on the way to the brain. Perfext machine result, not so perfect objective result.",
"Machinery can only calculate what is going on based on the shape and measurements of your eyes, how your brain has developed to attempt to self-correct isn’t predictable by machinery and so one or another method of correction will be better than the other. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4cklt8 | why does city construction take so long? it seems like there are 100 projects that each get 10 guys. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cklt8/eli5_why_does_city_construction_take_so_long_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1iziu4",
"d1izptk",
"d1j14in"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on the project, but in general there is a lot more going on than you notice. Like for example there was a recent building built in my area. For the first 3 months or so it looked like almost nothing was really being done when in reality they where getting the foundation exactly perfect witch is 100% important for the rest of the building. Even if they where off by a slight calculation it would screw up the entire rest of the building. Adding huge costs and delays. Then for the next three week they where letting things like concrete set, staging everything, and waiting on specific machines and materials from some places that could be coming from up to 1,000 miles away. Then it was all hands on deck but you can only do certain things in certain orders, like you do not want to be craning steel beams to the 4th floor while there are windows in the first. ",
"There is also Occupational Health and Safety. You can't rush things. You don't want bits of metal or panes of glass falling on pedestrians below.",
"In every construction project, every large piece of equipment requires a user and someone to oversee it. I don't know how this applies to smaller equipment like jackhammers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
29f873 | how close are we to stopping dementia/similar afflictions? are there any measures that can be taken to prevent them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29f873/eli5_how_close_are_we_to_stopping_dementiasimilar/ | {
"a_id": [
"cikd41i",
"cike25s"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"you asked the same question yesterday...",
"I believe that there is a lot of potentially very significant research underway that will offer hope to people with these conditions in the not too distant future, but they are sufficiently far off that there is still a lot of ground to cover. \n\nThe human brain is the most complex structure known to us in the universe, and hence implementing things to maintain or fix it are far from trivial.\n\nI have included a link below to an article that covers an example of where we are with treating these sort of issues:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alzheimers-treatment-breakthrough-british-scientists-pave-way-for-simple-pill-to-cure-disease-8869716.html"
]
] |
||
a7g1qn | how does constantly pressurized compressed air not build up too much pressure and cause a pipe or hose to burst when a valve is closed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7g1qn/eli5_how_does_constantly_pressurized_compressed/ | {
"a_id": [
"ec2oe2p",
"ec2oo0s"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"I would think in most applications it is pressurized to a certain level that the containment vessel is capable of handling, not simply continuously increasing in pressure indefinitely, since that certainly can rupture the vessel. ",
"The pressure doesn't keep increasing. It's pressurized to a certain level and stays there. Just as a balloon can *hold* pressure for days without the pressure increasing and bursting it.\n\n*Edit:* Or how a heavy book on a shelf doesn't press harder and harder until it breaks the shelf. The pressure has stabilized."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.