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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3yqyi2 | if we want to increase the value of a currency, why don't we just stop printing that currency? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yqyi2/eli5if_we_want_to_increase_the_value_of_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyfumsj",
"cyfuon7",
"cyfupef",
"cyfurqk"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
10,
6
],
"text": [
"We don't want to just increase the value of currency we want a stable currency. We do not want run away inflation or deflation. Both can cause major issues to an economy. ",
"increasing value of currency is called deflation, its detrimental to the economy because it deters spending. Imagine if your money was continually becoming more valuable, would you spend or save?\n\nAnd if you save... prices drop because of high supply and low demand. So you save even harder, and before long the whole machine grinds to a halt.",
"The amount of physical currency in circulation is pretty small compared to the amount of non-physical currency\n\nPrinting currency is really about keeping an adequate supply of it in the marketplace, bills and currency run out, get destroyed, etc. And with a bit of inflation every year, we always need more currency. Stopping it, just isn't a good solution to changing much of anything about the value and will just mess with the practical aspects of using currency.",
"Because deflation hurts the economy. It makes people want to not spend their money in hopes that it will be worth more the next day. This drives the economy down which turns into a feedback loop of people not spending money, prices dropping to spur demand, and people losing their jobs. [TED](_URL_0_) has a video explaining it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/XNu5ppFZbHo?t=1m50s"
]
] |
||
5xdl6x | what happens if i do not tip in the us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xdl6x/eli5_what_happens_if_i_do_not_tip_in_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"deh894d",
"deh8b3g"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Nothing. If they provide horrible service. Then don't tip. It's not a requirement to leave gratuity.",
"Nothing will happen to you, except you'll look like a jackass.\n\nThe server however will be going home with less money than they deserve, assuming they gave you good service.\n\nSide note: 20%, not 15% ;)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4muq3m | why aren't jobs generally rewarded based on their required effort? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4muq3m/eli5_why_arent_jobs_generally_rewarded_based_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3yfybl",
"d3yg4ye",
"d3ygp0i"
],
"score": [
11,
5,
18
],
"text": [
"Jobs are rewarded based on supply and demand.\n\nAn unpleasant job that doesn't add much value will pay higher than a more pleasant one that adds a similar amount of value. However, the CEO of a company creates a lot more value for the organization than the guy cleaning the bathrooms. Even though the latter is less pleasant, the CEO can clearly demand more money out of the organization.",
"First and foremost is skill.\n\nAny idiot can take out the trash. Hence why no one wants to. So you might get a little bump in pay if really no one is available to do it, but fortunately there are enough unskilled people in this world that people will line up every day to take out the trash.\n\nThis sums up pretty much every low wage job.\n\nHigher paying jobs require a lot more skill, even if they'd be things that some people would do for free. This skill requires investment of one's self in a craft, tools of the trade, and knowledge. You get paid more when you yourself are a tool of production (e.g. a developer), slightly less if you're a highly skilled maintainer (e.g. a security engineer) and even less if you're unskilled (dude who replaces mice and keyboards in an office).\n\nThe CEO's skills are networking, planning, vision... and failing, at least as of late. It takes a lot more discussion to explain the outrageous pay of the C-Class, but from everyone else down it's pretty self explanatory:\n\nAvailability of talent + skill/knowledge required = pay\n\nMaking Tacos? High availability, low skill needed = shit pay.\n\nManaging networks? Medium-low availability, high skill needed = Good pay\n\nHealing people (doctors)? Low availability, very high skill needed = You get a BMW!",
"I used to feel this way, but as I've progressed through the career ladder of my life, from factory machinist -- > factory floor supervisor -- > office sales -- > graphic designer -- > art director -- > visual department director, I've come to realize that pay is (in most cases but obviously not all) more accurately described as allocated based on level of *responsibility*. In ELI5 terms, generally the more your neck is on the line, the more you earn. \n\nMy job now certainly looks pleasant from an outside perspective - got my own office, benefits, decent wage etc. - but there are definitely times I pine for the simplicity of the old factory machinist position where all I had to do was show up and stand on the end of a line all night long. There's something to be said for the jobs that are lower stress for sure - I had far less gray hairs and sleepless nights in the factory than I do today. Of course it's rarely ever fair though... If I ran the world teachers, soldiers and nurses would be the ones driving Mercedes, not executives."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3352sm | why do so many americans take prescription drugs? | According to the [CDC website](_URL_0_) nearly 50% of adults take at least one form of prescription medication. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3352sm/eli5why_do_so_many_americans_take_prescription/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqhlg98"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Because most prescription medications improve quality of life, and the people taking them can afford to do so."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drug-use-therapeutic.htm"
] | [
[]
] |
|
17k5r3 | how can nerves be reconnected, but not repaired? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17k5r3/how_can_nerves_be_reconnected_but_not_repaired/ | {
"a_id": [
"c86akjl",
"c86bd9q",
"c86cncv"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's like a wire. You can kinda *splice* the nerves back together, but you can't run new wire to places where the old stuff died.\n\nBut, you say, nerves are so complex! How do they put them back together exactly right?\n\nThey actually don't. The brain just re-learns what the input means. ",
"Wish I knew... my balance nerve in one ear is dead and I get vertigo all the time. :( ",
"They can be sort of repaired. When my peroneal nerve was severed, there was about an inch gap between the two nerve ends, which they bridged with a section of nerve tissue from my left ankle. Nothing has come of it yet (it's considered a hail Mary procedure...) but I'm told that the healthy nerve will use the dead tissue as a sort of map to tell it where to grow. Hope that helps!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
84utya | why is toys r us the company responsible for the debt required to buy itself out? | So the way I understand how buyouts work a person or group of people buy up all the available shares of a company so that it's no longer publicly traded. What I don't understand is why Toys R Us is responsible for the money spent in the 2005 deal by outside investors to buy itself. It seems a little strange to me that the company that was bought out is responsible for the debt used to buy itself. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/84utya/eli5_why_is_toys_r_us_the_company_responsible_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvsjhgd",
"dvsm4wb"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"That's how leverages buy outs work. The debt is on the company and secured by the assets of the company. Rates are higher but lower risk for investors since they are limited to losing their equity investment. ",
"Because the old management team agrees to sell the company to the new management team. This is known as a 'friendly' deal. The new management team, who are technically 'employees' of the private equity team, arrange for the debt too be paid by the cash flows of the company. \n\nELI5: your dad owns a restaurant that produces $1000 of profit per month. Your dad sells it to a friend. That friend goes to a bank and says, \"I'm buying a restaurant and I need a loan. I will pay you $750/mo and that cash will come out of the profits of the restaurant.\" The bank says, \"OK, we have looked at the finances of the restaurant and we think this is a good deal. Here's the money. ***HOWEVER***, if you can't pay the loan, we are going to take the restaurant from you and sell it at a bankruptcy auction.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
255cfu | what happens if someone is bit by a coral snake in the united states? | I understand that there is no more production of Coral Snake anti-venom in the United States, what is the standard procedure for Coral Snake bites? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/255cfu/eli5what_happens_if_someone_is_bit_by_a_coral/ | {
"a_id": [
"chduavo",
"chdufhk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There hasn't been production of any coral snake antivenin for over ten years, and supplies are dwindling. I think the standard procedure is to use what little remains in inventory.\n\nWhat happens after those run out is anybody's guess.",
"These days, I think you just die. Sadly, pharmaceutical companies don't make any money on coral snake anti-venom. It's very expensive to make and there are only ~25 cases a year, so there is also very little demand."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
65dq28 | is there any way to test a nuclear weapon without without being detected? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65dq28/eli5_is_there_any_way_to_test_a_nuclear_weapon/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg9eut1",
"dg9f72o",
"dg9fya3"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"You can detect a nuclear explosion with a seismograph, even if you had a magic nuke that didn't release incredible amounts of light and heat visible to every satellite in the area.",
"Not that is publicly known of. Underground explosions create seismic waves, explosions in air create light flashes and blast waves and release radioactivity, explosions in space create light flashes. All those can be detected.\n\nIf any state has a way to do an undetectable nuclear test, which is very unlikely, they've kept it secret.",
"There are \"Deep Nuclear Explosions\" which are very deep underwater ( < 2,000 ft underwater). At that depth there's nothing visible on the surface. The huge gas cloud from the explosion dissipates at that depth, so there's nothing visible on the surface. It leaves no trace at the surface but hot, radioactive water rising from below. This leaves a small patch of evidence in a massive ocean. Can be very hard to detect."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fh107x | when light passes through a transparent object, do the photos simply pass between the atoms or are they absorbed by the atoms and re-emitted? | When it comes to light passing through objects I wasnt sure if the light actually passes between the atoms or if it is absorbed by the atoms and is then emitted by the atoms in sequence until its passes through it entirely. Why else would lights speed slow in various mediums?
Similarly, when light is reflected, are the photons actually bouncing off the atoms, or are they being absorbed and emitted back at the same angle?
If they are, why do atoms shoot the photons off at the same angle opposed to a random one? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fh107x/eli5_when_light_passes_through_a_transparent/ | {
"a_id": [
"fk85u79"
],
"score": [
47
],
"text": [
"So, it's sorta pretty weird. We have to remember that light is also a wave, and the way it travels through matter is wave-like more than it is particle light.\n\nIf you aren't familiar, waves obey the property of superposition - that is that the height of two interacting waves at any given point in space is literally the sum of the heights of the two contributing waves at that point in space.\n\nSo, light is a wave in the electromagnetic spectrum. It has a speed and it has a wavelength.\n\nWhen this wave interacts with matter, the changing electromagnetic field causes the electrons in matter to begin oscillating back and forth.\n\nWell, oscillating charged particles produce their own electromagnetic field. This electromagnetic field interacts with the electromagnetic field of the incoming light.\n\nBy superposition, these two waves are added together. The result is... sorta not intuitive. What you end up with is a changing electromagnetic field that travels at a speed that is neither the speed of light nor the speed of the electrons. Please watch [This Video](_URL_1_) for a visual understanding of how that is possible. \n\n[Here is a video](_URL_0_) that gives the more detailed explanation of the question you are asking. The first video is geared towards a visual understanding, the second video is geared towards an actual explanation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUjt36SD3h8",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIqKG5TiSYs&t=6s"
]
] |
|
2yzcxi | why do some transactions process in half a second, and others take 3 days? | It drives me fucking nuts sometimes that I'll wake up on Monday morning and there's $200 less in my bank account than I thought. I'll go back through my bank account and there will be a bill I paid on thursday last week that just processed. On the other hand, I filled up my car on sunday and that appeared immediately.
Here's the part that **really** confuses me. I can pay a phone bill online using my card and it will inform me it takes a full 24 hours to process. I check my bank account and my bank account has deducted the money instantly, but when I check my phone bill online it hasn't deducted the money. On the other hand, I top up my public transport card and I can use that topped up money straight away, but it hasn't been deducted from my bank account.
This is the digital age, why doesn't this all work pretty much the same? :/ | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yzcxi/eli5_why_do_some_transactions_process_in_half_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpex8yb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"How banks work. What's easier. Bank A: Send me $2.37 for Joes purchase. Bank B: send me $3.5 for Bibs purchase. Thousands of times a second. \n\nOr\n\n\nEnd of day: Bank A: Your clients owe me 3 billion. Bank B: your clients owe me 2 billion, so I'll just give you 1 billion"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
euaqe8 | why does earth have no ring even after exterior body colliding with earth and launching all the debris in space? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/euaqe8/eli5_why_does_earth_have_no_ring_even_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffnlktk"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"rings around a planet are really unstable, stuff too close could probably burn up and stuff too far would clump together and make something bigger. The earth probably had a ring when something crashed into it. The 4 gas giants have rings but those are mostly made of ice and ice would melt if it was in orbit around earth. \n\nYou can look up the Roche limit or Roche radius. This fine line around a body is where things break up because of the tidal forces acting on something orbiting that body.\n\nTo explain this, gravity around a body has an exponential inverse graph. So it starts off very high and dramatically reduces the further away you go from a body.\n\nThe Roche limit is where that curve slopes down the fastest (kinda). So it's the part of the curve where you see the most *curve*. [Something like the graph here](_URL_0_)\n\nYou can see that at that point, a tiny increase in distance results in a dramatic drop in gravity. So take for example the moon. The moon is currently far enough away so that it stays in orbit and doeant fly away from earth. But what if it was at that point on the graph? \n\nOne end of the moon would have a very strong gravity acting on it and the other end would have very little gravity and more tendency to fly away from earth. So what happens? The moon would stretch apart and break into lots of pieces. \n\nTwo things will happen after that, the pieces at the Roche limit and below will stay there and form that ring and continue to orbit earth and the pieces past the Roche limit will coalesce again and make another moon. \n\nWhen pieces are too small, the tidal forces at the Roche limit won't really have an effect on them because they are too small. \n\nSo what most likely happened when something hit earth, was that it flew far away from the earth and the little gravitational pull from each of these small pieces come and pull each other together to form the moon which is how things in space coalesce. The moon is said to be much closer to earth millions of years ago than it was today. So it most likely just picked up whatever rubble it came across on its journey away from earth. And things close to earth were a negligible amount and most like burned up in the atmosphere at some point or just the effects of the sun being a deadly lazer"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/yba/M31_velocity/lightcurve/gravity_example.html"
]
] |
||
97kflt | can someone explains what happens to meteors and meterorites? | I know the difference between the two is that the former is burned in the air whereas the latter hits Earth, but what exactly happens to them? As they burn up, they get smaller, but what happens to that burnt up debris? Does it get scattered in the atmosphere; if it does, is it subject to some aerosol osmosis thing? For the small bits that do hit the Earth, does it dig itself underground at the impact site? If it hits ocean water, what happens to the hot parts; does it diffuse out or immediately evaporate until the less hot parts are left to sink? Would a large meteorite still be large after an ocean impact, or would it be shattered?
What happens to meteors and meteorites? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/97kflt/eli5_can_someone_explains_what_happens_to_meteors/ | {
"a_id": [
"e48utub",
"e48v3g7"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"You basically got it right, most small ones burn up and become dust in the atmosphere, some of which does aerosolize. I always recommend _URL_0_ if you want to see how PM2.5 spreads out across the planet.\n\nThe larger ones that actually make it to the ground (which is really rare) are mostly recovered in this day and age, they don't dig themselves too far underground, the top soil will be thrown clear.\n\nIf it hits the ocean it cools quickly then sinks, hitting the water at high speed is not that different from hitting concrete, so if it were to break it would likely break, but could be strong enough to survive.",
"Small ones that survive the trip slow down enough that they land like any rock. They may shatter, or plunk down in one piece if they're sturdy enough.\n\nBigger ones don't lose much speed and carve out craters if they hit land. Most of them fall in the oceans, where they sink to the bottom.\n\nThey're really not that hot when they land, the outside is scalded from the ride but the inside is deep-space cold.\n\nYou can find the small ones laying around if you're lucky. They have distictive smooth and blackened exteriors that look different from generic rocks. Some have enough iron to stick to magnets.\n\nThe ones that get pulverized in the atmosphere just sprinkle down as a fine dust, along with all the other pollen and dirt that covers everything."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"earth.nullschool.net"
],
[]
] |
|
2kfecl | why do high school and college football teams have marching bands, but nfl and other sports don't? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2kfecl/eli5_why_do_high_school_and_college_football/ | {
"a_id": [
"clksnif",
"clkt1fv",
"clkvwio"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The Ravens still have a band, but its not common. It's a tradition for Baltimore, after the Colts left the band stayed behind and represented the cities passion for the football team. When the Ravens came they kept up the tradition.",
"High school and college students are willing to spend 15+ hours a week for no pay practicing and rehearsing. I couldn't imagine the NFL moving any of their precious funds towards having bands.",
"Because those teams belong to schools, and schools have music programs. The NFL does not contain any music schools."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7zan5a | why do large airports all seem to have news station branded convenience stores, and why do these types of stores seem limited to airports? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7zan5a/eli5_why_do_large_airports_all_seem_to_have_news/ | {
"a_id": [
"duml0bk"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Some years ago, Hudson News became a chain if newsstands in airports selling magazines, newspapers, and the like. They expanded to become convenience stores.\n\nSo their top competitor decided to copy the \"news\" theme and made a deal with CNBC.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://tedium.co/2016/08/16/airport-stores-named-after-tv-networks/"
]
] |
|
2ts96f | why is it common for american houses to have issues with carbon monoxide? | As long as I know in Europe it isn't an issue except for indoor car parks, garages etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ts96f/eli5_why_is_it_common_for_american_houses_to_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"co1v5ew",
"co1vjsu"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It is common for American houses to have natural gas furnaces, water heaters, ranges and ovens. If you have any of those in your home in Europe you are equally at risk. ",
"I do not think that carbon monoxide issues are all that common in America. although, on occasion you will hear about an unintentional poisoning and subsequent death(s). The problem with carbon monoxide is that it is odorless and will put a person to sleep and then effectively suffocate them. Yes, you can shut your self in a garage (car park) and leave your car running and you may kill yourself. The real danger and concern is a in-house heater or possibly water heater, while in use, leaking carbon monoxide into the living environment and being odorless, going undetected and killing everyone in the environment. We have carbon monoxide detectors specifically for this purpose. Older homes, (plus 30 years) with older equipment are the most concerning."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
33ylyt | why don't they enclose prisoner cells within a faraday cage? | With how big and serious of a problem prison cell phone use can be: why have we not shielded prison cells (only cells, not the whole prison) from incoming and outgoing cell phone frequencies? It would save lives of many people and disrupt criminal money flow and operations on the outside. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33ylyt/eli5_why_dont_they_enclose_prisoner_cells_within/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqpkqhu"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Some prisons have been known to use jammers to prevent cell-phone use, and that's a huge amount cheaper and easier than is faraday caging the whole area.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1e064e | why do stadiums cost much more to build today than they did ten years ago? | According to [this page](_URL_0_) when M & T Bank Stadium was built in 1998, it cost $226 million while MetLife Stadium cost $1.6 billion in 2009. Sun Life Stadium's (planned and rejected) renovations were even slated to cost $350 million. What is the reason for the drastic increases in costs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e064e/eli5_why_do_stadiums_cost_much_more_to_build/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9viqzd"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Partially inflation and partially they just get bigger and fancier and it's kind of a competition to have the most kick ass stadium that they spend more and more money.\n\nEdit: taking a shot at the repair remark, you didn't mention what kind of repairs. You might be thinking that some seats maybe some wall stuff but what if it's something major? Think of it like a car. It might cost me a few hundred to get new tires, paint job, new seats. Nothing too serious, so cheap. Now imagine that I need to overhaul the whole engine, frame, transmission, and while I'm there I'm going to add in the cosmetic changes. And I want it done FAST. Whole different beast. That's another factor: speed. You need it done good and fast. So it won't be cheap. Every week your stadium is under construction is a week you're not making money, hell you're losing money. Better to drop that amount and have it done in the off season then let them work slow and have it run into the money-making season. \n\nSpecial equipment, safety checks, construction completion bonuses. There's so much to it that's it not hard to imagine it getting that high that quick. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://prod.static.vikings.clubs.nfl.com/assets/docs/stadium/DES-recent-nfl-stadiums.pdf"
] | [
[]
] |
|
sk2a9 | why does good food taste bad and bad food taste good? (bonus for asking it like a 5 year old?) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sk2a9/eli5_why_does_good_food_taste_bad_and_bad_food/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4emvfn",
"c4en3dp"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Because our brains evolved during times when there was less food.\n\nNow we use hi-tech methods to make a truck-load of anything we want to eat.\n\nSo the same mechanisms that make us want to eat more of less available stuff, makes us eat more of abundantly available substances.\n\nMore of any food is bad. Therefore good food tastes bad, and bad food tastes good.",
"Food with lots of energy that are easy to digest (carbohydrates like table sugar, and fat) were the best food sources when food is scarce. Animals evolved to like these food sources: animals that thought these foods tasted good ate more of it, had more energy to outlive famine and able to produce more babies, thus they outnumbered and eventually became to be the majority of animals.\n\nOnce humans invented agriculture and especially after the industrial revolution when it became cheap and easy to make food, it is easy to find sugary, fatty foods. Evolution took a long time, so it is hard to change what we naturally like over decades or centuries.\n\nAlso, your preference for foods depends on your upbringing; some people really like certain foods because they grew up eating it. If your family ate lots of vegetables, you probably like vegetables more than the average person."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
54yt7e | why do all trucks' wheel assemblies stick out on front tires, but don't on rear tires? | Whether you are talking about [dump trucks](_URL_3_), [18-wheelers](_URL_2_), [box trucks](_URL_1_), or [other work trucks](_URL_0_), it seems that all of them have wheel hub assemblies that stick out from the tire in the front and don't in the back.
Why is there this difference? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54yt7e/eli5why_do_all_trucks_wheel_assemblies_stick_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"d863fze"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's so they can use the same size lugs on the front and back.\n\nThe ones on the back need to be long enough to accommodate two sets of wheels. The front only has one set, so they stick out "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.mheby.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/grain-truck.png",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Isuzu_box_truck.jpg",
"http://www.18wheelertruckandtrailer.com/siteart/truck1.jpg",
"http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2012/04/2012-Ford-F-650-Dump-Truck-rear-view-up.jpg"
] | [
[]
] |
|
2cvu1j | why do i keep hearing that obama doesn't follow the constitution? what exactly is he doing that is unconstitutional? | UPDATE: I now get the basic premise. Thank you, everyone. However, this has also confused me as to how many politics in America work (or don't in some cases). I'm so glad I have marketable talents and education in other areas, 'cause I'd never make it in politics. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cvu1j/eli5_why_do_i_keep_hearing_that_obama_doesnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjjhv9v",
"cjjhx9m",
"cjjj2b9",
"cjjkh8h",
"cjjlmjr",
"cjjo1m5",
"cjjt5jf",
"cjjyr5a"
],
"score": [
5,
51,
14,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"He has used a device known as the \"executive order\" to create policy and law without congressional approval. According to the Constitution, Congress drafts and votes on laws with the President having power to veto or sign the bill into law. Executive order has been used at times by many Presidents but it is never mentioned in the Constitution.\n\nObama is not unique in using the executive order to quickly enact law or circumvent an unwilling Congress. Throughout the 20th century and up to now, the role of the President has been constantly expanding. The President does *far* more now than he ever did historically.\n\nI think the lawsuit is interesting because it challenges the limits of executive orders and the expanding role of the President outside the Constitutionally granted powers. That said, there's so much posturing, gimmicks and gamesmanship from both political parties that this is little more than a stunt leading up to the November midterm elections.",
"You keep hearing about it because it's an inflammatory type of thing that gets voters outraged, in a climate where most people get their news from sources that rely on inflammatory content for ratings.\n\nObama has issued a number of executive orders, and the argument is that some of these executive orders violate the Constitutionally-mandated balance of powers between the legislative and executive branch. \n\nWhether this is true or not is very murky indeed, in part because executive orders themselves do not have very clearly delineated boundaries.",
"I wouldn't say that it's necessarily unique to Obama, but a couple examples I can think of off the top of my head:\n\n* Continuation of domestic spying programs violates the 4th amendment. It's the NSA/Snowden scandal. Basically, any individual is supposed to have a warrant against them in order to have their phone records, emails, etc. searched, but instead the government has been doing it in mass without warrants.\n\n* Drone striking American citizens, in violation of the 6th amendment. Obama ordered drone strikes to assassinate a couple of terror suspects, including a teenager, in Yemen, who were all American citizens. According to the 6th amendment, they were entitled to a trial, which they were not given. Oddly enough, I've found that conservatives I know who criticize Obama are largely okay with this.\n\n* People are always screaming about how Obama is going to enact anti-gun legislation in violation of the second amendment, but I can't think of anything specifically that he's done on that from.",
"First of, this is a political issue that is heavily debated by Liberals and Conservatives. You're not going to get a simple answer here.\n\nThe short answer is that he hasn't. What is referenced is his use of executive action to pass legislation without congress. What this means is that he is using a power granted to him by the rest of the government to push his administrations agenda. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is another discussion, but the important thing is that certain Conservatives are calling this an abuse of power, and calling for impeachment.\nImpeachment is the process by which the president is tried for abuse of power and doing things that harm the country.\n\nWhat is important here is the the President is using a completely legal action, and hasn't done anything to actually harm the nation or even prove him an ineffective leader. In addition, he (183) hasn't even used this power as much as his predecessor, George Bush (291), and in fact is the third to last in amount of Executive Orders since President William McKinley in 1897. In comparison, Reagan made 381, Clinton made 364, and FDR made 3,522 (nope, not a typo).\n\nThose who say he violated the Constitution are doing so either out of being misinformed or for political reasons.\n\nTl;Dr: He hasn't, its a political maneuver by Republicans in the GOP.\n\nedit:spacing",
"Allowing and expanding 4th Amendment violations.\n\nOrdering drone strikes on American citizens, one of which was not even a \"suspected terrorist\".\n\nIndefinite detention of American citizens without trial.\n\nThe ACA which orders people to engage in commerce.\n\n",
"One argument is that he is violating the Constitutional provision that the president must \"take care that the laws be faithfully executed\" by delaying the implementation of several parts of the Obamacare legislation.\n\n\n[The Economist](_URL_0_) has a pretty good discussion of this argument and the associated lawsuit.\n\n\nI think most people would agree that the executive branch can't possibly enforce every law on everyone, simply due to limited resources. The DEA can't bust every drug smuggler, so they must concentrate on certain suspects or certain types of violations. On the other hand, if a president just arbitrarily picks and chooses what laws to enforce based his opinions on policy (\"I don't agree with this law, so I won't enforce it\") or politics (\"enforcing this law now would be bad for my administration and/or my party, so I won't\"), is he failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed?",
"As Jon Stewart pointed out. If you're choosing to NOT impeach someone because of how it may affect your upcoming mid-term elections, that person is, by definition, NOT a tyrant (or doing anything unconstitutional).\n\n_URL_0_",
"[Here](_URL_0_) is the list of Executive Orders that Obama has issued.\n\n[Here](_URL_1_) is George W. Bush list of Executive Orders.\n\nTake a look at the differences (there are not much btw). But like others have stated, most Executive Orders are issued to agencies that are under the power of the US President where congress gave regulatory leeway.\n\nIn the ACA there were no \"Regulatory Leeway's\" put into the implementation dates.\nCongress put forth a second law (after the Republicans took power) to delay the whole act. This was vetoed by the President. Who then went on to implement portions of it via the \"Executive Order\".\n\nThe US Constitution only gives the President power over Regulatory Branches and veto power of the law passed by congress. He is not given the power of Line Item Veto (after the fact).\n\nTo look at it deeper, President Obama delayed a Tax Law (only congress has that power) as stated by the SCOTUS. This is the highly unconstitutional thing that he has done. The House of Representative is the only branch that has the \"Power to Tax\".\n\n > Several Constitutional provisions address the taxation and spending authority of Congress. These include both requirements for the apportionment of direct taxes and the uniformity of indirect taxes, the origination of revenue bills within the House of Representatives, the disallowal of taxes on exports, the General Welfare requirement, the limitation on the release of funds from the treasury except as provided by law, and the apportionment exemption of the Sixteenth Amendment.\n\nEssentially, when President Obama delayed the Tax Penalty (Mandate on Business or pay a Tax) he usurped the power given to the House of Representatives. Our whole society is based on checks and balances. If President Obama's action becomes precedent, who is to stop the next Republican President to sign an Executive Order stating that all Taxes on Business and High Income Earners shall not be levied, or shall only be levied at \"Stated Rate\".\n\nWhen you put out that scenario, both Left and Right (people for ACA or against) should be leery of any President implementing Tax Laws unilaterally. This is why it was specifically given to the Representatives of The People (House of Representatives). Not the States (Senate) and not the President.\n\n\nThe whole thing does go much deeper than that, so it would not be an ELI5."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/lawsuit-against-obama"
],
[
"http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/739w4w/bad-impeacher"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders_13489_and_above",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders_13198%E2%80%9313488"
]
] |
|
8h4wcm | why was scurvy more likely to occur at sea (vs land)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8h4wcm/eli5_why_was_scurvy_more_likely_to_occur_at_sea/ | {
"a_id": [
"dyh3nfe",
"dyh3qi0",
"dyh3uhu",
"dyh95ys"
],
"score": [
18,
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Scurvy was brought on by a lack of Vitamin C. And while fruits and other foods containing it were common parts of people's diets on land, such foods are difficult to preserve over a long sea voyage. ",
"Being at sea meant a lack of fresh food. On land you had easy access to fresh greens, dandelion or nettles are actually edible and very nutritious. \n\nAt sea you had stuff like canned food, salt meat, dried biscuits, etc which could be kept for long periods but lacks many vital nutrients, including vitamin C. ",
"Scurvy is caused by a deficiency of vitamin C. Humans and deer are essentially the only animals that do not naturally produce vitamin C. A diet of fresh meat and produce will generally have more than enough dietary vitamin C to avoid scurvy. The problem is that during long sea voyages, sailors did not have access to those foods. ",
"Humans and other primates have inherited a gene mutation that prevents us from synthesizing vitamin C from glucose.\n\nIn a certain sense this may be seen as a genetic disease. On land, it's rarely a problem, since many plants and fruits in particular, contain large amounts of vitamin C. The reason why many plants overproduce vitamin C isn't known. It may be to protect from UV damage or to resist fungi.\n\nMost other animals besides primates can produce vit. C as needed.\n\nHowever, vitamin C is a rather unstable compound. It has a limited shelf life of a few weeks at best, it's also destroyed by cooking. \n\nThe problem with long sea voyages is the lack of access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Sailors largely depended on dried, pickled, or salted food, and after a few weeks, all of the vitamin C tended to decompose. Fishing could provide meager amounts of Vit. C,but this is both unreliable for a large crew, and wouldn't provide enough C intake and would only delay scurvy.\n\nMany seaweeds contain C, but this also isn't reliable in the open ocean. Sailors wouldn't have known the connection between fruits/veggies and preventing scurvy. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6yvjug | how do motorcycles differ when they have the same kw (hp) but different ccm? | I am looking to do my motorcycle license, and will be allowed to drive a bike up to 35 Kw (48ps). But there are some bikes with 300ccm and some up to 700ccm, but they all have 35 Kw. What is the difference and what will I notice? (e.g. sound, acceleration, mileage, etc..) I am completely clueless. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6yvjug/eli5_how_do_motorcycles_differ_when_they_have_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmqgdb1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The smaller engine will rev higher to produce the same power as the larger one. Acceleration will be better on the larger engine because it produces more torque, which is the force that gets you moving (this is a generalized statement as gearing would affect this.) It will also work less hard, potentially saving wear and tear. Fuel efficiency will most likely be better on the smaller engine. The larger engine will probably produce a throaty sound compared to the higher pitch smaller engine which is running at a higher RPM. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
m5nxj | how do you play "street" craps? | Not sure if it's different from casino craps.
I'm watching a Bronx Tale where Sonny has C throw. I was wondering how the rules go. I've always wanted to know. Looked up once and it didn't make much sense in the article. Maybe a Redditor could dumb it down. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m5nxj/eli5_how_do_you_play_street_craps/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2yatcu",
"c2yatcu"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The most common form of street craps is [Cee-lo](_URL_0_). There are many variations of the rules, but according to Wikipedia, the base rules are as follows:\n\n\"*The constants include the number of dice used, which is always three. All rules describe certain winning combinations that can be rolled, and 4-5-6 is always treated as a winning combination for the first player who rolls it (though in some variants without a banker, it may be possible for several players to make a \"winning combination,\" requiring a second shootout). Besides the winning combinations, all Cee-lo rules include certain rolls that establish a \"point,\" and there are situations where two or more players will roll and compare their points to determine a winner. If for any reason the dice were to leave the playing area (ex: rolling off of the table and hitting the floor) the player would be deemed an automatic loss.*\"",
"The most common form of street craps is [Cee-lo](_URL_0_). There are many variations of the rules, but according to Wikipedia, the base rules are as follows:\n\n\"*The constants include the number of dice used, which is always three. All rules describe certain winning combinations that can be rolled, and 4-5-6 is always treated as a winning combination for the first player who rolls it (though in some variants without a banker, it may be possible for several players to make a \"winning combination,\" requiring a second shootout). Besides the winning combinations, all Cee-lo rules include certain rolls that establish a \"point,\" and there are situations where two or more players will roll and compare their points to determine a winner. If for any reason the dice were to leave the playing area (ex: rolling off of the table and hitting the floor) the player would be deemed an automatic loss.*\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cee-lo"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cee-lo"
]
] |
|
1rwm6e | why is it meaningless to say if it is 20 degrees oc, that it is twice as hot as if it was 10 degrees oc? | I understand the variable is not ratio, as it's absolute 0 (0oC is not the lowest possible temperature) but I don't understand the answer to my question. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rwm6e/eli5_why_is_it_meaningless_to_say_if_it_is_20/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdrnf98",
"cdro2sx"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Convert Celsius to any other temperature measurement unit and you'll see why it is meaningless. \n \n10 degrees Celsius = 50 degrees Fahrenheit \n20 degrees Celsius = 68 degrees Fahrenheit \n \nI hope it makes it a bit clearer to you now.",
"First thing's first - Temperature\n\nThe temperature of matter, is a numerical measure of heat, which itself is an approximation of the internal energy of the matter.. That is to say, high temperature matter matter has more energy than low temperature matter. \n\nSo Celsius... The original Celsius scale (a.k.a centigrade) was defined by the environment we find ourselves in... Define that 0°C is the point that water freezes (a common thing we can relate to), define 100°C as the point where that water boils (another fairly common temperature point), and then arbitrarily divide up the range between those two points into 100 equal divisions (**Centi**grade).\n\nCelsius is a useful scale for every day life, as almost all of the temperatures we encounter will be a nice sensible value somewhere between 0°C and 100°C..\n\nBut as others have explained, when comparing actual energy levels the Celsius scale is useless, since it doesn't relate to *any* fundamental standard (such as absolute zero). \n\nInstead you must compare an absolute temperature (Kelvin or Rankine), which are defined as having their 0 points as absolute zero.."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
38qu46 | what's going on with /r/thebutton | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38qu46/eli5_whats_going_on_with_rthebutton/ | {
"a_id": [
"crx3z6x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It hit 0 without anyone pushing the button. It's over, the subreddit is now closed (archived).\n\nThis time, for real. No server crashes, it's really, really over."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1mzkap | how long does it take muscle to form after exercise? | After strenuous exercise and assuming proper nutrition how long does it take for muscle to form or grow? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mzkap/eli5_how_long_does_it_take_muscle_to_form_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"cce201b",
"cce6ora",
"ccecpwb"
],
"score": [
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"This is one of the better questions on this sub in the past month or so. I'm also curious about this.",
"When you lift weights, microscopic \"tears\" form in the fascia of your muscle tissue. This is why you are sore the next day. The way muscles grow is through \"muscle recovery\": the tears fill up with new muscle cells, and the muscle is larger as a result. Think of it like scar tissue.\n\nSo the answer would then be that muscles begin growing as soon as you step out of the gym, and certainly by the time your next-day-soreness goes away. \n\nIt is a different question altogether (and likely unanswerable) about how long it takes before muscle growth can be visually perceived from one workout to the next. If I have been slacking on weightlifting for a long time and then get back into it, I typically think that I look bigger again within 3 weeks or so of starting a lifting regimen.",
"I have a follow up question: \nHow fast do muscles start to form back after you quit exercising? \nOr to put it in other words: How long can you go without exercising before you start to lose the gained muscle mass"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2d7yqy | why are there riots in ferguson, missouri? is this only because of the teen shot dead by police or are there any other causes? | A lot of people are talking about this on Twitter, but I am unable to find much information besides a teen that was shot dead. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d7yqy/eli5_why_are_there_riots_in_ferguson_missouri_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjmyjht",
"cjn1j2m",
"cjn7e03"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Here's the live stream if you're interested: _URL_0_",
"There was a peaceful vigil for the teenager who was shot. Somehow the vigil got violent and a riot broke out.\n\nThe rioters were *not* upset about the teenager who was shot. They saw an opportunity to raise hell throughout the area, and they took it.\n\nTeenagers robbed a gas station of beer & candy and then burned it to the ground. People have been posting pictures of their loot all over Twitter and Craigslist. No one gave a fuck about the teen; they were simply exploiting a sad situation.",
"***There's a riot on the streets. Tell where were you? ...Oh, you were home... because you're white...***"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/live/tdrph3y49ftn/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
27yn5k | the difference in gravity between a star, and that same star becoming a black hole. | So, what I learned was that gravity is determined by mass, not density. Sometimes you meet the occasional clever guy that counters this by saying "but light can't escape black hole, and that's because all the matter collapsed in on the star, making much more dense, therefore having a greater gravitational pull".
I proceed to say that some of that is true, and some of it is not. From what I have gathered, if you take an example where as the sun suddenly became a black hole, no super nova, no forces, it just transformed (yes, I know it can't, but for the sake of the example it did), all orbiting bodies would stay as they where, in the same orbit as if nothing had happened. That is true because the it holds exactly the same mass as before, therefore the same gravitation. It's first when you get closer, close like the suns original surface, then the pull of gravity will be much greater because you are relatively closer to ALL the mass. Correct me if I'm wrong.
This is at least what I have learned, but my explanation doesn't seem to hold up. So, if someone could provide me with a better, and more ELI5 explanation, it would be much appreciated. Also, I'm having a hard time finding a legit source to back this up. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27yn5k/eli5_the_difference_in_gravity_between_a_star_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci5n6kq",
"ci5ndc0",
"ci5r4km"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your explanation isn't wrong.\n\nThe problem is we tend to consider objects with a specific mass as if they have no volume and ALL their mass is at one point. If you think of a black hole and a star like this, there's no real difference between them.\n\nBut they aren't like this. A star has it's mass spread out over a huge area, a black hole has it's mass spread over an area which is hard to define, possibly it's a point, but it's certainly much much smaller than any star.\n\nSo the gravitational pull on earth from the sun would be identical even if all of the sun's mass was in a single point (and it was a black hole).\n\nBut the Earth is quite far from the sun.\n\nIf you were **at the surface** of the sun, it would still be about the same.\n\nThe difference is when you're within the volume of the sun. If you're inside of it, then the pull towards the center is less, because some of the sun is pulling you **away** from the center. But if the sun had a volume that was essentially a point, then the pull would all be in a single direction.\n\nHere's a shitty diagram which is probably useless, but might help you visualize it:\n\n\nSun's mass spread out over the sun's volume:\n\n @============= < ---x- > ====)..........\n\nThe center of the sun is the '@', you are the 'x', inside the sun is the '=', the surface is the ')', and outside is '.'.\n\nBut if the suns' mass was only at it's center like a black hole and you were the same distance from that center:\n\n @............ < ----x.................\n\nThe pull would be much stronger. So the strength of the pull from an object depends entirely on **it's mass**. But how much that impacts you also depends on your distance from that mass.",
" > From what I have gathered, if you take an example where as the sun suddenly became a black hole, ... all orbiting bodies would stay as they where, in the same orbit as if nothing had happened. That is true because the it holds exactly the same mass as before, therefore the same gravitation. It's first when you get closer, close like the suns original surface, then the pull of gravity will be much greater because you are relatively closer to ALL the mass. Correct me if I'm wrong.\n\nCorrect on all counts.\n\nThis stems from something called the [shell theorem](_URL_0_). Essentially, there are two facts that can be derived from the math involved:\n\n1. Any spherically-symmetrical mass acts gravitationally as a point mass at any distance greater than that object's radius.\n\n2. A spherical \"shell\" of material acts as a point mass from the outside (same as point #1), but has *zero* net gravity on the inside.\n\nFrom those two facts, you can imagine what you would experience if you were to approach the sun vs. a black hole. From a distance, they both behave the same, gravitationally-speaking. As you pass the surface of the sun, though, its gravitational pull on you will start to weaken\\*, since the \"shell\" of material above you cancels itself out, and thus is no longer providing any gravitational force. However, at the same distance from the center of the equally-massive black hole, you're a **long** way from the surface, and so gravity keeps going up, instead of down.\n\nThe high density of a black hole makes it possible to get much closer to its entire mass without any of the gravitational force being negated due to the shell theorem.\n\n*****\n\\* *Depending on the actual densities involved, the gravitational force* may *still go up at first (I haven't done the research, but I know that this applies to the Earth), since the center of the sun is much denser than the surface. However, you will eventually pass a point where the gravity begins to drop.*",
"Physicist here. Just to add to this, the difference is the existence of an event horizon, and in this sense density is important. If you treated our sun as a point mass, it would have an event horizon. Basically, for any value of mass, there is a value of radius for an event horizon. But it's only the mass INSIDE that radius that counts.\n\nSo now the trick is how that mass gets inside the event horizon. That has to do with the balance of outward pressure (due to heat from fusion) and inward gravitational pressure. It can be shown that if a star has about 2-3 times the mass of our sun, gravity will eventually win."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem"
],
[]
] |
|
9yiqx9 | what’s the difference if any between working class and middle class? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9yiqx9/eli5_whats_the_difference_if_any_between_working/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea1mjxw",
"ea1mpm6",
"ea1tml4",
"ea1w2c8",
"ea2jouy"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Working class are people who have jobs, but typically low pay, low education jobs where they are just above poverty levels, not on welfare... but just barely scraping by. The fast food & retail workers, wait staff at a lower end place like diner or IHOP, hotel maids, low skill manual labor, warehouse workers, etc. They typically would rent a place to live, own an older, falling apart car, are in credit card or other high interest debt due to basic life emergencies (doctor visit, car break down).\n\nMiddle class are people with skilled trades, union jobs, or degree-requiring/managerial/professional type positions where they can adequately provide for their family, own a car or two, own a house, take a vacation, save for retirement, etc.",
"From a marketing perspective there is difference. In Australia, middle class make up the majority of people at 60% which is then split between middle and working class. There are different class structures which makes it a difficult answer but there is a difference in products sought, types of jobs, pay, and education in different classes.",
"For most intents and purposes, the working class is loosely defined as those who hold jobs with lower barriers to entry, that are usually defined by the work they entail. This does not strictly refer to wage, but more towards the type of job they hold. This means that, with proper saving, the working class can be middle class, but usually won’t be able to make upper class. Examples of these are oil field workers, construction, etc. Blue collar jobs often fit the criteria as well. \n\nMiddle class is where the wage comes into play. People that belong in the middle class usually do not have to worry about meeting monthly bills. ",
"In traditional economics, the working class works for a living, and has no ownership over their work. A waged or salaried worker would typically fit this category, regardless of how much money they make. A barista making minimum wage and an engineer making 150k/year would both be considered working class. \nThe middle class works for a living, and has ownership over their work. A small business owner who works at the business they own would fit into this category. Bob from Bob's burgers, for example. ",
"Middle class people are working class people who can afford to occasionally play at being upper class. For instance, they'll have some investments. Not nearly enough to stop working for a wage, but enough that they might have a stock broker, just like the \"big shots\". They can afford to take time off, and go on extended vacations abroad. They won't have second homes in Nice, but they might have a time share half an hour inland that they can pretend is all theirs for a week a year. They might have a maid that comes over once a month. They might go out to eat at a fancy restaurant every other week, or catch an occasional opera. They don't have to worry about being thrown out on the street if they miss a single paycheck."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20n7v8 | when high-level world leaders (like obama and putin) talk to each other on the phone, do they speak in the same language or do they need a translator? and if they need a translator, isn't that a serious security concern that someone knows everything they're saying? | And how do both countries agree on a common translator that they can both trust? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20n7v8/eli5_when_highlevel_world_leaders_like_obama_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg4vwo2",
"cg4w07b",
"cg501kw"
],
"score": [
7,
68,
23
],
"text": [
"I think the need for a translator greatly outweighs any security concerns. ",
"The translator only has to be trusted by the party that hires him. Usually Obama brings a Russian translator, and Putin brings and English translator. The translators work together and check each other to verify what the other is saying is accurate.\n\nA Presidential translator has passed the requisite security clearances and background checks to have access to the sensitive information that a President does. With those clearances and background checks comes an inherent trust and professionalism that the translator will accurately and faithfully represent what's being said.\n\nAlso, many foreign officials also speak English. I don't think Putin fluently speaks English, but many others do.",
"**Relevant:** Treaty of Nerchinsk. Treaty between Russia and the Qing empire in China, signed in 1689. The Qing spoke Manchu, and the Russians Russian, and neither side trusted each other to translate correctly. They ended up having to go through Missionaries on both side- Russian diplomat to Russian/ Latin Missionary to Manchu/ Latin Missionary to Manchu (Chinese) diplomat. Ultimately, the final agreement had to be written in five languages to be signed (Manchu, Latin, Russian, Chinese, and Mongolian). Arguably one of the oldest and most complex examples of accomplishing bilateral agreements while being impeded by severe language barriers.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
903xe0 | why do humans sometimes cant seem to remember whether they did something or not? | Especially the mundane things like remembering things like social security numbers/phone numbers/what I had for my meals.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/903xe0/eli5_why_do_humans_sometimes_cant_seem_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2nk6zw",
"e2nlll1",
"e2npyel"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Isn’t it simply because we don’t pay attention? If you put down your keys absentmindedly it’s like overlooking something obvious: You’ll remember neither because you didn’t pay attention.",
"The purpose of memory is not to catalog everything about the past, but to help you survive in the future.\n\nThe brain is bombarded with information from all the senses all the time and most of it is basically irrelevant from a survival perspective, some of it is obviously very useful, and some of it is potentially useful but possibly irrelevant.\n\nAs it has to function in real time, the brain has to make rapid decisions about what to keep in memory and what to discard.\n\nIt’s pretty good at this (thanks evolution!), but inevitably will make mistakes- either remembering things which are of no use, not remembering things which would have been of use, or even misremembering things.",
"Short-term memory is limited, and the process of converting short term memory to long term memory is also quite power-consuming. If your brain deems something unimportant, or rather, requiring more energy to remember than it's worth, it'll drop the memory from your short term mind and *possibly* bury it deep within the long term memory, down into the subconscious levels. But we can still recall this information if we can recall other parts of the scene or if we're prompted. How it picks what to drop isn't really well understood but things like social security numbers and phone numbers are things you can retrieve by simply looking at where you wrote it down last, so instead of keeping the long, difficult to remember number in your head, it just stores the memory of where to find the number. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3yhcee | why do bagels and donuts have holes? | Why can't they be just completely shut? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yhcee/eli5_why_do_bagels_and_donuts_have_holes/ | {
"a_id": [
"cydhcfa",
"cydhfu5",
"cydi8ey"
],
"score": [
25,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They have holes so that they will cook evenly. Without the holes, there would be a doughy center that you wouldn't find appealing. ",
"Donuts do come without a hole. In American tradition, its made with the hole.\n\nBagels without a hole are bialys, traditional food of Russian Jews. The ones you buy are made with the holes because that's what sells here",
"So they cook evenly. Donuts are made, and have the hold punched, while Bagels are \"rolled\" around a post to make them round. This is why you typically have a thin spot on a bagel.\n\n[Video of a bagel being rolled.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/4-BOY7lBqlc?t=1m55s"
]
] |
|
6zs0ux | what happens if someone from an uncontacted tribe wants to join society? are they citizens of the country they live in? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zs0ux/eli5_what_happens_if_someone_from_an_uncontacted/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmxm3xu"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Aye. Every country I know of grants citizenship automatically to people born on their soil from ancestors also born on their soil (unless, an exception in some countries, those ancestors were explicitly guest immigrants)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8mmi4k | why do video players always require user action after they start buffering? almost every application, youtube, ifunny, reddit, needs me to press pause and play after loading instead of just starting the video again. why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mmi4k/eli5_why_do_video_players_always_require_user/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzosvbj",
"dzou1cc"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Do you have any kind of click-to-play addon/plugin installed?",
"Be careful what you wish for.\n\nThe current behaviour, as I understand it, was in response to large numbers of users **complaining** about auto-play; people **wanted** to control when videos started, and not have three of them playing simultaneously.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3i4bkf | why does holding the little wire antenna on a clock radio in your hand increase the quality of reception? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i4bkf/eli5_why_does_holding_the_little_wire_antenna_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cud5wp9",
"cud65b9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because then your body becomes part of the antenna. So, instead of a few inches of antenna, there's now five to six feet worth of antenna.",
"You're an antenna. Not a good one, but big. Your bloods and cell fluid have salt in them and that means they conduct electricity. Radio signals can propagate better in conductors. In conductors, the electric field wave in a radio wave can move the electrons a very little bit, to give a pretty big change in electric field that propagates to the other end of the piece.\n\nA mechanical analogue is a Newton's cradle, where a pressure wave can propagate through multiple steel balls to propel the last ball up.\n\nThe current involved in very small, so it's not dangerous."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2k2skd | what's the healthiest kind of milk and why? | Out of the milks available at the average grocery store, and why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2k2skd/eli5_whats_the_healthiest_kind_of_milk_and_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"clhfy4b",
"clhm82x"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Human breast milk. It's nutritionally complete, but is formulated for babies which grow extremely quickly in their first year or so. Chances are if you drank enough to sustain you there'd be more fat than an adult would require. Therefore I restate my original suggestion as \"low fat human breast milk\".",
"human is the only animal that uses milk after weaning- raw goat milk is very close to human milk, I have rescued orphan baby animals using raw goat milk- must be RAW"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6lkvtf | how to find out foreign last names? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lkvtf/eli5_how_to_find_out_foreign_last_names/ | {
"a_id": [
"djuk75c"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Just ask. No-one should be expected to know how names work in N+ different cultures.\n\nBesides, if you meet \"Jack Norton\", and refer to him as Mr. Jack, They are most likely amused, before correcting you. Amusement is a good icebreaker, I've found."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4n12fc | why does a bicycle get more stable when you move ? | I think most of us who have ridden a bicycle can say that they cannot keep the bicycle upright without their feet touching the ground while it's stationary, but once you start accelerating, you feel the bicycle becomes much more stable. *So can someone explain why there is a directly proportional relation between speed and and stability ?*
**Edit 1 : Can someone give an in-depth explanation as to why this happens ?** | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4n12fc/eli5_why_does_a_bicycle_get_more_stable_when_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3zwtvn",
"d4017la"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's sort of a combination of momentum and centripetal force. The faster the wheels turn, the more force is exerted towards the outside of the tire, making it \"want\" to continue its path. Also the momentum of the actual bike. Momentum is easier to change in direction at a slower speed. Once up to speed, it likes going the direction it already is.",
"There are a number of factors at play, both relating to the bicycle, and the person riding it. \n\nCoincidentally, before I came across this post, I saw a video in which James May explains it all really nicely: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhMECbDRVLI"
]
] |
|
affnw6 | why does the human brain like patterns so much? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/affnw6/eli5_why_does_the_human_brain_like_patterns_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"edy8y80",
"edynqd1"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"When real patterns are detected, like cause & effect, they frequently offer the ability to predict likely or logical outcomes of actions or events, and that offers survival value. ",
"Because whole nature functions in patterns. Imagine that the Sun doesn't rise every day, and that there isn't a pattern of seasons every year. How would people predict when to plant seeds, or when to collect goods for winter? Or even \"worse\", imagine that everything that happens, happens that time only and never repeats."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
10bpfa | what is to sing in tune. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10bpfa/eli5_what_is_to_sing_in_tune/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6c256v",
"c6c2572",
"c6c7gw0",
"c6cb2ww"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You mean...what it is to sing in tune? As in, what it feels like/means to sing a song with the right pitch?",
"In a song, each sound is supposed to be at a certain pitch. If the pitches are right then one is singing in tune. If any of the pitches are sung too high or too low then one is singing out of tune.",
"To sing \"in tune\" with someone else means to sing in \"harmony\" with them. Or to sing \"in tune\" by yourself, means to sing in harmony with your *previous notes*. \n\nWhen two notes are \"in tune\" or \"in harmony\", then they sound good together or good following each other. Most people can *feel* this automatically, because it sounds \"good\".\n\nA \"note\" is a sound made when something vibrates at a fixed rate, for example, 256 vibrations per second (or 300, or 378, or whatever). If the rate increase, the note goes up in sound, higher and higher in \"pitch\". 800 is a really high note, it vibrates really fast! If the rate decrease, the note goes lower and lower in \"pitch\". 100 is a really low note, it vibrates real slow. \n\nThe \"something\" that vibrates can be any object - your voice-box, a guitar string, a wine glass - if they vibrate the same number of times per second, they have the same \"pitch\". \n\nSo what makes two notes \"in tune\"?\n\n**The number of times the *second* note vibrates needs to be a simple ratio of the number of times the *first* note vibrates.** \n\nThe simplest way 2 notes are \"in tune\" is if they vibrate the same number of times per second, at 1 to 1, or 1:1.\n\nThe next simplest way is if the second note vibrates exactly twice as fast, or twice as slow. For example: a 200 note and a 400 note sound good! It's a simple ratio, or a simple *multiple*. A \"doubling\" of the number of vibrations is the most perfect and beautiful 2 notes that are \"in tune\" - it's called an **octave**. If your two notes vibrate 250 and 500 times per second, that's just as good, that's also an octave.\n\nA 200 note and a 300 note is also beautifully \"in tune\". For every 2 vibrations of the first note, the second note vibrates 3 times! A perfect \"ratio\" of 2:3. \n\n3:4 is also good. But 11:13 and 71:89 probably sound really ugly!\n",
"The human voice isn't like a piano, where you can press a key, and it'll be the note you want (assuming it's been tuned properly). We can slide our voices up and down with a lot of variation. This means that it's possible for us to sing SLIGHTLY lower the note we want (singing flat) or slightly higher (sharp). Singing in tune means singing exactly - or as close as possible to - the note we want without sliding above or below it.\n\nThe reason you don't want to sing OUT of tune is because that slight dissonance makes a natural \"clashy\" sound, and breaks the continuity of the song. Walk up to a piano, find a white key and a black key that are right next to each other, and play them both at once. Nasty sounding, ain't it? Now imagine two singers trying to sing the white note, but one of them sings the black one by mistake. That would be singing \"out of tune\".\n\nYou want to sing in tune so that all the notes fit nicely with the music and with each other without clashing.\n\nHopefully that helps :)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4pnsc1 | will we ever have designer babies? are there laws now that prevent this? | I don't want to leave my offspring's genes up for chance and I would love to know what the status is and if there are laws preventing genetic modification. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pnsc1/eli5_will_we_ever_have_designer_babies_are_there/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4mf3eg",
"d4mfbsn"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The issue at hand isn't legal (yet anyway)... but rather technological and cost based.\n\nWe're getting close to a Gattica scenario... but we're not there yet.",
"There are in the UK, and in many other countries. The [Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority](_URL_0_) is the regulator here. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.hfea.gov.uk/"
]
] |
|
5p69qg | can a bullet be reused at all? if not, why not? thanks | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5p69qg/eli5_can_a_bullet_be_reused_at_all_if_not_why_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcopd42",
"dcopku1",
"dcopkzd",
"dcopttx",
"dcopu71"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"Yeah but not immediately. Especially if it hits something, when they hit something they usually get deformed. But bullets can be like melted down so it can be reused ",
"In the short term no. The bullet would have to be put in a new casing with powder and a primer, but if you mean taking the bullet, melting it down, then reforming a new bullet inside a cartridge then yea.",
"The bullet itself can be melted down and reformed into a bullet again. The shells are commonly reused, I used to collect them at the rifle range for my grandfather. The gunpowder is spent though.",
"Reloader here.\n\n4 parts to a cartridge:\n\nBullet (projectile)\n\nCase\n\nPowder\n\nPrimer\n\nPowder and primer are spent. The cases, yes absolutely can be de-primed, cleaned, and reused. The projectiles are a bit trickier. If it's just lead then you can recast it. If it's jacketed you can still melt it down, but then you have to separate out the copper from the lead. \n\nMost reloaders collect and re-use cases. I've never seen one who collects the projectiles.",
"If a bullet hits something solid it is normally deformed beyond the point of reusability. However you can just recast the lead and copper into new bullets. Bullets are designed to be expendable and cheap so it's not usually desirable to try and reuse them.\n\nBullet casings, which are normally ejected from the gun when fired can usually be reused, however. They may require trimming or other adjustments because they are often deformed when fired. The primer and powder must be replaced and a new bullet must be fitted. This is called handloading or reloading."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4tie4h | how does vacuum insulation (like in a thermos) work? why is it so good at keeping things hot or cold? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tie4h/eli5_how_does_vacuum_insulation_like_in_a_thermos/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5hkku5",
"d5hkn8d",
"d5ho1x3"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Heat travels in three ways, convection, conduction, and radiation. \nConvection is from an air or fluid flowing over the object. Example: the steam coming off tea, or when you open a hot oven and feel a blast of heat on your face. \nConduction is from the two objects (one hot and one cold) physically touching each other to transfer heat. Example, how an egg cooks when it hits a hot griddle, or how you burn your hand on the stove. \nRadiation is from energy carrying particles hitting the object. This can travel through a vacuum and is how the sun heats the earth. \nBy putting a hot or cold liquid in a thermos, you are preventing two of the three methods of heat transfer. You prevent convection because it's sealed so no flowing air goes over it, and Conduction because there is no matter in a vacuum, meaning there nothing touching so the heat can't transfer on touching things. Plus most radiation is blocked by the thermos not being clear (most common form of radiation heating is light). So you are slowing down heat transfer like how shutting down lanes of a road slows traffic. ",
"Heat always transfers from hot to cold. If one atom touches another atom, the hotter one transfers its heat to the colder one until they are the same. If Atom A is 100 heat and Atom B is 50 heat, if they stay together they will both end up at 75 heat. Vacuums are a space without matter, they are literally empty. If Atom A is on one side of the vacuum (inside a thermos) and Atom B is on the other side (outside thermos), then they can't touch each other, and can't transfer heat. ",
"For moderate temperature differences (i.e., those between the temperature of the liquid in your thermos and temperature of the environment outside your thermos), heat exchange occurs primarily through direct physical contact between solid, liquid, and/or gaseous materials. In the vacuum between the walls of the inner and outer containers that constitute your thermos, almost all matter (including the air) has been removed. If there is no medium through which heat can travel, insulation will be excellent!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1pkgxd | why is debating another person so appealing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pkgxd/eli5_why_is_debating_another_person_so_appealing/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd37vg0",
"cd3btkz"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Who said it was appealing?",
"Debating forces you to examine your own thoughts more closely. It challenges your mind. It's like sports, only better because it's your brain, not your muscle that wins or loses."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3mby68 | how do telescopes work? | I know they use mirrors but how can a telescope clearly see in space? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mby68/eli5_how_do_telescopes_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvdpbus",
"cvdpj42",
"cvdsqot",
"cvducux",
"cvecpaw"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
14,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You stack a whole bunch of hobby lobby microscopes and shove them in a paper towel tube. Wait til it's night time, point it at the sky and enjoy.\n\nMore info at /r/telescopes ",
"How can they see clearly in space? Because of the lack of an atmosphere. An atmosphere causes all sorts of disturbances. By putting the telescope in space you take away one of the things that not only blocks light but also bends it. This allows you to not only see further and see dimmer objects but allows you to see them more clearly.",
"For the kind of scope that use mirrors, think of them as light buckets. Now think about it raining in an ordinary bucket, the larger the diameter the bucket, the more rain enters the bucket at any given time. If you have a cup and bucket next to each other out in the rain for one hour, the cup will collect (for example) 10 drops of rain per minute while the bucket will collect 100 drops per minute. \n\nGo back to our light bucket, photons from space are \"raining\" down all the time, the bigger the scope, the more light it collects, this light is then focused (because the primary mirror is curved) onto a secondary mirror that directs it into an eyepiece. The eyepieces are just glass lenses that magnify that focused light in to your eye. \n\nUnfortunately, our eyes (and brain) don't have very good resolution. To comprehend this, stare at your wall from 10 or 15 feet away, typically you won't see the texture of the paint, move closer and closer and texture starts to appear. \n\nThis same principle applies to telescopes when matched to our eyes. When viewing objects through a scope, we typically see very little color. The planets are close enough that we see some color, buts it's much more faded than you see in pictures. This is because cameras can hold the lens open longer and actually collect the light. Our eyes and brain capture some light then it goes away, but over time even the brain retains some of that light and the more you view objects over time, the more the minds eye reveals. \n\nSource: Amateur Astronomer with 16\" diameter scope. \n\nEdit because I was on break... The reason we can sometimes see clearly into space has to do with the atmosphere and the amount of humidity and pollution in the air. For instance when I look at the moon, I can see craters clear as day if magnification (eyepiece size) is low, but the more I magnify, I also magnify the atmosphere between me and the moon and often the moon looks like it's in water (like when your driving on a hot day and you see the road kind of shimmering). Heat in the atmosphere can add to the shimmering. Telescopes on top of mountains are less susceptible to this effect because it's cold up there, but they can suffer from humidity if it reaches up that high. \n\nTl:dr, the bigger the mirror, the more light it catches/reflects, faint objects in a smaller scope won't be as bright or detailed. ",
"You have lenses in the tube that enhance the image. Essentially, the lenses \"gather\" light at a certain point on a mirror, then that image is reflected into your eye. The \"gathering\" of light gives the illusion the image is much closer than it is.",
"Short answer - they work the same way a magnifying glass or your glasses work. Just more lenses and or mirrors. They are a different focal length magnifying glass that we point at more distant objects, that's all. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
jo4d6 | what is model/view/controller? | I'm learning python and using the web framework Django. I've set up simple sites but I still don't totally understand the MVC...thing. I've read wikipedia but I guess I don't really get it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jo4d6/eli5_what_is_modelviewcontroller/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2dqqig",
"c2dqqig"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Model holds the data, view shows it to the user, controller takes input and tells the model how to update the data.\n\nIf reddit is an MVC design (dunno if it is), then the database of links and comments is the model, HTML and CSS make the view, and the scripts that run when you click a button are the controller.",
"Model holds the data, view shows it to the user, controller takes input and tells the model how to update the data.\n\nIf reddit is an MVC design (dunno if it is), then the database of links and comments is the model, HTML and CSS make the view, and the scripts that run when you click a button are the controller."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5vr6br | what's the difference between chicken nuggets and boneless chicken wings? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vr6br/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_chicken_nuggets/ | {
"a_id": [
"de450ca"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Chicken nuggets are chicken meat that has been ground up and turned into little dinosaur-shaped reconstituted chicken food products coated in breading.\n\nBoneless chicken wings are pieces of chicken breast coated in breading."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1n68af | why is flexibility attractive in women? | In response to [this](_URL_0_) post, where the top comment regards it as attractive.
Lots of guys seem to find flexibility incredibly arousing, but it I don't find any appeal in it. Some sources claim that it has to do with being able to use more positions in bed, but that seems like too minor a detail to make a difference. Am I mistaken? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n68af/eli5_why_is_flexibility_attractive_in_women/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccfqek3",
"ccfqhvj"
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text": [
"nope its all about the sex, for me its just the idea of what it means is on the table for us to be able to do. I may be able to try new positions with a more flexible partner. Is it a huge deal? no, but its enough to get a few thoughts rushing through my head. ",
"It may have something to do with being an indicator as to the natural fitness of the woman. This means that they are more likely to produce a healthy, strong, fit baby. Hence the male attraction to this characteristic.\n\nAnother example of this is mens infatuation with large breasts. Large breasts means greater supply of nourishment for the baby. Which means the baby is more likely to survive infancy.\n\nOr how men check out women's rears. What men are really looking at is the width of the hips which is important to the safe birthing of a child.\n\n\nNearly everything a man finds physically attractive in a woman has something to do with their ability to reproduce or the strength of the genes they might provide. It's classic Darwinian evolution.\n\nHow the modern media has distorted this view by using skinny, flat models is a psychological discussion for another day."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/1n4ywn/her_legs_just_keep_spreading_it_hurts_to_watch/"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1jq3d3 | night vision and shadows? | Why does night vision on cameras and stuff show shadows behind what they're filming? Hope this makes sense! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jq3d3/eli5_night_vision_and_shadows/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbh6co9",
"cbh6cwv",
"cbh6fkl"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Night vision amplifies available light. A faint source of light that you can't see still casts a shadow, you just can't make out the difference. Night vision can.",
"The nightvision cameras use a light to illuminate the subjects. The trick is that the light shines infrared light, not visible light. The camera, unlike our eyes, can actually see this infrared light. The reason we see a shadow is that the infrared light is not perfectly aligned with the camera's lens (how could it be! If it were, it would get in the way of the picture). Since the light is, for example, just slightly higher and to the right of the lens, we see shadows in the image which are slightly low and to the left.\n\nThink about when you see a [picture with flash](_URL_0_). The shadows are there for the same reason; the flash bulb, which in this case emits visible light, is in a slightly different location compared to the lens.",
"If I understand your question correctly, basically you're asking why you see shadows with night-vision enabled cameras as you would with a normal camera that had a regular light on it?\n\nThe answer is that night-vision enabled cameras use infrared light for filming. Our eyes cannot see infrared light, but certain camera equipment can. Night-vision enabled cameras basically have an Infrared (IR) flash-light on them that is basically invisible to the naked eye but floods the area with IR light just as a normal flash-light would do with visible light. The IR light casts shadows just like how regular visible light would. \n\nThe camera then simply translates the infrared light information into frequencies in the visible portion of the electromagnetic (light) spectrum that we can see. One problem with using the Infrared portion of the spectrum for recording video is that there are no colors associated with Infrared light, so when its translated to visible light we only get one color (e.g. everything looks green).\n\nNote that there are also night-vision cameras which employ a different method of filming. These are passive heat-sensitive cameras that basically detect natural infrared light being emitted in the environment and translate it to visible light for us to see. In case you are unaware, everything that's warm glows with infrared light naturally. If humans could see Infrared light, we would literally see each-other glowing in the dark. So these types of night-vision cameras are used for checking thermal temperatures and for tracking people/animals at night. The problem with these types of cameras is they have very poor resolution in the sense is that all you see is a glowing blob and not any substantial detail whereas the night-vision mode commonly found on regular cameras (described earlier) supports full HD resoultion and detail."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/2013/01/mf_ddp_large.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
2gv5gs | why is there no *grass roots* movement against saudi arabia like there was outrage over apartheid? | It seems that their treatment of women is worse than apartheid, not to mention the execution of "sorcerers."
My first thought is "because oil" but the anti-apartheid movement began with students. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gv5gs/eli5_why_is_there_no_grass_roots_movement_against/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckmsgx6",
"ckmsqqs",
"ckmt5kg",
"ckmtpcu",
"ckmuk1j",
"ckmuvuu",
"ckmvhhp",
"ckmwfoe",
"ckmxe8h",
"ckmxvus",
"ckn0i67",
"ckn4iix",
"ckn6vvn",
"ckn8l57",
"ckn8u8f",
"ckn9c23",
"ckn9klp",
"ckn9voe",
"ckna3qf",
"ckna4df",
"cknae47",
"cknagl5",
"cknec25",
"ckngeyd",
"cknjmtj",
"cko5fhk"
],
"score": [
34,
44,
4,
241,
34,
4,
2,
12,
8,
9,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
3,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because when it comes to the Middle East, all of their protesting is reserved for Israel.\n\nETA: Holy cow, gold! My first gold! Thank you, kind Redditor!",
"Causing instability in an oil-rich country? CIA doesn't like that.",
"The right is against Islam, so you have to be reactionary and support it as a result. It's really backwards since the places that actually need feminism are ignored by feminists and given a free pass",
"TL;DR Saudi Arabia has a lot of money that they use to swiftly squash all dissidents.\n\nBecause of their oil, Saudi Arabia has resources beyond our comprehension. One thing they direct those resources towards is security--specifically internal security. There are definitely dissidents in Saudi Arabia. But they typically (always?) get silenced before they can rouse any detectable rabble. I think we can use our imagination to define 'silence' in this case. My educated guess would be that Saudi Arabia has communication monitoring systems similar to what our NSA has been recently revealed to possess. Their monitoring system could even be built using technology borrowed from us, under the notion that monitoring bad guys in Saudi Arabia benefits the US war on terror (and purchased from the US in exchange for large amounts of cash, intel or security favors). So now armed with cutting edge monitoring technology and their vast resources, they can sweep up dissidents as fast as dissidents can pop up. South Africa during apartheid never had any of that at their disposal.\n\nAdditionally, once the dissidents are apprehended, they can be disposed of in any way, as there are no due process guarantees in Saudi Arabia. If someone is caught acting against the government, they can be placed under house arrest forever, life in prison, executed--whatever the government seems fit. The legal system in Saudi Arabia isn't the most transparent. It is not a public right that court documents/hearings be presented to the public.\n\nedit: also the fact that SA (edit2: Saudi Arabia) is a Muslim country plays a part too (smaller though, IMO). The people in Muslim countries typically justify the anti-woman rhetoric because it is in Quran and is the Islamic way of living. So speaking out against that would be seen (and condemned by many) as speaking out against Islam, and Muslims are typically terrified of being labelled thusly.\n\nedit2: After some replies, I realize that the above edit may be a bit off. I myself know that the Quran does not explicitly instruct men to oppress women. But male dominance/female subordination is depicted in the Quran, and I know that *some* men in the Muslim world use this as justification for such behavior now. Furthermore though, I concede that this behavior is entrenched moreso due to social norms and not religious. I should modify my above edit to read that speaking out against *the status quo* is not done very often in the Islamic world, unless it is to advocate being \"more\" Islamic.",
"The Right doesn't often criticise Saudi Arabia because it's a regional ally of the US and the EU, and it's a serious oil producer. It's on our side.\n\nWhen it does, it's very rarely Saudi Arabia that's the real target - right wing pundits will refer to the problems Saudi women face, or the barbarity of the justice system, but generally just as a way of attacking muslim minorities in their own nations. No right winger has, to my recollection, ever suggested we stop buying Saudi oil or selling them arms, because the first is 'free market', and the second is 'geopolitical realism'.\n\nThe Left doesn't criticise Saudi Arabia because, first off, they don't want to be lumped in with the Right-wing critiques, which tend to be means to the end of culturally and economically marginalizing local Muslim minorities. Secondly, leftwingers tend to be suspicious of western condemnation of middle-eastern societies, since it's (in the last twenty years or so) been the root of the doctrine of 'humanitarian intervention', which was a total shit-show. \n\nThirdly, and this is the crucial bit, the anti-apartheid movement was started in South Africa, and the international left simply stood in solidarity with it, and behind it. Any left-wing movement against the house of Saud would have to grow out of Saudi dissidents who (sadly, since Saudi Arabia are much less economically marginal than South Africa was) typically end up being murdered or tortured, while western governments turn a blind eye, and keep on arming the bastards to 'aid regional stability'. ",
"I have lived in Saudi all my life, most of its citizens are happy with the way things are. They have been living like this for centuries and it is a part of their culture. Women are looked after and treated with respect. They wear abayas just like everyone else wears clothes. To them abayas or those black veils represent modesty. Most of the Saudi females I know tell me that they are happy because most of the time they have immigrants as drivers and butlers to take care of them, therefore they don't feel the need to drive. \n\nTL;DR it is a part of their culture and they are happy with the way things are. I am speaking about the general consensus, obviously there are some who would like more freedom",
"Because the Middle East is bad enough. Imagine an unstable Saudi Arabia and an unlimited supply of oil money.",
"In South Africa, there was a small minority (~10% of the population) in power, trying to oppress and control the remaining ~90%. The numbers just weren't workable. \n\nOn the other hand, around 50% of the Saudi Arabian populace (the men) control the country. So numbers aren't on their side per se, but they're also not against them - and it's hence much easier to maintain the status quo.",
"Because it's desert. It'd have to be \"cactus roots\".",
"Not an expert here but always happy to submit an unpopular opinion.\n\n I have visited KSA ( Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). Just from observing life there I have seen a society that's very attached to their traditions and values. These traditions and values are very different from ours ( I 'm an Eurpean male), yet shouldn't we respect them just as we expect ours to be respected? What I have seen (again, the testimony of my eyes, nothing else) is a society where most of the shops in posh modern malls are aimed at women (jewellery, frangrance, fashion, shoes, you name it) men are discouraged from entering shopping centres at certain times and at others it is almost solely men who work in shops and women( in nikabs) who do the shopping with their husbands and brothers having to drive them there and carry their bags. I have talked to some female western teachers and when they go outside their for- westerners- only compounds, and show their faces, it is the Saudi women who hiss at them. \nI understand that isolated incidents do happen but I do not think Arabs intend to overthow American values because a black kid was shot by a cop.\nTLDR: I think we in the West might be trying to impose our values on a society we do not know. ",
"Saudis have actually bought out protesters before. You seriously underestimate how much money these guys have. Check out the rainbow shiek. Or all of their palaces. The royal family itself is gigantic. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nSaudi Aramco is the largest and most powerful company on Earth. It could buy Apple, Microsoft, Google, Ford, and dozens of other huge companies if it wanted to. They have more power than most governments and the US economy is dependent on keeping them happy. Most people have difficulty imagining that level of power.",
"No ones mentioned sanctions yet, although I guess that's implicit in the \"because oil\" reason. Apartheid was sufficiently abhorrent at the time for most of the world to inflict sanctions of various kinds on South Africa. (I'm unsure how much that actually helped in the end to rid South Africa of Apartheid). But without that external support, any equality movement is always going to be difficult. ",
"Because Islamic people, Saudi women, and sorcerers do not have the lobby black people do.",
"The U.S. government, defense industry, intelligence apparatus, and military are far too friendly with the Saudi Royal family to allow any movement like that to gain traction AND media attention. Same with Israel. Friendly nations don't let their people talk negatively about each other, even if what is said is true.",
"There are a million reasons why any given country might come under international sanction and opposition, as well as a million factors that play into whether or not such campaigns are successful and what resources that regime has at its disposal to prevent and silence dissent.\n\nTop comment is only part of the answer. Saudi Arabia definitely has a huge repressive capability which it has achieved through its oil wealth, but the question goes the other way too -- how could it control the oil wealth and prevent parts of Saudi Arabia from flying off into the control of dissenting factions without the \"internal security\" that it has? The answer is a number of factors that precede Saudi Arabia's modern creation, namely the British exploitation and control of the area and the building of a modern state apparatus that is greater than the sum of its parts. The use of Arab and Muslim autocrats to do the \"dirty business\" of European countries makes these regimes vital assets not only to the local ruling class, but to other collaborating states and the dominant players in the international economy. When the dirty business is over oil -- a major industrial input -- it can have international significance if there is instability or market fluctuation. That means that, provided it does not interfere excessively in major political priorities of the states which are backing it, it can get away with murder. Moreover, Saudi Arabia has been able to maintain its status as a patronage state -- the vast majority of its population, with the exception of migrant laborers from Egypt, India, Bangladesh, etc -- are given huge state subsidies to pay for everything from housing to food to education to medical aid, etc. \n\nIn contrast, South Africa and the international boycott campaign against it had a distinct history. SA isn't a major oil producing country, and its internal population was subject to a racial caste system that undermined basic rights for about 80% of the population on race and ethnicity alone; hardly any black guys driving with porsches through the bantustan. Outside of being a powerful image of blatant discrimination that could be effectively marketed to legitimize other anti-racist and anti-colonial struggles, it also hit home to organizers in Western countries that associated Apartheid with their own histories of racism. Furthermore, the excessive levels of US support for South Africa, without the rest of the world or other regimes seeing an equivalent benefit, contributed to emphasizing South Africa as a blight on the US record during and well after the Cold War. The additional instability that came with the inability of the South Africans to effectively manage a Bantustan system likewise also added negative attention. All of these factors slowly but surely turned South Africa's Apartheid system into a liability rather than an effective tool for major stake-holders, so making a transition to a nominally \"equal\" society -- albeit one that still has incredible levels of discrimination -- was a strategic move. None of these factors exist for Saudi Arabia.\n\nI should also point out that much of this analysis also applies to the increasing international climate against Israel -- and provides better ways to look at the issue than simply reducing it to international \"anti-Semitism\", which would not explain how Israel (like Saudi Arabia and South Africa) was able to achieve such high levels of Western support in the first place, and would not explain the changing actual attitudes toward Jewish people throughout the West and the United States. \n\nI also find the statement in the top comment about Muslim attitudes quite ignorant. Muslims throughout the Islamic world have condemned Saudi Arabia's anti-woman stances, quite openly, and indeed there are many narratives talking about the excesses of \"takfirism\" and the backwardness of such states and their internal policies. Syrian supporters of the regime of Bashar Al Assad, for example, including the significant number of Sunni and Shi'a Muslims who supported him, maligned the revolution against his regime by pointing out that it was, in some ways, connected to the regional pursuits of Saudi Arabia; they used Saudi Arabia's horrible record on democracy, including its discrimination against women, to mock the notion that such a country could support democracy in Syria and thereby sought to malign the movement against the Syrian regime as a whole. But those Muslims -- like non-Muslims -- often use the excesses of Saudi Arabia or the Taliban to make their own sexism look acceptable, much in the way some of the most anti-feminist campaigners in the US (like the guy who argued that rape cannot produce pregnancy and the rest of his political wing) suddenly become equal rights advocates when it comes to Islamic countries that they want to bomb. In either case I hardly think that's a factor at all in propping up Saudi Arabia, it would not explain the rejection of Islamist groups elsewhere or its conflicting political history or the varying views of Muslims throughout the world on gender roles. \n",
"There are movements but not big enough to achieve anything. Besides, they don't have the monetary incentives to do so. You don't see a big government upheaval unless the people are on the streets, jobless, homeless and without knowledge when the next meal is. Poverty is essential to a revolution.",
"I have no direct knowledge of the situation but here's one obvious difference:\nIn South Africa, the oppressed class was gathered together and forced to live together in squalor. This situation almost guarantees the formation of a resistance movement.\nIn Saudi Arabia, the oppressed are spread throughout society, and the oppressors are their loved ones. It would take a significant amount of thought, education, and exposure to Western ways for either sex to even recognise that oppression was taking place. Even if they do, they're in no position to band together and organise in opposition to it.\n\n\n",
"The racial vector is an important reason. It is hard for women to organize resistance because they are born to mothers and fathers; racial divides, on the other hand, are genetic -- black people are born to black people. \n\nThis is to say that the oppression of women begins in the home, whereas the oppression of racial minorities begins in the public world. So it is hard for women (or gays, or any minority that is born into heterogenous homes) in Saudi Arabia (or anywhere else) to organize into a social group with a cohesive message.",
"Just a thought:\n\nDuring apartheid, or indeed the civil right movement in the USA, it was clear cut, black people wanting rights refused to them by white people.\n\nIn Saudi Arabia, or other countries which deny women rights, it's not just the government who is against you, it's your husband, father, brother, cousins, sons, maybe even your mother too.\n\nIt's one thing fighting a faceless state, it's another fighting the people who raised you. Perhaps it's like domestic abuse, someone in the street hits you, you hit them right back and call the police, in the home, it frequently becomes far more complicated.",
"Because you cant say something bad about Islam, that makes you a racist!",
"They have something a lot of countries need, so the west looks the other way. \n \nSame reason the west doesn't care about oppressed Asian and child labor or the list of human rights abuses in China while tiny Cuba still remains embargoed. ",
"Saudi Arabia is part of the Wahhabi school of Islamic thought and interpretation. It is an ultra-conservative interpretation of the Islamic texts, this means that women are placed in a secondary and subservient position to men. The accuracy of their interpretations is debatable\n",
"Mostly because the South African government even at its worst never came to your house and blew your shit up or cut off your head. When people choose a \"cause\" there is usually a risk reward trade off. Going up against the global jihad engine will get you killed quickly. \n\nNotice how a lot more artists are willing to urinate on a bible versus a Koran. The trade off here is clear. You can make the same message and garner the same benefits with less personal risk.\n\nUsually those who fight for a \"cause\" will choose the one least risky. It's doubtful that any of those who fought against apartheid in South Africa would have done so if it meant a risk to themselves....meaning the foreigners. As for whether they truly cared about the people they fought for as opposed to the cause....ask yourself how many of them are trying to help South Africa develop as a country after they won the cause.",
"Once the oil runs out or we don't need it, then I'm sure there will be one.",
"The answer is really simple actually.\n\nSouth African apartheid was created and run by white South Africans, who were and are Anglo Saxon just like the citizens of the western nations which supported them. They did this against an overwhelming native African majority.\n\nApartheid also was in directly contradiction to the values of the societies which were supporting it and fighting against the prevailing winds of change in those societies.\n\nIn essence, South Africa was implementing a policy they couldn't justify in their own society and required the support of other nations to implement it. When those nations turned against it, the government actually eventually dissolved itself.\n\nThe same thing could actually happen in Saudi, but it would require dramatic change in the role of women throughout the rest of the middle east. If the rest of the Arab world treated women as equals, Saudi Arabia would likely have to follow. Our opinion just doesn't mean shit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2n11or | how am i supposed to use public bathroom seat protectors? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n11or/eli5_how_am_i_supposed_to_use_public_bathroom/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm9cvlw",
"cm9d30x",
"cm9dkw4"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You tear out that little center bit, it is probably already open at one end.\n\nThe reality is you don't need to use one at all from a disease stand point. If the seat is generally dirty then sure, go ahead, but if you are worried about germs then don't bother - it doesn't do anything about those.",
"The center part goes in the water, so when you flush it pulls the whole thing down. Your better off wiping the seat and putting a pad of wadded paper in the water to prevent splashes, the seat protectors are just a waste of trees. ",
"Well this is a common complication.\n\nFirst gently moisten your right index finger with your tongue. Rub it on your right thumb in a clockwise rotation 3 times. This setup will now be called the \"eagles claw\".\n\nRepeat this with your left hand but do the rotation counter clockwise 3 times. This design will forwardly be called the \"falcons claw\".\n\nCarefully remove the seat protector from the housing. Hold tightly with eagle claw for maximum grip. \n\nUnzip your pants with freshly moistened falcon claw. \n\nCarefully pull out your manhood as to not get penal hair caught on zipper. (falcon)\n\nKeep carefully gripping seat protection with eagle claw. \n\nBegin urinating in sprinkles on the toilet seat for stickyness.\n\nPlace the seat cover on the seat. Let sit for 10 seconds while the seat protection and urine bind to form a temporary adhesive. \n\nPull down pants and sit on toilet seat protection. It may feel wet but it is not. Ignore the sensation and focus on taking the shit you came here for. You are now a man. \n\nDisengage eagle and falcon claw. \n\nFor directions on how to wipe your ass, see /r/transfomationfromeagletoflatbreadsetup\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ukww3 | how did the banana peel become synonymous with slipping and falling? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ukww3/eli5how_did_the_banana_peel_become_synonymous/ | {
"a_id": [
"co9ammx",
"co9bh2g",
"co9lk50"
],
"score": [
13,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"Bananas were common street food in the US during the early 1900s, people would throw the peels on the ground, not in the trash and people walking would slip on them. Hilarity ensuesd\n\nNote: It wasn't the banana you are familiar with, it was a different and now rare vareity (it used to be common) called a [Gros Michel banana](_URL_0_) . It was more dessert-sweet like than the modern cultivar the [cavendish](_URL_1_) \n\nThis helps make more sense of why a banana would be a street food, it was a sweet desert.",
"There are many theories behind the origin of the ‘Banana Peel’ joke made popular by the slapstick comedy films of the early 20th century. One hypothesis is that banana peels were representative of the pollution in New York City circa the turn of the 20th century. Public campaigns highlighted the danger of leaving banana peels on the ground (as well as other trash), but particularly the banana due to its highly visible color. The campaign against errant banana peels eventually led to the widespread use of municipal garbage facilities. A different theory is that the banana peel was a specific euphemism for dog feces – it was originally noticed that there was lots of dog waste on the streets, and people slipped in it, which is funny. But it is not a particularly practical device when used on stage, especially for family audiences, so they were replaced by banana skins, which are family safe, even though they’re not quite as slippery as turds, and certainly less abundant.",
"My understanding is that the original gag was that people were slipping over in faeces, (bear with me) this came from late 19th / early 20th century comedy, a pre-automotive world that was covered in horse poop.\n Faeces is slippy as hell and people slipping over on it would probably have been a fairly common joke in the victorian age, akin to slipping on black ice. \nThe banana skin was a less gross alternative used onstage and with the advent of movies and slapstick comedy, It's also less gross for the actor, While the audience still knew what the banana represented.\nAs time progressed we lost the common gag of slipping over in poop but still retained the banana, thus the jokes meaning has been lost on us."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_bananas"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
dqq13o | pass, passed, and past, grammar explanation needed | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dqq13o/eli5_pass_passed_and_past_grammar_explanation/ | {
"a_id": [
"f68ci7r",
"f68edyp"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"\"Pass\" is a verb with lots of definitions. (it can also be a noun, but that isn't important to the context you're asking about here) \n\"Passed\" is just the past tense of \"pass.\" \n\"Past\" can be a noun (\"apartheid is a thing of the past\"), an adjective (\"past tense\"), or a preposition (\"we went past the store\").\n\nYou've used it as a preposition here. You used \"past\" correctly, but you're using \"age\" *incorrectly.* It should either be \"ages\" or \"aged,\" depending on the context.\n\n\"My mother always looked young, she never aged past 25.\" \n\"Taylor Swift still looks young, she never ages past 25.\"",
"The **preposition** (or where something is) is \"past\".\n\nE.g. take the turn past the next shop\n\nThe **noun** for time previous to now is \"past\".\n\nE.g. there was no electricity in the past\n\nThe **verb** to move beyond something or exchange something is \"pass\"\n\nE.g. please pass me the salt\n\nThe **past participle** of this verb, meaning the action is completed, is \"passed\"\n\nE.g. I passed a police car on the way here\n\nIt may be throwing you off that the \"past participle\" of pass is \"passed\". That's all a bit much to absorb maybe. But just remember the \"past\" in \"past participle\" is there referring to time and that might help.\n\nSo \"pass\" and \"passed\" are the verb forms. The action of moving beyond or exchanging. Something only \"passed\" something else when referring to its action. It answers the general question \"what is it doing? What did it do?\"\n\n\"Past\" is in either case about location. In space or time. It answers the question \"where is it? Or when did it happen?\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2348al | what are the purple colour-schemed textures for in 3d video games? | Like [these](_URL_0_)? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2348al/eli5_what_are_the_purple_colourschemed_textures/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgt92o2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Although I can't say I'm completely sure, this appears to be a relief map. When you are making 3D computer models, it costs way too much computing power to get the shape of an object right to the millimeter, because this involves putting a lot of polygons (little triangle shapes) in the model. Instead, a relief map is used. It's a little map that is much like [the diffuse texture](_URL_0_) wrapped around an object, but instead of colour it tells the game the small-scale height differences in the model. This is far cheaper to make and requires less calculations when you're playing the game."
]
} | [] | [
"http://puu.sh/8a0nH.jpg"
] | [
[
"http://apocalypsecity.net/img/texture.jpg"
]
] |
|
1z5wmg | is there a scientific, historical, or sociological explanation as to why women like getting flowers? | Is it "just because?" | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z5wmg/eli5_is_there_a_scientific_historical_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfqtbfe"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It isn't as simple as \"women like getting flowers\". Flowers have been used as symbols or given meaning for thousands of years; the Hebrew Bible contains references to henna blossoms as a symbol of affection. The giving of flowers is a method of symbolic communication, which is why they may be appreciated."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5n90ia | how does a mechanical keyboard improve typing speed? | I'm already a pretty swift typer, but my dad is a notoriously slow typer. I let him take a look at my clickity-clackity mechanical keyboard, and he was able to type at a much rate than normal (he still typed with one finger on each hand regardless, but quicker than usual). Is it the difference in tactile and sound feedback vs a membrane keyboard?
edits: sentence structure, spelling, and word choice | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5n90ia/eli5_how_does_a_mechanical_keyboard_improve/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc9lj7h"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Tactile feedback is improved, resulting in less missed keys, AND key actuation rate (the speed at which the keys move up and down) is greatly improved, resulting in a more fluid key movement, which can contribute quite a bit to speed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
155vfr | if you are traveling faster than the speed of sound and you turn to say something to you friend, will they hear it ? | The scene: you are in a jet going faster than the speed of sound, but the air inside is still. Will you hear things ?
If so, its sound traveling faster than the speed of sound.
If not, where is it going ?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/155vfr/if_you_are_traveling_faster_than_the_speed_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7jkajf",
"c7jkgnl",
"c7jpkw3"
],
"score": [
3,
25,
2
],
"text": [
"Similar to this but the pressurised cabin is Felix's pressurised suit. \n \n_URL_0_ \n \ntl;dr Yes, because the air is moving at that speed already the air is motionless in effect (from the cabin itself holding the pressure). Therefore it will vibrate the air molecules and you will hear the sound fine. ",
"If the air inside is still (meaning you're travelling in a pressurized cabin and the air is travelling with you) then yes, your friend will hear you. This does not count as going faster than the speed of sound because the speed of sound in measured relatively to the air that the sound crosses (inside the cabin), not the air outside the plane.\n",
"The speed of sound is the speed it travels through air. It's not like the speed of light, which is a universal constant.\n\nSee, light travels at C. No matter what^(false generalization). If you're in a car traveling at 50 MPH, the light that comes out of the headlights is still traveling at C. So's the light from the taillights. This actually causes the light waves to stretch out and change color slightly, which is known as redshift, or to compress slightly, called blueshift.\n\nSound doesn't do this. Sound travels at 340 meters per second in air. But it's literally *in* air - it moves by transmitting vibrations between air molecules. It's physically moving.\n\nSay you're in a long, empty train moving at 50 MPH, and you're running a toy car forward in the train at 5 MPH. To you, inside the train, that toy car is moving at 5 MPH. But actually, it's moving at 55 MPH. It doesn't care, because it's a physical object moving relative to other physical objects.\n\nSound is the same way. It moves through another physical object. So inside your jet, there's some air. The sound of you talking moves through *that* air at 340 m/s. So it sounds perfectly normal to you and your friend. But if you look outside, you're in a bubble of calm air traveling faster than sound. So you add the speeds together - your speech is moving through the world at twice the speed of sound."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2012/10/felix_baumgartner_supersonic_skydive_will_he_be_able_to_hear_his_own_voice.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4emmmb | why is there an attendance policy for many classes in college when i'm the one paying for the classes? | I am the customer. The professor gets paid to teach regardless of attendance. Thank you in advance for your response(s). | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4emmmb/eli5_why_is_there_an_attendance_policy_for_many/ | {
"a_id": [
"d21ekro",
"d21eo2g",
"d21eoch",
"d21ep9h",
"d21eqyw",
"d21eust",
"d21fjg4",
"d21fx5w",
"d21h01d",
"d21ia4s",
"d21iryx",
"d21iyrk",
"d21mev1",
"d221m57"
],
"score": [
3,
19,
33,
4,
3,
13,
2,
5,
2,
5,
4,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't matter who's paying/being paid, it's about ensuring that you, as a student, are committed to learning the course material. Ostensibly, the lectures/labs/recitations/etc make up a significant portion of the learning process (otherwise why have them in the first place) so missing them for no reason is a sign that you don't care to learn the material. If you don't want to learn the material why did you even bother to enroll in the class?",
"In the US, most colleges and universities receive government assistance for funding their institutions. The tax payers (your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc) voted in favor of a bill that says \n\n > since we the tax payers are helping to fund these students education, we expect to have these students actually attend the classes they registered for. Should they fail to attend so many classes, they show themselves to not be taking higher education seriously and should thus be asked to leave the class that we - the tax payers - are giving some money to help fund.",
"Being the customer does not entitle you to dictate the nature of the product - all it entitles you to is the choice whether or not to purchase said product. The professor, as the provider of said product, retain the ability to dictate what type of service they will provide and how that service will be provided.\n\nIn this case, they feel that in order to earn a decent grade and grasp the material fully, you need to attend a certain number of classes. That is their prerogative as the teacher. If you disagree, you are free to enroll in a different course or another institution which has requirements more to your liking.",
"Classes have a limited number of seats for students to occupy. If there is a course that is required and you sign up and don't go you are preventing a student who couldn't sign up because the class was full from attending. ",
"A college degree isn't something that you (ought to) just buy. It represents something. That something should include both a willingness and ability to learn. You aren't likely to do these things if you aren't in class.\n\nMost schools I've seen (at least) don't really enforce an attendance policy beyond about sophomore level anyway. If you don't show up to class, you'll fail the tests. I've never once given an F to someone as a result of an attendance policy, but I've given plenty of Fs to people who didn't show up consistently.",
"You're paying for the right to attend their classes - not for the right to set the rules. Otherwise, you could say \"I deserve a passing grade, because I paid for this class.\" \n\nThe professors or the school set the rules, and you agree to follow them when you enroll in the class. If they want to include attendance in their grade, or use it as a reason to drop a student from their class, that's their right... and if you can be dropped, it's worth keeping in mind that other students are paying for the right to enroll in that class as well, and the university can pick the criteria by which they place students in classes.\n\n",
"In addition to the other answers given, some classes actually require a certain number of people present to function. For example, one of the classes that I teach is a public speaking class. In order for the class to function as intended, you will need to have an audience present to speak to. In order to provide an incentive for students to show up on days when they do not personally have to present, I grade based on attendance and on providing peer feedback to the speaker.\n\nSimilarly, there are a lot of classes that rely on a discussion format for learning. That's something that you can't experience without being physically present. In addition, you aren't the only person whose learning experience may be affected when you don't come to class. In discussion-focused classes, for example, you not being present detracts from the learning experience of the other students in your class, who are deprived of your perspective on the material.",
"\"The professor is paid to teach regardless of attendance\"\n\nWell yes: but how can I teach you if you're not in class?\n\nWe're also paid to evaluated you. \n\nBoth my husband and I are professors. Honestly, we don't care if a student misses one or two classes a semester: we've been there, we understand. But if you don't show up to class and participate regularly, I have no idea who you are. Chances are, you missed quizzes. Chances are, you missed assignments or tests. Chances are, you failed tests because you didn't listen to the information given: you weren't there. \n\nI can't in good conscience pass you because you don't have the knowledge that I'm claiming you have. If your attendance was down it's grounds to fail, because you didn't complete the course. \n\nIt would be fraudulent for the university to say that you did. We are telling your future employer that you are capable of something you're not. \n\nThe real question here is: If you don't want to show up to class, and you aren't interested in the material: why are you at university? \n\nThis is an honest question you need to ask yourself. There is nothing wrong with doing something else: a trade, start your own business, do something you love. \n\nEDIT: also, honestly: would you pay a tutor $100 to teach you something, and then not show up? \n\n\n\n\n ",
"I always loved when professors actually explained this in class, because it gets quite entertaining between the student questioning it. I once had one who got into an argument that basically ended with the professor saying that \"being in my class is not your right.\"",
"You pay to take the class, not to get the passing grade/degree. The passing grade is a result of doing the things the class requires of you, sometimes including attending class. The money you pay just gets you in the door.",
"You know they have no losses by NOT enforcing that policy....\nBut you paid that $100(example) to get the education....wouldn't that money go to waste?if you dont get/learn anything by joining?\n\nAnd as many people are pointing the fact that without thorough evaluation of performance of the kids/students/grads ,how can THEY improve the quality and service they offer?\n\nThey too have a reputation to maintain.\n\n",
"It's just an American thing. in other nations, like mine, there's no attendance requirement. You just have to pass the exams. It's university. You're an adult. You're supposed to be able to organize yourself by that age.",
"I had an attendance policy when I taught. In expository writing, you practice analytical thought in class via discussion. If you are not participating in class, then you are not completing all parts of the class, hence you will be penalized accordingly. So many students reduce a class to the sum of its graded assignments. The meat of the class is...unsurprisingly...what takes place in the class room.",
"I am a professor AND a businessman. First, from the business perspective on my end - when my customer / client decides that I did not supply what I promised for the price they paid we have a problem. The client either gets their money back or my business name is potentially smeared. From the educational perspective, I am paid to deliver content and to assure that my students are learning for the amount they are paying (and more). Therefore, I, the expert in education, must apply my knowledge of what is best to make the learning process take place. Part of that, at least on my subject/discipline, is making sure the student is in the classroom. The connected grade is a motivation to keep the student in class and attending when they need to.\nTake my word for it, it would be much easier to say, \"it's their money so if they don't attend they just don't get the content they paid for\" - but my students often do not have a mature enough perspective to see that money is wasted if they do not attend."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6pk9cf | why do american cargo trucks have the engine sticking out in front of the driver whereas european trucks have the engine below the driver? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pk9cf/eli5_why_do_american_cargo_trucks_have_the_engine/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkpyn8k",
"dkpyqag",
"dkpz7ao"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
9
],
"text": [
"European trucks tend to have to get into smaller spaces inside older cities built before cars were invented. The engine below trucks otherwise known as *cab-over* are shorter and allow the drivers to maneuver better in tight spaces. ",
"The regulations for the maximum length includes the truck in the EU, so to have a longer trailer you need make the truck shorter. ",
"US laws have maximum trailer restrictions, EU has total length restrictions so it makes sense to have as short of a prime mover as possible so you can have a longer trailer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ksu7c | what will they do with the royals world series champions shirts? | Obviously, before the Giants won the World Series last night, both teams premade a ton of T-shirts so that they could be sold as soon as either side won. The Giants shirts will be sold, but what will happen to the Royals shirts? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ksu7c/eli5_what_will_they_do_with_the_royals_world/ | {
"a_id": [
"clod0xa",
"clozm33"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"At least some of the time, those kinds of products get donated to places like the really poor parts of third-world countries. There's some great pictures floating around the internet of rural African kids wearing championship shirts from a team that didn't actually win.",
"As others have said, they end up in poor countries. This hasn't always been true. Not too long ago, they were shredded. Some activists basically shamed the companies into donating them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1w0kuu | how does my body let out a fart and not also all my stools, even when watery? | The colon seems like an upside down valve. You'd think that if you open the valve, even a little, all would come out. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w0kuu/eli5_how_does_my_body_let_out_a_fart_and_not_also/ | {
"a_id": [
"cexk8ff",
"cexkif7"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Psh, speak for yourself. If mine is \"watery\" it's like an air powered paint grenade.",
"I would assume it involves pressure differences. Gas has a higher pressure than liquid. The air outside of your butt has a lower pressure than the gas in your butt. The gas in your butt most likely collects between your sphincter and the stool inside your rectum, allowing it to escape without the stool coming with it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
16ozix | why in grade school i used 30+ year old textbooks, but in college textbooks last one semester? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16ozix/eli5_why_in_grade_school_i_used_30_year_old/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7xzk9g",
"c7xzydl",
"c7y0b2o",
"c7y0g75",
"c7y1nzk",
"c7y2bgx",
"c7y3p2q",
"c7y5xqz"
],
"score": [
22,
25,
10,
4,
13,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"because in college the students have to pay for the books in order to study and they may keep the book after, so they need to be bought every semester and the old book isn't printed years later. \n\nIn grade school (normally) the school district pays for all the books so they don't need to buy new books. It's also cheaper to teach off of the same book every year and buying books rarely is also much cheaper then buying a new set for every kid every year. Finally elementary education doesn't change as quickly as college education, which normally tries to be more useful for the current marketplace.",
"I have no proof of this...but I have a feeling it boils down to money disguised as publishers keeping information up to date. Although I don't think that is every case. Books are business. They need to make a buck somehow. Also, I was an English major in college and I saw \"updates\" in books that were ridiculous (e.g. margins moved a fraction of an inch, minor typos, updated pictures etc.) None of those things had much to do with what I was learning. \n\nThat being said, the MLA Handbook is updated frequently and I found that to be useful. ",
"Aside from the money part, in grade school you're getting taught the basic theories about what you are learning. In college you're getting taught the details, which can change a lot in a small amount of time, especially for developing fields like genetics. ",
"Textbooks in college last one semester because of the used book market.\n\nIn the old days, college texts would last a long time just like in grade school. But then students wised up and started selling their books used. Of course the publisher sees no money from a secondhand sale, so they only really have the one semester during which to recoup their costs. After that they really aren't going to see any more sales, so the only way to keep making money is to put out a *new* book the following semester and try to get professors to teach that one. This same phenomenon is also the cause of the back-breaking cost of many college textbooks--they only have one semester to turn a profit, so they charge as much as they can.",
"Your elementary school/school board would have to buy new textbooks = no new texbooks. They don't have the money and therefor won't spend it.\n\nYou have to buy whatever book the college tells you to = new books every semester.",
"School districts don't have the money to spend on textbooks, because the budget is fixed and often doesn't have enough wiggle room to make that extra spending. This is compounded with the fact that basic math, language, history, and science doesn't change often enough to warrant a change in textbooks, where college subjects can be bleeding edge.\n\nStudents in college however pay for the textbooks out of pocket or via loans, and boy do the colleges and professors milk them for it. Backroom deals, subsidies, professors with textbooks releasing versions every year with virtually no change besides some of the question numbers... it's a huge racket, and you should avoid it as much as possible.",
"Some classes, the professors write their own books and often they notice their own mistakes during the lecture. This leads to newer editions which the next set of students have to buy. \n\nHonestly, many college textbooks contain so many faulty editing. Examples are bad or incorrectly shown or the numbers don't add up. I always notice something in most of the textbooks I get. I do use older editions when I can (to save money) and when I compare it with my friend's current edition, mine looks like messy draft version. Other than that, they rearrange pictures and tables and figures to look more aesthetically pleasant. Some bullshit not worth paying $240 for.",
"I had a Professor tell me that the University will make a deal with certain publishers to get their books cheaper provided that the University sells a new edition per year. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
21igr6 | how do lungs control breathing rate? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21igr6/eli5_how_do_lungs_control_breathing_rate/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgdbkii",
"cgdbojc",
"cgdg9xi"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You have a muscle called the diaphragm which actually does the work. _URL_0_\n\nAs it contracts, it \"opens\" your lungs so they take in air. ",
"Your lungs actually inflate and deflate according to the actions of a muscle at the bottom of your chest cavity called a diaphragm (See the start of _URL_0_).\n\nNow your unconscious breathing rate is controlled in your brain stem and it's basically determined by how much carbon dioxide (CO2) you have in your bloodstream. Generally the higher the carbon dioxide concentration, the heavier your breathe. \n\nFun trivia: Your body doesn't actually care about how much oxygen you're getting and you can pass out and die with no discomfort from lack of oxygen. That's why you can pass out by hyperventilating. You expel carbon dioxide but aren't holding air in your lungs long enough to absorb enough oxygen. So your body thinks all is good because your CO2 level is very low but you still pass out because your brain can't notice you're low on oxygen too. Once you pass out, you generally stop hyperventilating and your oxygen level comes back up.",
"Breathing is controlled by the brain stem (which is located in the cervical spine. C3, 4, 5 keep the diaphragm alive!) \n\nThe breathing rate is controlled by the levels of carbon dioxide in the blood (PaCO2) as the body produces carbon dioxide the levels of carbon dioxide in the blood increases the respiratory rate increases to exhale the Co2.\n\nTaking a breath in involves the diaphragm moving downwards and it decreases the pressure in the lungs below that of the normal pressure of the outside air, this then causes air to be basically sucked into the lungs like a vacuum. \n \nWhen you breath out the diaphragm moves up squishing the lungs, increasing the pressure of the air inside of the lungs til a point that the pressure inside the lungs is higher than the pressure outside so the air is pushed out. \n\nAcessory muscles are uses to increase this effect, say for example when you've run 100m you body is producing a lot more Co2 so to compensate you need to breath more. The shoulder muscles help out by moving up and down to get more air in and out. \n\nIf you look at someone who is just sitting in a chair you can see there chest rising and falling if you look close enough but you don't tend to see there shoulders moving a lot. Whereas if you look at someone who's run a race there whole body is moving to get more air in.\n\nFor example - Look at this guy's shoulder after he's just finished the boat race _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Respiratory_system.svg"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na-ZvufXwng"
],
[
"http://youtu.be/63E91FI11VY?t=48m41s"
]
] |
||
2mruxr | what is imax and how is it better than normal cinema screens? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mruxr/eli5_what_is_imax_and_how_is_it_better_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm6zkr1",
"cm709uz",
"cm7ak3c"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Bigger film = bigger projection with better quality. ",
"Normal film shoots on 35mm film, while IMAX film shoots on 70mm film. Larger film means that you can enlarge the picture way beyond a normal screen size without losing picture quality. Basically, you can keep the picture quality pristine on those massive screens because the film itself is much larger.",
"Normal 35mm film is actually 21.95mm x 18.6mm. IMAX film is 70mm x 58.5. Modern digital projection system uses 4K DCI format (4096 x 2160, aka 2160p in contrast to 4K UHD TV at 3840 x 2160), 35mm film is roughly 6K resolution, and IMAX is at around 18K resolution. So it's more than just \"bigger screen\".\nAlso, movies are normally shot in \"cinemascope\" 2.40:1 aspect ratio which is wider/thinner than conventional HD TV at 16:9, but IMAX is shot in 1.43:1 aspect ratio so it fills about 40% more of your field of view. So it's more than just \"bigger screen\". Additionally in comparison to 35mm film that has audio builtin to the same film, IMAX has audio separately on 35 mm film or on a separate hard drive in uncompressed format just for audio. So it makes more use of film for the images. The film itself is extremely costly and heavy so some IMAX movies are not shot exclusively in 70mm IMAX but shot in 4K DCI digital and upconverted/remastered to 70mm IMAX. You'll notice changing aspect ratio in movies like Interstellar, and it CAN be a tell tale sign that the film makers used shittier camera for scenes they deemed unimportant. If you care about image quality and total immersion, not to mention better sound, watch movies in IMAX in all its glory. If you can't tell the difference and IMAX is simply a \"big screen\" don't waste your money on viewing experience that could've been used on a large popcorn with extra butter on top. Technology is more than what meets the I....MAX. addendum: maybe what I wrote is more like ELI21..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3szkrd | . why are some people born not as smart as others, not accounting for mental disabilities? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3szkrd/eli5_why_are_some_people_born_not_as_smart_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx1tmrm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It actually isn't clear that anyone is born more or less smart than someone else. At least not significantly so. \"Smartness\" is enormously affected by education, and people have a huge range of different educational experiences."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2oflfs | why don't women catcall men? | I'm sure it happens but not nearly as often as the other way around. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2oflfs/eli5_why_dont_women_catcall_men/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmmobf8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Women are not encouraged to express their sexuality in the same way as men in our culture. Women actually having lots of sex or otherwise finding too many men attractive is frowned upon (the term \"slut shaming\" is used to describe this). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3ap89v | why does grammar seem to be less important in spoken language than in written language. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ap89v/eli5_why_does_grammar_seem_to_be_less_important/ | {
"a_id": [
"csenri3",
"cseso2y"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Intonation.\n\nThere's an old acting exercise where you try to say the word 'hello' as many ways as possible. \n\nTry playing 'mute' in your next conversation; you'd be amazed how much information you convey without words.",
"Because writing is seen as more formal than speaking. Why does formality matter?\n\nBasically, in a society you have multiple people speaking multiple different dialects, each with their own grammar rules (for example, in the US we have General American English, African American English, Hawaii Creole English, Southern American English, etc.)\n\nIn such a society, the group with the most power (usually wealth), picks their dialect to be the \"prestige dialect\" [_URL_0_] , and teaches it as the \"correct way to speak\". For example, the prestige dialect of American English is General American, so General American is taught as \"correct grammar\" all over the US.\n\nWhat ends up happening, is that people who don't speak General American natively end up speaking their own dialect informally, and then switching to the prestige dialect when they are in professional settings. \n\nWriting is seen as more formal than speaking (very rarely outside of the internet will you have informal writing publically available), so speakers of non-standard dialects will tend to switch to the prestige dialect when they write.\n\nThis explains why on facebook (where people write informally), you still see a lot of \"bad grammar\" (really should be called \"non-standard grammar\"). It's because in informal settings, people switch to their native dialect.\n\n**TL;DR** Writing is more formal than speaking. When people that speak non-standard dialects are in formal situations, they switch to the standard dialect, which is why it seems to others that writing has \"better grammar\" then speaking. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_(sociolinguistics)"
]
] |
||
44vnpm | if both parties agree gerrymandering is bad and accusing the other side of the aisle, what is truly preventing gerrymandering from being outlawed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44vnpm/eli5_if_both_parties_agree_gerrymandering_is_bad/ | {
"a_id": [
"czt8z5r",
"czt92s8",
"czt9zev",
"cztipct",
"cztiuc3",
"cztk7pr",
"cztmr6v",
"cztncvd",
"cztqkxr",
"cztw3qv"
],
"score": [
163,
3,
12,
2,
64,
7,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Gerrymandering is only bad for one party, and it's great for the other. So despite both parties agreeing that it can be bad, they also know they can benefit greatly from it. The benefit for them outweighs the detriment, no matter how much they want to whine about how bad it is to appease to voters. After all, they might lose some districts if they end gerrymandering. ",
"There are fair laws and court rulings about gerrymandering enacted in times past. The party in power tries to circumvent this. Gerrymandering is in truth illegal and courts will ban it if a case is brought forward to them. Perhaps it is a case of cynicism that a political party does not appeal. They think they will win an election in the future.",
"Both parties agree that gerrymandering is exactly what they want. Gerrymandering allows both parties to carve out safe positions for themselves. Safe positions that allow politicians to have stable careers without worrying that they'll be voted out of a job in a few years time.\n\nSo gerrymandering remains, because it is in the best interest of all the politicians.",
"What's a precise definition of \"gerrymandering\". There's dozens of things you want to look at when making districts, and no matter what politicians will be able to cherry pick things to argue for that give them more control. The only real solution is something like at large representation, where a district has multiple representatives awarded by how much of the vote different parties get.",
"Gerrymandering is both bad and already illegal. The question is: how do you police it. Sure, districts LOOK bad, and have bad effects, but by what objective standard do you say - this district is wrong? \n\nThis has been an interesting field of study in mathematics for a long time, because the answer is very non obvious. And yes, we can, by gut feeling, tease some out we don't like. That's possible. But who decides when something is just too bad? And on what basis? This is what makes it hard. There isn't a gerrymander police is out there checking for it. Somehow has to have standing to sue, then the court has to agree, and then the remedy is to let more-or-less the same people redraw is a slightly less offensive way. For certain definitions of offensive. \n\nConversely - how would you draw districts that AREN'T gerrymandered. This, too, is a very nontrivial question mathematicians have long considered, especially when your goal starts being things like \"geographic cohesiveness,\" \"representativeness of the population.\" You can easily draw districts that are unbiased but also unrepresentative. \n\nTL;DR - it is illegal, it's just very hard to find objective definition of what is right, so we only fix what is heinously wrong. ",
"You can't just have a law that says \"Gerrymandering is illegal.\" You have to ban specific techniques and do so in a way that doesn't interfere with legitimate lines, which is not as easy as you'd think.\n\nAdditionally, sometimes gerrymandering is done for \"good reasons.\" There's a district in I think Chicago that is obviously gerrymandered as fuck because the lines are specifically drawn to enclose two different mostly Latino neighborhoods and not a lot else, virtually guaranteeing that the district will elect a Latino representative despite being located in a city that's mostly white. You can certainly argue that this isn't actually a good thing, but it's another argument that people can throw against change.\n\nLastly, states (mostly) have the right to draws their lines as they like, so the fight against gerrymandering must be won in each of them separately, and that can be extremely tough in states where one party is dominant. This is a US-specific thing, obviously. Some states actually already have some pretty good laws about it (you can easily tell which ones by looking at a political map and seeing reasonable lines).",
"Fixing gerrymandering is actually really tough, especially when you are trying to achieve a certain outcome--i.e. representing minority voices. A little bit of messing with the districts is good and necessary, but a lot is gerrymandering and bad, and this line is sometimes hard to find.\n\nFor example, it's very intuitive to take a bunch of towns right next to each other and make them one district, right? Well, if you did that, you'd have an overwhelmingly white-opinion Congress because white people are just a slight enough majority in most areas that they would be able to vote in whoever they wanted in just about every district. \n\nBut if you get *too* creative with the lines, mixing minority-majority and white-majority districts, then you get some really crazy districts and what is essentially on-purpose gerrymandering.\n\nThe moral of the story is that when you have a weak majority or a plurality in place, it's almost impossible to \"fairly\" assign one seat. America is *just* multicultural enough that there is enough opposition to majority opinion to make this issue very noticeable and very hard to fix.\n\nOddly enough, people mostly criticize the \"safe\" seats, where the district is written so that there is a clear majority. Even though it's pretty easy to see that just about everyone in the district is happy with the result, people object to the district being drawn in such a way. Districts with weaker majorities and more volatility (and also a much lesser population of the district actually voting for the guy in the seat) tend to get less criticism.\n\nSo the reason it's tough is because it's a very complicated issue of electoral organization, and most people do not understand electoral systems. And the ones that do recognize that the US has a particularly difficult time changing its electoral rules, which means that a real good solution to this problem is a very difficult and long-term process.\n\nEDIT: Many of these other answers are wrong. I studied this in school, and I can tell you it's not so simple as politicians protecting their jobs. Cleavages and majority-minority politics are the base of this problem, not greedy politicians.\n\nEDIT 2: [This link](_URL_0_) contains a bit more information about how the redistricting commissions are formed and how they vary by state. It's a remarkably fair process.",
"how would you draw districts for representation? tell me your absolute fair and unbiased plan that most correctly groups together people without disenfranchising any.\n\nthere reason theres no end to gerrymandering is because there is no solution",
"Gerrymandering is \"barking up the wrong tree\".\n\nAs other posters have already discussed, it is really hard to legislate against and really hard to objectively asses.\n\nIt would be better to have an alternative voting method than \"winner takes all\" First Past the Post (FPTP) method we have today.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nA ranked or proportional system would be more \"fair\" by most measures. It may require larger districts where more than 1 rep gets elected out of them. Though Montana and Alaska only has one congressperson.",
"Gerrymandering is often used to describe any sort of redistricting. In general, redistricting is not bad. If you have district that is split nearly 50/50, especially if that split is geographical , it would be much better to split that district into two separate districts or to merge those districts into other districts with similar constituents, so they could actually be represented."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system"
],
[]
] |
||
u72u1 | why isn't french a lingua franca anymore? | I know that the British empire and the US economy were crucial to impose English as a Lingua Franca but I've always wondered if there's a reason in French by itself that made it less easy to learn or something.
I mean, despite the outcome of WWII French was taught as a second language at school in many countries for years (not so long ago) and even French is still an official language of the IOC, Eurovision (I realized that yesterday, right) and other institutions
_URL_0_ perhaps as a remembrance of that glorious past.
Why? Was it harder to learn? Didn't they push enough? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u72u1/why_isnt_french_a_lingua_franca_anymore/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4sxfw7"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It *is* a Lingua Franca, in much of Africa, and in several parts of the middle east.\n\nIt's also an extremely popular second (third, fourth, fifth) language in other parts of the world.\n\nThe reason English has become so popular is because it's so pervasive. We have products shipping all over the world, jam-packed with advertisements in English, Hollywood blockbusters opening across the world, propaganda radio stations blasting at third world countries. Not to mention aid workers, missionaries, tourists, music, TV shows. It's probably harder these days *not* to pick up any English than to learn it as a second language.\n\ntl;dr **The United States and its products are everywhere, and that makes learning English logical and easy.**"
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_organisations_which_have_French_as_an_official_language"
] | [
[]
] |
|
5n5qtz | why are electric rails in public transportation unaffected by rain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5n5qtz/eli5_why_are_electric_rails_in_public/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc8tylp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Even wet things have resistance. Put enough space between the voltage difference and there will be minimal current flow. Look at the insulators in overhead wires. The really high voltage ones are built in ripples to increase the distance between the high voltage and the ground even when wet."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4subv0 | why do torrents for tv shows come out within hours of the episode, but for movies it often takes weeks? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4subv0/eli5_why_do_torrents_for_tv_shows_come_out_within/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5c68sa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"For TV shows, someone has the recording equipment and software all prepped and ready for the airing of the show. So all they have to do is record it, encode it, and create the torrent. In contrast, movies first show in a theater. Theaters have policies against recording, so whoever does it typically has to actually work in the theater or know somebody who does and sneak in the equipment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
bnf3ro | i recently learned that the sun is actually further away from earth in the summer. how is it warmer during the summer, yet it’s farther away from us then in the winter? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bnf3ro/eli5_i_recently_learned_that_the_sun_is_actually/ | {
"a_id": [
"en4z7kr",
"en50mru"
],
"score": [
21,
5
],
"text": [
"The seasons are caused by the angle the light from the sun is hitting us at (and how long each day), which in turn comes from the Earth being tilted. In the summer, it's hitting the northern hemisphere more directly, so it heats up that region more. It's the opposite in the southern hemisphere (when it's summer in the north it's winter in the south and vice versa).\n\nThe difference in distance might make a small difference, but not as much as the angle.",
"This (being closer in winter) is only true on the northern hemisphere. \n\nThe deciding factor for the amount of energy the earth gets from the sun is the 23.5° of inclination (the axis of the Earth is not perpendicular to the plane it is moving around the sun on). Both northern and southern hemispheres have their respective summer when they are tilted towards the sun. The tilt stays constant all year.\n\nIf you have ever seen a globe (like, a ball with an Earth map on a desk), they should be tilted as well. Shine a lamp horizontally on the globe and watch what happens - the hemisphere tilted towards the sun will stay in the light much longer (when the Earth rotates itself) than the other one, so it collects more energy every day and gets warmer: summer!\n\nEdit: here is a picture: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/12/seasons_solstice_equinox_NASA.jpeg"
]
] |
||
5shv9a | whats the difference between being passive aggressive and sarcastic. | This has always confused me and i ask my friends and they cant explain it. ELI5 please and give examples of each please. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5shv9a/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_being_passive/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddf6i49",
"ddfa9by"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Passive-aggressive behavior is a way of expressing hostility in an indirect way, so it can be denied when confronted.\n\nIt can manifest itself in a variety of ways. You might intentionally forget something important in retaliation for someone genuinely forgetting something, then try to subtlely link them together. Or can be as simple as sulky while watching a movie your SO likes but you don't, to ruin the fun and make sure they don't ask you again. Malicious compliance is also common, where you do what someone wanted, but in a way that gives results they did not want. In both cases, when accused, you turn it into an argument about your intentions rather than your actual acts of hostility, confusing the issue and avoided blame.\n\nAlso note that passive-aggressive behavior has found its way into pop psychology, and is often applied to non-confrontational behavior that isn't hostile. Passive-aggressive notes, for example, usually aren't.\n\nSarcasm has a role in passive aggressive behavior. It allows for technical agreement, but with a tone that conveys disagreement while maintaining plausible deniably. Not all sarcasm is passive-aggressive, and passive-aggressive behavior is certainly not limited to sarcasm.",
"Here is an example of both when the dishes need to be done, and your roommate has neglected to do them.\n\nPassive aggressive: You leave the dish detergent on the counter or in a common area where it normally wouldn't be. \n\nSarcasm: \"I'm glad we ran out of clean plates or else I wouldn't of been given this opportunity to fashion a sandwich on a napkin.\"\n\nYou see in the passive aggressive example, you have plausible deniability that you are not upset that the dishes are dirty. And that the dish detergent just so happen to be in a weird place.\n\nWith sarcasm you indirectly state a problem without confronting it head on. \n\nBoth of them can convey the same message but only one of them has a stronger foundation for plausible deniability."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3l4xtp | photosynthesis. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l4xtp/eli5_photosynthesis/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv3814q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm just going to throw the complicated equation out there and break it down piece by piece.\n\n6CO*_2_* + 6 H*_2_*O + sunlight ==== > C*_6_*H*_12_*O*_6_* + 6O*_2_*\n\nChemically this describes the process of photosynthesis, now the ELI5:\n\nThe first thing is carbon dioxide (literally 1 carbon, 2 oxygens). Second is water (hopefully a familiar expression of it). And then sunlight.\n\nThese three things are what is necessary for photosynthesis to happen. Carbon dioxide is a gas and there is plenty of it in the air (~0.04%, seems small but that is plenty on the atomic scale of the atmosphere). Water is also pretty abundant on earth... it's taken into plants from moisture in the ground (which comes from the sky, which comes from bodies of water) via the roots. Where does the sunlight come in? Sunlight is a form of energy. If you spend some time basking in the sun you can feel that, it will make you nice and warm. One of the fundamental rules of the universe is that you cannot create or destroy energy. The total energy is constant but it is possible to convert between different types of energy. Heat is one type, chemical energy is another, kinetic energy (movement) is yet another. There are a whole bunch.\n\nSo photosynthesis takes carbon dioxide and water and energy from the sun (as light) and converts that energy to another form the plant can use, chemical energy.\n\nC*_6_*H*_12_*O*_6_* is the where the energy is stored. A molecule. This specific one is a sugar. Those lovely molecules that give us energy as well. The plant can use this energy as it needs to operate (live). The last thing is oxygen which is a byproduct. This is a \"waste\" product to that plant, something that is left over from this conversion and is released. To us it is very important and we need it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1q0kj4 | why do you feel distress in the heart region when you think about something emotionally painful? why there and not in any other part of the body? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q0kj4/eli5_why_do_you_feel_distress_in_the_heart_region/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd7xt03"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The neurological process involved in the perception of heartache is not known, but is thought to involve the anterior cingulate cortex of the brain, which during stress may overstimulate the vagus nerve causing pain, nausea or muscle tightness in the chest.\n\nsource: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-chest-pains"
]
] |
||
35k9yu | why do i sometimes get an eyelash type hair on my arms? | I mean like a really dark, somewhat thicker hair that easily stands out to me. Is it just an illusion or something? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35k9yu/eli5why_do_i_sometimes_get_an_eyelash_type_hair/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr593i2"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Chances are you have a lot of melanin in that specific follicle and it makes your hair darker, it usually happens on or around moles and freckles."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5cry7k | ; i heard that the president of the us needs permission from congress to go to war, but i also heard that the president has nuclear launch codes and if he gives the order to attack it must be followed. wtf!? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5cry7k/eli5_i_heard_that_the_president_of_the_us_needs/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9yvad4",
"d9yvcol"
],
"score": [
4,
8
],
"text": [
"Going to war and sending troops to attack someone are two different things. \n\nThe President, being the Commander-in-Chief of the US military can direct that military, including nukes, to attack any place or person in the world. He then has 2 days to notify Congress of the action, Congress then has 10 days to either approve the action, declare war (which is also approving the action), or to decline the action. If they decline it the President then has 30 days to recall the troops. \n\nFully declaring war grants the President a lot of additional powers and that has not been done since WWII. All \"wars\" since then have not been true wars, they have been \"extended military conflicts\" or \"police actions\" which use the military in the same way as a true war, but do not grant the President as many powers over the country such as declaring rationing or reinstating the draft or the like. ",
"The Constitution states that Congress has the power to declare war.\n\nHowever, Congress has given the president the power to use military force for short periods of time where US interests are concerned. In the nuclear age, the reason is obvious: the war could be over before Congress could even be assembled to vote on a declaration of war."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
71o9ic | why does our body heat up (and start sweating) when we are in pain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/71o9ic/eli5_why_does_our_body_heat_up_and_start_sweating/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnc9vo9",
"dncbt55"
],
"score": [
3,
8
],
"text": [
"Pain in any part of the body triggers the release of a hormone called adrenaline. This hormone causes which we called \"Fight or Flight\" response. Basically, it makes Our body ready for either fighting the pain or running away from pain. For this, the body increases the blood pressure thus increasing the intake of oxygen on the body. This enables the body to make split second decisions and as more oxygen is consumed, more heat is produced in the body which in turn makes us sweat more and make us hot. ",
"Nice try, Ajax, but no.\n\nYou are on the right track with adrenaline and fight or flight, but then you go off the rails with blood pressure and oxygen, and sweat making you hot.\n\nLike I said fight or flight is absolutely correct. In either situation - fighting or fleeing - your body needs to prepare for sudden explosive muscular movements which WILL generate heat, necessitating sweat ( referred to as a \"cold sweat\" or \"fear sweat\" ) to COOL YOU DOWN.\n\n Yes, blood pressure goes up, by constricting blood flow to non essential systems, skin, gut, liver, salivary system, and opening blood flow to heart, lungs, brain, and Large Muscle groups. The extra blood flow to the muscles may or may not make you feel hotter, depending on your level of muscle mass.\n\nThe extra blood flow to the brain facilitates a dump of neurotransmitters - dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, which leads to the clarity.of thought, but also causes dilation of the pupils, in some cases leading to reports of tunnel vision, or greater focus on the threat. In the case of a pain response, this can cause a psychological increase in pain levels, due to this focus, though most reports after the event indicate that there was less physical pain ( thanks, epinephrine and dopamine!), and more panic and focus on the threat."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
48vbpu | how an inch of rain equates a foot of snow | Based off of this article:
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48vbpu/eli5how_an_inch_of_rain_equates_a_foot_of_snow/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0mufdx",
"d0muifw",
"d0mvydz"
],
"score": [
22,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Snow is fluffy. If you melt a foot of snow, the fluffiness goes away and discover it was only an inch of water. The rest was air.",
"Water is denser than snow. When snowflakes pile on top of each other, there's a lot of empty space in between the crystals. So a cubic foot of snow contains a great deal of air, whereas a cubic foot of water is just solid water. That's why a cubic foot of water is much heavier than a cubic foot of snow. A cubic foot of solid ice on the other hand (without all the air that snow has in it) would weigh the same as a cubic foot of water. ",
"Look at a snowflake - it is a frozen crystal, with lots of pointy parts sticking out. As they fall on each other, these ridges and points lead to a jumble, and lots of air pockets in between each crystal. Water is all just one thing, fully compressed. Once you squeeze all the air out of the snow and push it into a hard piece of ice with no air pockets, it is much closer to the size of the water. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://snowbrains.com/miracle-march-snowfall-totals-for-western-usa-just-keep-getting-bigger/"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bbccdi | why does it hurt so much more and longer, after ripping skin off near your finger nail compared to your toe nail? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bbccdi/eli5_why_does_it_hurt_so_much_more_and_longer/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekhspd4",
"ekhsx21"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Your fingers are far more sensitive than your toes, mostly because we use our fingers to interact with the world while our toes are just used to help us run faster.",
"You have more nerve ending in your fingers. You also actively use your finger more than your toes. This means you are more likely to hit/bump/touch sore area, prolonging its healing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3t1qyz | if usps postman doesn't ask for my sign and drops off package, what's stopping someone from ordering expensive stuff from amazon and claiming it never arrived ? | I've never seen any USPS postman asking for signature. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t1qyz/eli5_if_usps_postman_doesnt_ask_for_my_sign_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx2c41x",
"cx2fpsv",
"cx2hcph"
],
"score": [
9,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The shipper decides if a signature is needed. I have delivered $5 items requiring a signature and also left $2000 items on a porch when the shipper did not require proof of delivery. \n\nSource: Ex FedEx driver",
"Nothing. People have done this to amazon,specifically.they generally just budget for it as a price of doing business.\n\nThey take a loss,but it's better than adding hassle to people's lives if they want to make sure you don't ever think about going to a competitor \n\nIf it happens enough to get noticed,they will blacklist you and won't send you stuff anymore.\n\nedit:if it's supposed to be signed for,isnt ,and something happens,the postman is in deep shit.usps probably has insurance for it,but the delivery guy is going to face some penalty. \n\nIt's hard to balance,because usually it's fine,and people get pissy if it isn't delivered even if they weren't there to sign.its a lose/lose",
"Most companies will file a claim with the delivery service which often has checks as to whether an item was delivered. Delivery people usually have to mark a specific time/detail when they make the delivery as proof that they physically put the package at the final location. They keep records of filed claims for each address. If you report a lot of missing items companies will stop delivering to you based on these claims. Insurance will cover the rest for the company until they cut you off. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
21naaj | if people are not satisfied with the u.s. government, why don't they vote for a third party? | I see/hear people complaining about the government all the time, yet when the election comes up everyone still votes either democrat or republican. Why don't more people vote for a third party? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21naaj/eli5if_people_are_not_satisfied_with_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgeoh2w",
"cgeohjg",
"cgeolm5",
"cgeolup",
"cgeq2yi",
"cgerbxn"
],
"score": [
5,
13,
4,
14,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The biggest reason I see is that there's no third party that's large enough to actually get elected in a major election, and voting for them is tantamount to a wasted vote (yes, I know it's not really a wasted vote, but you're gonna lose).",
"America uses FPTP voting, which inevitably results in only two parties. If you vote for a third party and the third party loses by a wide margin, your vote could have been better spent on the larger party that you dislike least. \n\n[CGP grey explains the problem really well](_URL_0_)",
"They do, occasionally. See Ross Perot in 1996 and Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Usually forming a third party is counter-intuitive though since it almost always splits the vote, resulting in an easy plurality victory for the other side.\n\nBasically when the US political system was formed, the founding fathers intentionally created a system that would favor two parties. This was to prevent \"factionalism\" as they called it and was intended to keep minorities from gaining too much power, while also keeping the majority from tyrannizing minorities. Since there are only two parties, both are forced towards the center in order to try to \"capture\" as much of the populace as possible. This stifles radicalization and prevents one group from decisively controlling the legislature for significant lengths of time.",
"It's gamesmanship, essentially.\n\nLet's use an example; say there are 101 people, almost evenly split between voting for two parties. 50 voters apiece, with one guy making the difference between the two parties (the swing vote). Let's say this guy votes randomly.\n\nIf you, as a Democrat, vote Democrat, then both parties will be evenly matched, and the swing vote will randomly decide a winner (in real elections, this is decided by how well each candidate campaigns). **However**, if you vote third party, then your original party (Democrats) is very likely to lose to the Republicans (as it will be 1-49-50, with the swing vote choosing randomly between the three). If two people vote for the third party from the Democrats, then it's 2-48-50; no matter how the swing vote goes, the Republicans win.\n\nAs such, each vote for a third party increase the chances that your original opponent will win. In general, people who vote third-party support more of the original party's ideas than their opponent; someone changing from Democrat to Green will support more Democrat ideas than Republican, but Green better represents the voter.\n\nTherefore, voting for the Democrats is the lesser of two evils; while all of my views (Green) will not be represented, at least some of my views (Democrat) will be represented, as opposed to very few of my views (Republican)",
"Don't you really mean a second party?",
"I do. Since my votes for the election don't matter, and for some idiotic reason my state still determines who wins the election all the time, I vote for a third party candidate that looks good. \n\nIt doesn't really matter, winning Ohio is all about who can institute a better cheating system on the electronic ballots anyways."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2zkkm4 | how come i sober up from intoxication, even though i don't urinate or go to sleep? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zkkm4/eli5_how_come_i_sober_up_from_intoxication_even/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpjqvyh",
"cpjs579"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Urination and sleeping have nothing to do with becoming sober. Alcohol is metabolized by the human body, and the resulting substances are either used by the body or excreted.\n\nAlcohol metabolism is important to life. The average adult human body produces a \"shot\" of alcohol approximately once every week. In effect... We are all \"alcoholics.\" :)",
"To add to what /u/lacsacr wrote. \nThe alcohol that affects you and makes you drunk is the one in your blood. Your blood is constantly being cleaned and filtered by your liver and kidneys as well as like /u/lacsacr said metabolized (or in other words broken down into its basic components."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
kmue2 | what does the electric shock therapy do in a mental hospital? | I don't know the exact name for it, but an example of it is what happens to the old lady in Requiem for a Dream at the very end.
On that note, how does injecting painful liquids that make the patient squirm and scream help treat their mental illness? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kmue2/what_does_the_electric_shock_therapy_do_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2lijes",
"c2linon",
"c2linu7",
"c2liswl",
"c2liu42",
"c2ljfvb",
"c2lijes",
"c2linon",
"c2linu7",
"c2liswl",
"c2liu42",
"c2ljfvb"
],
"score": [
2,
32,
2,
2,
4,
13,
2,
32,
2,
2,
4,
13
],
"text": [
"It's called electroconvulsive therapy. I have no idea how it's supposed to work.\n\nNobody injects painful liquids just for the sake of injecting painful liquids... where did you hear that?",
"The proper name for that kind of therapy is *electroconvulsive therapy*, or *ECT*. \n\nThe way ECT is done in real life isn't exactly like in the movies. In real life, the first step is to first use medicine to make the patient fall asleep. Patients are never awake during ECT.\n\nThen, they inject the patient with a different medicine that makes it so they can't move. It makes their muscles turn off and go limp. This is important because of the next step.\n\nThen, they shock the patient's brain with electricity. The idea is to overpower the brain's own electrical circuitry and force it into a seizure. Usually seizures make people shake and flail wildly, which could hurt them. Because the patient's muscles are temporarily turned off, though, that part doesn't happen.\n\nNobody knows exactly why, but all that electricity kind of reboots the patient's brain. This can help the patient recover from bad mental illnesses that they haven't been able to treat in any other way. It causes other problems, though, like headaches, memory loss, and confusion. Sometimes patients and doctors decide it's worth it though.",
"I think the electricity is meant to stimulate certain parts of the brain, and cause more activity there (if the nodes are connected to the brain) Otherwise I think its just a method of pain to shock people when they do something wrong, so there develops a sort of 'sixth sense' for wrongness.\n\nI don't think they do inject painful liquids. The only liquids they'd inject would be painkillers, so the opposite of a painful liquid.",
"I remember reading in my psychology book that it isn't used much anymore, but that when it is used it is used to treat very sever depression. That somehow the electric affects the neurons in the brain causing them to release things that adjusts the brain's functions.",
"Some doctors discovered that patients who were both epileptic and depressed appeared to feel much better after having seizures. As I remember it the seizure sort of fires up the whole brain, releasing signal substances and such. \n\nWhen you are depressed the signals in your brain don't spread as fast, think of it as dropping stones in water, and the ripples on the surface being thoughts, now if you changed the water to jello it wouldn't be spread around as much as when it was water. Basically the convulsion therapy stirs up the brain, making you feel less shitty.",
"I worked in mental health for 5 years and did some clinicals at a psych floor while in nursing school. I did even get to interview a patient prior to ECT, then watch the procedure, then talk to her again afterward. It really is *nothing* like to see in the movies. She was very depressed prior. Couldn't even get out of bed. During the procedure, the only thing that moved was her toes, twitching a little bit. Afterward, she was a little tired for a few hours, and then was back to normal. It really was amazing how much it helped her.",
"It's called electroconvulsive therapy. I have no idea how it's supposed to work.\n\nNobody injects painful liquids just for the sake of injecting painful liquids... where did you hear that?",
"The proper name for that kind of therapy is *electroconvulsive therapy*, or *ECT*. \n\nThe way ECT is done in real life isn't exactly like in the movies. In real life, the first step is to first use medicine to make the patient fall asleep. Patients are never awake during ECT.\n\nThen, they inject the patient with a different medicine that makes it so they can't move. It makes their muscles turn off and go limp. This is important because of the next step.\n\nThen, they shock the patient's brain with electricity. The idea is to overpower the brain's own electrical circuitry and force it into a seizure. Usually seizures make people shake and flail wildly, which could hurt them. Because the patient's muscles are temporarily turned off, though, that part doesn't happen.\n\nNobody knows exactly why, but all that electricity kind of reboots the patient's brain. This can help the patient recover from bad mental illnesses that they haven't been able to treat in any other way. It causes other problems, though, like headaches, memory loss, and confusion. Sometimes patients and doctors decide it's worth it though.",
"I think the electricity is meant to stimulate certain parts of the brain, and cause more activity there (if the nodes are connected to the brain) Otherwise I think its just a method of pain to shock people when they do something wrong, so there develops a sort of 'sixth sense' for wrongness.\n\nI don't think they do inject painful liquids. The only liquids they'd inject would be painkillers, so the opposite of a painful liquid.",
"I remember reading in my psychology book that it isn't used much anymore, but that when it is used it is used to treat very sever depression. That somehow the electric affects the neurons in the brain causing them to release things that adjusts the brain's functions.",
"Some doctors discovered that patients who were both epileptic and depressed appeared to feel much better after having seizures. As I remember it the seizure sort of fires up the whole brain, releasing signal substances and such. \n\nWhen you are depressed the signals in your brain don't spread as fast, think of it as dropping stones in water, and the ripples on the surface being thoughts, now if you changed the water to jello it wouldn't be spread around as much as when it was water. Basically the convulsion therapy stirs up the brain, making you feel less shitty.",
"I worked in mental health for 5 years and did some clinicals at a psych floor while in nursing school. I did even get to interview a patient prior to ECT, then watch the procedure, then talk to her again afterward. It really is *nothing* like to see in the movies. She was very depressed prior. Couldn't even get out of bed. During the procedure, the only thing that moved was her toes, twitching a little bit. Afterward, she was a little tired for a few hours, and then was back to normal. It really was amazing how much it helped her."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
af6lww | how are magnets produced/extracted? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/af6lww/eli5_how_are_magnets_producedextracted/ | {
"a_id": [
"edw1bxn",
"edwi2fq"
],
"score": [
25,
3
],
"text": [
"There is type of iron ore called magnetite, also known as lodestone, is a natural permanent magnet. Magnets can also be made using other large magnets. You take a piece of material and place it next to a large magnet and after some time that piece of material becomes a magnet.",
"Follow up: how do they work?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1atzw1 | why does the u.s military use depleted uranium in their ammunition? | *Some of their ammo. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1atzw1/eli5_why_does_the_us_military_use_depleted/ | {
"a_id": [
"c90q27t",
"c90q2zk",
"c90rv11"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"because it's really frickin hard and can go through really heavily armored things",
"It's a dense material! Denser than lead while having excellent strength. This combination increases the kinetic energy of the projectile. Thus the impact force. ",
"in addition to being very dense (and therefore a good penetrator of armor) depleted uranium is naturally [pyrophoric](_URL_0_). powdered or vaporized DU will spontaneously combust when exposed to air. its stable in the ammunition itself, but on impact it will blow itself into dust (if fired from a cannon with sufficient energy, anyway) which will ignite. its a really nasty weapon."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophoricity"
]
] |
|
3qajod | why does it hurt so bad when you pop something into or out of its joint? | I have a hip condition that makes it so that my leg pops out and back in at least three times a week. It feels like I've been stabbed and completely winds me. Where are all the nerves that make this so painful? Is it not just bone vs bone? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qajod/eli5_why_does_it_hurt_so_bad_when_you_pop/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwdikmf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Pain is, at the core, a signal that something is damaged and you should do something about it, or protect it, or something. In the case of joints popping out, your body is telling you in no mild terms, \"Don't you fucking walk on that leg with your hip popped or you are going to tear a ligament and be crippled forever so don't you fucking dare try it.\" "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2w2h0x | why did the nazis despise the russians more than their other allied enemies on the western front? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w2h0x/eli5_why_did_the_nazis_despise_the_russians_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"comzk7u",
"comzmy4"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I think it had to do with historical rivalries, as well as Nazi ideology that saw Slavic people as racially inferior.",
"The Nazis viewed the Slavic people as racially inferior but also the Nazis never foresaw themselves fighting Britain or a lot of the west as they were also of the Aryan race and subsequently \"Übermensch\". The desired German Empire was taking inspiration from the British in India and Hitler was a little disappointed Britain didn't ally with the Germans."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2goyr5 | why has the us military switched to a digital looking camouflage on clothes from the traditional more wavy looking pattern? | When you look at the pattern on modern military uniforms it looks all pixilated and made up of a bunch of squares instead of the usually wavy pattern. Is there a reason they made it like this now? I feel that the traditional would be better for blending in | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2goyr5/eli5_why_has_the_us_military_switched_to_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckl6mdj",
"cklfvqs",
"cklh6x2"
],
"score": [
29,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In testing like [this](_URL_1_), MARPAT is the digital camo, it takes about [3 times](_URL_0_) as long to identify MARPAT vs traditional camo",
"I always thought that it was because with Cameras and that being digital and the images they product being pixelated. Pixelated camo blends better with modern imaging technology.",
"It was a move to save money. \n\nThe military held a competition for several compleating camouflages in which the multicam pattern won. This pattern applied science on how humans see in an attempt to increase its effectiveness in as many environments as possible. Unfortunately multicam was a complex pattern to produce and expensive because it was patented. \n\nTo save money the military decided to develop an in house camoflage using computers to determine the best interference pattern, hence the digital look. This sadly wasn't tested very well ( and possibly not at all) in the real world and the method of generating it based on any theory taking into account how humans see. The digital camoflage pattern was very effective in some situations but not many. It eventually turned out to be a poor choice in Iraq a disaster in Afghanistan. The military eventually issued multicam to troops there. The will soon replace the digital camoflage with a multicam derivative. \n\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_\n_URL_2_\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://hyperstealth.com/digital-design/Test-Results-1.gif",
"http://hyperstealth.com/digital-design/test-results-3.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Camouflage_Pattern",
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_universal_camouflage_trials",
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiCam"
]
] |
|
bjsrxv | why does states in usa want to ban abortion? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bjsrxv/eli5_why_does_states_in_usa_want_to_ban_abortion/ | {
"a_id": [
"emavdrx",
"emaw2ws",
"emax8hz",
"emax9d7"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they believe it's an act of murder, you are killing a unborn baby. I support abortion.",
"Because too many people cannot comprehend that there are other beliefs and ethics beyond their own, so they think that their beliefs must be legally enforced, even upon those who disagree with them, somehow having the misguided belief that that protects their \"religious freedom\". It's not. It's religious supremacy.",
"I will try to answer this as objectively as possible and will explain the difference perspectives since there isn't really a complete black and white answer to this.\n\nThere are essentially two major viewpoints:\n\n* That as soon as a women becomes pregnant, there is a living being inside of her. And removing said being would be murder. \n* That the fetus is just a lump of cells (roughly expressed) and that there is no murder in removing said lump of cells. That the right for women to decide what to do with their own body is more important. This is up to a certain time in the pregnancy when the fetus starts to become sentient and actually develop into a developed human being. \n\nThis is mostly based on your own morality and values. If you believe that as soon as a woman is pregnant there is a living human being in there. Of course removing it will be seen as murder. On the other hand, a lot of people (and most of the western worlds laws) see the fetus as not a sentient being up until a certain point in time of the pregnancy. \n\nSo it's a big debate because one side sees it as murder, and murder if of course a big nono. The other side sees it as the right every woman should have since it's her own body to govern over. \n\nAs as you yourself said, there are massive consequences to banning abortions since there wont stop all abortions.",
"Because its killing an unborn baby, and if not medically necessary many people consider this tantamount to murder. Which self aborting could be legally and people are charged with for doing so."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9jgg2u | what does it mean to be an evangelical christian and why is this category so prominent in surveys? | Seeing as this thread may receive a lot of hate, I am genuinely interested in why this group is always mentioned in surveys when there are many different religious beliefs. Why aren't other classifications/religions listed in these surveys?
Are these people self-proclaimed, or do they choose Evangelical from a list? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9jgg2u/eli5_what_does_it_mean_to_be_an_evangelical/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6rc7i3",
"e6rf3wj"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The word evangelical means someone who is actively trying to spread their religion. Most Christian denominations have some elements of evangelism.\n\nIn the US, the term is used to describe a loose group of culturally conservative and politically active denominations, who typically believe governance should be based on religious principles. They believe the government should oppose things like abortion, homosexuality, women's rights, and evolution because they run counter to their view of biblical principles.",
"Evangelicalism is Christianity centered on certain, specific beliefs:\n\n - Evangelicals believe that atonement for sins comes from praying for forgiveness and accepting that Christ died to redeem your sins. Evangelicals call this being \"born again\" - they see it as a new baptism by which the sinner emerges from the pool as a new person, blessed by Christ and empowered by his sacrifice. They believe that this is the ONLY way to get into Heaven (unlike, say, Catholicism, which believes that faith alone is not enough. Faith must be matched with good deeds and a good life.)\n\n - Evangelicals encourage a \"close\" relationship with God and Christ through personal prayer (ie, not group led prayers as you hear in Catholic mass, though there is some of that in Evangelical services). They also believe that the Bible (and more specifically, the Gospels) is the final authority on God and Christianity and so they encourage believers to study it closely and innately - usually under the guidance of a pastor or elder who can help with things like context. This doesn't necessarily mean that all Evangelical groups see the Bible as inerrant, ie \"literal history\" (though many do). Just that the Bible is ultimate authority for Christians, not church hierarchy. \n\n - Evangelicals also believe heavily in spreading their faith. Most Christians took Jesus' command to spread his message as a command to evangelize, but Evangelicals in particular see it as a key component of living a godly life. \n\n - Evangelicals also tend to believe heavily in the emotional and spiritual aspect of church. Speaking in tongues, boisterous worship, loud songs, etc (that are not acted but rather expressed honestly) are meant to be outward manifestations of your faith. They're seen as expressions of your zeal for your faith, your happiness upon being \"born again\" and lifted up from sin, and your positive outlook on the world. You know the old trope of the guy who has the near-death experience and then lives each day afterwards with a positive attitude and a smile as if each day is a gift? That's the attitude that Evangelicals are supposed to have. \n\nIn the United States, Evangelicals, protestant, and Fundamentalists are often used interchangeably to describe the same group of people but there are some differences between them (while also a lot of overlap). There are evangelical Catholics for example as well as \"progressive\" evangelical denominations. Evangelical shows up as a separate option in those surveys often because Evangelical churches are often not part of broader, nationwide churches. Many evangelical churches are begun by particularly charismatic or inspiring pastors who may/may not have any formal training or accreditation by larger churches and so don't belong to any mainstream group. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
eo34t9 | why video game companies make such beautiful cinematic trailers about their video games, but they never lead to a full fledged movie on the big screen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eo34t9/eli5_why_video_game_companies_make_such_beautiful/ | {
"a_id": [
"febzw4w",
"fe7n9kg",
"fe7oead",
"fe7plru",
"fe7s48y",
"fe8qp3t",
"fe8w60j",
"fe931jo",
"fe98soz",
"fe9coj0",
"fe9gllf",
"fe9ogp2",
"fe9pj83",
"fe9u6ls",
"fe9z50p",
"feanxeq"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
45,
6,
463,
749,
9,
16,
17,
16,
118,
2,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Because you've already played it. You know what happens already. Hell, you've probably seen every nook and cranny of the game world and witnessed multiple endings.\n\nWhat would a movie have to work with?",
"I doubt it would be cost effective. To make 90 minutes with those kind of visuals would take a huge amount of both time and money and it would require to make a huge box office to have a decent profit so it would be too risky to greenlit such project",
"It has, on several occasions, and the movies were financial flops. \n\nSee Final Fantasy the spirits within",
"Prince of Persia, The Witcher, Assassins Creed, Warcraft, Resident Evil, Rampage, Silent Hill, Super Mario Bros.,Doom,Tomb Raider... I'm sure I forgot a few.",
"The storytelling and writing is different. The writing in games works in games, but the same writing sucks for a movie because games are meant to be played, not watched. That's the main reason why games that are turned into movies suck, and why movies turned into games suck. \n\nYou wouldn't want to see a 90 minute movie of Master Chief shooting a bunch of flood creatures, but you would like to shoot flood creatures for 90 minutes. A cinematic should be used to transition from event to event and then go back to shooting.",
"A lot of it comes down to budget as well. Blizzard puts out crazy sexy looking cinematics and it would look great on the big screen but Blizzard has also said that if they were to make a full length feature film that looked as good as the cinematics that it would be the most expensive movie ever made. \n\nAt the end of the day the only reason companies don't make something is because it wouldn't make enough money to be worth it.",
"Getting three minutes of content to put into a trailer campaign is a piece of cake. Seriously, you can do it even if you haven't actually got a fully fledged, carefully made product to sell. Remember Aliens: Colonial Marines? They had some glorious trailers for that garbage fire of a shoddy looking scam job, but barely a game to go with them. \n\n But you have to understand a few things. First is that these beautiful cinematic trailers take way longer to make than to watch. Hell, there are YouTubers making content out there, who shoot hours and hours of footage, just to get material together for a ten to fifteen minute video. That means watching the hours and hours of footage, curating out all the boring crap, selecting the good segments, refining them, adding graphics, animations, captions and the like. That takes flipping ages. So, making movies of any quality, takes an awful lot of time and patience and must either be done for the love of doing it, or with reasonable expectation of a return on that investment of time and patience, which brings us neatly round to....\n\nSecond, movies very particularly, do not get made unless someone with an awful lot of money and power, normally someone whose name is not household level, says they ought to be. They also do not get made unless the studio cranking the film out, believes it will make its money back and then some. Realistically, the track record of films based on computer games has been less than reassuring to investors, and when we are talking about making movies, we are really talking about securing investment. It is worth pointing out at this stage that movies that don't get funded, don't get made. It takes a lot of human and technical resources to make a movie, and without the reassurance of someone putting their money where their mouth is, those resources simply are not going to materialise. \n\n Third, once again, there is a stigma about computer games movies, a deep, abiding, and not in the slightest undeserved stigma, surrounding computer games movies. The stigma goes, basically they are terrible, and there have already been enough bad ones made, that no amount of success of computer games movies will EVER amount to a rebalancing of the scale in favour of the notion of a computer game movie. \n\n Basically, between the difficulty of making movies, the difficulty of making animated movies, the difficulty of selling computer games related movies to serious production houses, and the fact that computer game movies are often shit, its not surprising that these things don't happen often.",
"Most effective video stories are effective because of the medium they are presented in. The last of us would not be interesting as a movie. World of Warcraft would not be interesting as a movie.",
"There are certain lore deep games that could probably do it successfully, but most (good) games are made to be enjoyed as an active player, not a passive observer. The main issue with the lore deep games, however, is that your audience is going to be limited. For example: Kingdom Hearts. There’s enough deep lore and stuff going on that it could work, but there’s no way that you can fully include an audience outside of fans of the game.",
"Anyone can look like an olympic runner for 2 seconds. You'll notice those cinematic trailers do not offer much in the way of dialogue or actual storytelling. Its much harder to tell a complete story in 2 hours, the trailer lets the actual gameplay do that so it doesnt have to",
"Money. A beautiful cinematic trailer will get you to buy a game that is likely around $60 usd.\n\nA beautiful full-fledged movie will get you to buy a ticket for $15 and cost more than the entire production cycle for a video game most of the time.\n\nThe goal of both products is to get your money not make you happy. When you already make video game money, it doesn't make financial sense to go and make movie money.",
"I think another issue is the cost. Those crazy 2 minute cinematic cost A LOT of money to make. Imagine investing it to be 1.5 - 2 hours and making 0 profit.",
"Money is the answer. Take Warcraft the movie as an example since it's the most recent I remember. Production costs of 160 million. Needed to make 380 million to break even..\n\nThis stuff consumes a lot of money and needs a lot of specialists in their specific workfield. \n\nAdditionally: marketing purposes. You get people hyped and hooked on by epic Trailers, not gameplay.\n\nLast point: 2-3 minutes of storyboard are rather easy since in most cases Trailers either show a \"how did it come to the Situation we jump into as the player\" or an action scene that doesn't need story at all and rather cool Explosions; shoot outs and so on.\n\nIn both cases you don't need to worry about story and character development, the boring middlepart of the movie, hybris, bridge. Everything that makes a movie a movie basically.\n\nInteresting enough though I wonder what the animated resident evil movies were supposed to be. Direct to DVD and definitely expensive judging by the production quality. maybe a love Project of capcom with no direct intend to make money.",
"Square Enix tried valiantly with Final Fantasy : The Spirits Within... and hit the Uncanny Valley so hard it left mental scars.",
"Video game plots are usually equivalent to a b+ movie at best. What sells the game is how the player interacts with the mechanics and/or the environmental storytelling. Most game trailers, if they even have any narrative cohesion, would be like trying to sell you a short story that somehow lasts over 20+ hours.\n\nI think the difference between games and movies are great enough that it would be hard to translate between the two.",
"It’s surprisingly easy to make a 2 mn money shot that works well.\n\nI’ve produced/exec produced/co-directed/commissionned a few that made a splash back in the days :\nHaze - _URL_1_\nI am Alive - _URL_2_\nGhost Recon - _URL_0_\n\nTrust me - the sweat, the crunch, the tears, the endless approval loops, the actual physical fights over 2 mns costing 400k to 800k$. There’s no way any of those would make it into any longer form content without actual deaths.\n\nOr if it does get out with minimal casualties.. it’s not so great.\n\nA « good » example with Ghost Recon Alpha - _URL_3_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/VhVx3jBXRSY",
"https://youtu.be/kbrCZpaH9oM",
"https://youtu.be/HZ6Aely9YrQ",
"https://youtu.be/7-wAzlqzXH0"
]
] |
||
1ipguz | why isn't cheating in marriage a punishable crime? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ipguz/eli5_why_isnt_cheating_in_marriage_a_punishable/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb6qv2s",
"cb6qv5j",
"cb6qvq9"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because in the modern world, we generally think that the people you get in bed with aren't the government's business.",
"You need cause to criminalize something, what is the cause behind criminalizing extramarital relations?\n\nCan you think of any instances where criminalizing extramarital relations might have negative effects, or be considered overly intrusive? ",
"Cheating is a punishable crime in many religions, and there are also countries who make it illegal too--here is a wiki I found, hope that helps :)\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery"
]
] |
||
41nw0z | how did the hms challenger find challenger deep in 1875 without access to submersibles or sonar? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41nw0z/eli5_how_did_the_hms_challenger_find_challenger/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz3s3v3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A very long string, with a lump of lead on the end.\n\nNo - really. Though rope, of course, rather than string. A big lump of lead on the end - the line goes slack(ish) when it reaches the bottom. Grease pressed into the hollow end of the cup could sample the bottom."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ktryl | how game developers write and design games for the xbox 360, ps3, and pc simultaneously? | I always wondered how a studio can write a game for the XBox 360, PC, and PS3 at the same time and have all versions come out identical. Do they just make one version of it? Are there different teams that work on different consoles? How's it work? Keep in mind please that I know absolutely nothing about writing code or designing games. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ktryl/eli5_how_game_developers_write_and_design_games/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2n5w2k",
"c2n5z7c",
"c2n61pe",
"c2n66zi",
"c2n6epd",
"c2n6in4",
"c2n6r15",
"c2n7x7a",
"c2n5w2k",
"c2n5z7c",
"c2n61pe",
"c2n66zi",
"c2n6epd",
"c2n6in4",
"c2n6r15",
"c2n7x7a"
],
"score": [
3,
28,
129,
3,
13,
29,
4,
2,
3,
28,
129,
3,
13,
29,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually it is written on one platform and ported to the rest. For big studios, they do this quite often so the tools and methods they use to change the code becomes more efficient. \n\nUsually it's built for PC and then ported to consoles. There have been a few cases where it has been done the other way around, but most of the time this results in lots of bugs..etc. ",
"Some engines can do this:\n\n_URL_0_",
"One of the big ideas in programming is *abstraction*. Basically, this means hiding away as many details as you can about things, in order to get a higher level view of it. Using a web browser is a good example of abstraction: In order to view a web page, you do not need to know anything about how the internet works. You just give the browser an address, and it does all of the work of finding the right server, requesting the page, and then rendering the page once it comes in. The details of how it does this are not important to you. In fact, Mozilla or Google could change how it works entirely, and as long as the browser still gets you your page, you don't really have to care.\n\nPeople writing games try to do the same thing. They try to add abstractions to their code, so that the details of what platform they're running on end up mattering very little. Inevitably there will have to be some platform specific code. But, in a well written application, this portion will be relatively small.",
"(English not first language) Well, the way things work in the wonderfull land of development, is preaty simple, there are a lot of different machines, and they are all like robots, they do whatever you tell them to do, but they need to know exactly what you mean, for example you can tell to the xbox360 or the ps3 to color all the screen blue, but they speak different languages, so we create some other robots, but not real robots, this robots are imaginary friends, actually you can build the blue prints of your own robots, the blue prints are called classes, and then you can create as many robots (aka 'instances') from that blueprint as you want, and design them to do whatever you need them to do, so the companies have huge piles of imaginary robots blue prints (aka calsses), they call them engines or libraries, and some of these robots are designed to be the translators, like C3PO on star wars, great movie isn't it ? so, the robots that take care of what is going on in the game, speak the same language that the translators, and the translators speak directly to the xbox/pc/wii whatever, the must of the time they can use the same robots to move things around or to drive a car, in some cases they have to make some minor fixes to the blue prints of some robots :) so when are you planning on starting building imaginary robots ?",
"So there are a few things you need to worry about that make consoles and PCs unique. They are:\n\n1) Method of input (controller, keyboard/mouse, microphone)\n\n2) Hardware capabilities (number of polygons, shadow, shaders, etc)\n\nSo let's say a studio wanted to develop a first person shooter for all of them. The first thing you'd do is (as schauerlich described) abstract away the differences. How would you do that?\n\nForget about a keyboard. Your character can run forward, backward, can strafe, and can look around. So write your game assuming that your character can do just that, and let's say you have it in an abstraction you call an InputModule. You didn't write any code for the input module, all you did was define what you want out of it (this is generally called an interface in coding terms).\n\nSo now, all you have to do is write a different version of InputModule for each individual console. Everything else about the game is entirely identical (and trust me, 99.9999% of the work is not in hooking up InputModule).\n\nAs for hardware capabilities, you can do something similar with graphics, where you write (or have) a graphics engine that understands something colloquially called hinting. Basically, hinting means \"If you can do Xa, do Xa, but I'll be fine with X\" where \"a\" is some additional effect (a special shader, or an extra light). The same general rules apply for networking libraries.\n\nTL;DR: Figure out what's different between all platforms, figure out a representation for all of them that makes sense, and code it using that representation. That way, all your versions of the game are completely identical minus some plumbing that doesn't affect the game in any significant way.",
"Imagine you live on Europe and you have a freezer. Now you want to move to the USA. You could either buy a new freezer here, or use a power adapter between the plug and the freezer. It's probably cheaper to buy the power adapter. Same if you move to Japan or any other country.\n\nWriting portable code works pretty much the same way. Instead of recoding the whole game (\"buying a new freezer\"), they add a layer between the game and the hardware (\"a power adapter\") so that the only thing that needs to be changed between different platforms is that layer.",
"I used to build the system that made this idea work.\n\n[](/fluttersrs) All the video game systems have a lot in common. They all can show 3D graphics, they can play sound, they have something to use as a controller, and can connect to the Internet. No matter what you do, you need all of this for a game. The code that you have to write for a PS3 vs a Wii tends to be very different to make the graphics and sound work, and is kind of tedious and hard to write. \n\nThis means writing a game engine, which is a sort of \"universal adapter\" for consoles. Game engines have code written for each platform that take most of the features of the console, repackage them, and hand them to the game. Each platform then has the same code for controlling the hardware. So if you say \"I want this character to appear at this spot\", it will work on every console.\n\nOnce you have a build engine, you can write most of the game once, and it will just work everywhere. You'll still need to do some tweaking here and there, as not every platform is the same. But it will be far less work than writing the same game three times at the exact same pace. And, as more new cool features get added to the engine, every new game can get them.",
"Explaining it to you like you're 5:\n\nIt's like writing a book that's going to be translated into different languages. You only use words that all the languages have in common.",
"Usually it is written on one platform and ported to the rest. For big studios, they do this quite often so the tools and methods they use to change the code becomes more efficient. \n\nUsually it's built for PC and then ported to consoles. There have been a few cases where it has been done the other way around, but most of the time this results in lots of bugs..etc. ",
"Some engines can do this:\n\n_URL_0_",
"One of the big ideas in programming is *abstraction*. Basically, this means hiding away as many details as you can about things, in order to get a higher level view of it. Using a web browser is a good example of abstraction: In order to view a web page, you do not need to know anything about how the internet works. You just give the browser an address, and it does all of the work of finding the right server, requesting the page, and then rendering the page once it comes in. The details of how it does this are not important to you. In fact, Mozilla or Google could change how it works entirely, and as long as the browser still gets you your page, you don't really have to care.\n\nPeople writing games try to do the same thing. They try to add abstractions to their code, so that the details of what platform they're running on end up mattering very little. Inevitably there will have to be some platform specific code. But, in a well written application, this portion will be relatively small.",
"(English not first language) Well, the way things work in the wonderfull land of development, is preaty simple, there are a lot of different machines, and they are all like robots, they do whatever you tell them to do, but they need to know exactly what you mean, for example you can tell to the xbox360 or the ps3 to color all the screen blue, but they speak different languages, so we create some other robots, but not real robots, this robots are imaginary friends, actually you can build the blue prints of your own robots, the blue prints are called classes, and then you can create as many robots (aka 'instances') from that blueprint as you want, and design them to do whatever you need them to do, so the companies have huge piles of imaginary robots blue prints (aka calsses), they call them engines or libraries, and some of these robots are designed to be the translators, like C3PO on star wars, great movie isn't it ? so, the robots that take care of what is going on in the game, speak the same language that the translators, and the translators speak directly to the xbox/pc/wii whatever, the must of the time they can use the same robots to move things around or to drive a car, in some cases they have to make some minor fixes to the blue prints of some robots :) so when are you planning on starting building imaginary robots ?",
"So there are a few things you need to worry about that make consoles and PCs unique. They are:\n\n1) Method of input (controller, keyboard/mouse, microphone)\n\n2) Hardware capabilities (number of polygons, shadow, shaders, etc)\n\nSo let's say a studio wanted to develop a first person shooter for all of them. The first thing you'd do is (as schauerlich described) abstract away the differences. How would you do that?\n\nForget about a keyboard. Your character can run forward, backward, can strafe, and can look around. So write your game assuming that your character can do just that, and let's say you have it in an abstraction you call an InputModule. You didn't write any code for the input module, all you did was define what you want out of it (this is generally called an interface in coding terms).\n\nSo now, all you have to do is write a different version of InputModule for each individual console. Everything else about the game is entirely identical (and trust me, 99.9999% of the work is not in hooking up InputModule).\n\nAs for hardware capabilities, you can do something similar with graphics, where you write (or have) a graphics engine that understands something colloquially called hinting. Basically, hinting means \"If you can do Xa, do Xa, but I'll be fine with X\" where \"a\" is some additional effect (a special shader, or an extra light). The same general rules apply for networking libraries.\n\nTL;DR: Figure out what's different between all platforms, figure out a representation for all of them that makes sense, and code it using that representation. That way, all your versions of the game are completely identical minus some plumbing that doesn't affect the game in any significant way.",
"Imagine you live on Europe and you have a freezer. Now you want to move to the USA. You could either buy a new freezer here, or use a power adapter between the plug and the freezer. It's probably cheaper to buy the power adapter. Same if you move to Japan or any other country.\n\nWriting portable code works pretty much the same way. Instead of recoding the whole game (\"buying a new freezer\"), they add a layer between the game and the hardware (\"a power adapter\") so that the only thing that needs to be changed between different platforms is that layer.",
"I used to build the system that made this idea work.\n\n[](/fluttersrs) All the video game systems have a lot in common. They all can show 3D graphics, they can play sound, they have something to use as a controller, and can connect to the Internet. No matter what you do, you need all of this for a game. The code that you have to write for a PS3 vs a Wii tends to be very different to make the graphics and sound work, and is kind of tedious and hard to write. \n\nThis means writing a game engine, which is a sort of \"universal adapter\" for consoles. Game engines have code written for each platform that take most of the features of the console, repackage them, and hand them to the game. Each platform then has the same code for controlling the hardware. So if you say \"I want this character to appear at this spot\", it will work on every console.\n\nOnce you have a build engine, you can write most of the game once, and it will just work everywhere. You'll still need to do some tweaking here and there, as not every platform is the same. But it will be far less work than writing the same game three times at the exact same pace. And, as more new cool features get added to the engine, every new game can get them.",
"Explaining it to you like you're 5:\n\nIt's like writing a book that's going to be translated into different languages. You only use words that all the languages have in common."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/HN1F2.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/HN1F2.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
arpdyl | how do you calculate a use-by date? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/arpdyl/eli5_how_do_you_calculate_a_useby_date/ | {
"a_id": [
"egov8ct",
"egovpgx"
],
"score": [
5,
6
],
"text": [
"For shelf-stable items, they pull them out of their asses. They're \"Best if used by\" dates, not expiration dates, and they are put far enough in the future that they won't deter you from buying the product. But it's also in the company's interest if people throw out perfectly good product and buy more, so there's incentive to find an optimal medium. A secondary concern is to not go with a date so far in the future that the product might actually have significantly degraded before the date.",
"Use by is a mark of safety - and is used to show what the point in time to food will no longer be safe to eat would be.\n\nTo test for it, manufacturers will do a shelf life study, where they analyse both bacteria in the product, and how the product looks/tastes over time (depending on the food), and determine the length based on the last non-failed date.\n\nFor checking the bacteria, they’ll look at what possible organisms could grow based on the food and it’s packaging. Milk will have a different set of target microorganisms than orange juice.\n\nSo first off, a food is made. The manufacturer will then store it, possibly temperature abuse it (to replicate you buying it in the shop and taking it home), and then keeping cold.\n\nThe food will be tested then every day, for various microorganisms, and when they find levels that are concerning to human health, that’s when the use by is set.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4ekde8 | why do films from the 70's and 80's have that definitive coloring? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ekde8/eli5_why_do_films_from_the_70s_and_80s_have_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"d20vuaf"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It has to do with the film itself: pretty much everyone was using the same one or two Kodak stocks, and there was a switch in the mid 70s to a different formulation that was sharper but had a slightly less natural look than before. You can find all sorts of debate online about the differences between [5254 and 5247 films] (_URL_0_) for example. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=28315"
]
] |
||
z93fq | does the president's foreign policy affect the price of gas? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z93fq/does_the_presidents_foreign_policy_affect_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c62jor7"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yes it will. Depending on how the President feels towards OPEC and other countries that have oil will affect how they feel about us. If the President goes pissing off all of these countries they could easily raise prices or stop giving us oil entirely such as in 1973 when we supported the Yom Kippur War and they embargoed us."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2h7rez | biologically, what happens when your body "learns to use less oxygen"? | Like for example [here](_URL_0_), I often hear that it's important to train your body to use less oxygen.
What happens in my body when I get used to less oxygen? (and why would that be better?) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h7rez/eli5_biologically_what_happens_when_your_body/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckq5gnh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure you really \"learn to use less oxygen.\" The poster in that thread didn't know what he was talking about, he was just asking. In running for example you can use a little bit less oxygen by losing weight and developing a more efficient technique, but otherwise as you get more aerobically fit you learn to process more oxygen not less.\n\nEDIT: Reading over some of the suggestions in that thread, I don't think any of them will \"teach you to use less oxygen\" and some of them are downright bunk."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/1ijw9a/increasing_oxygen_efficiency/"
] | [
[]
] |
|
4lyqmk | why is a 1440p phone 400$ but a 1440p monitor almost as expensive without any other internals or programing | Im thinking of the note 4 I just bought and how even though it is 1440p it has amazing resolution and depth that is like the same price on larger monitors without all the features of a phone (I swear im not a marketer its just a huge upgrade for me). Is it all just material cost? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lyqmk/eli5_why_is_a_1440p_phone_400_but_a_1440p_monitor/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3r6h5j",
"d3r7xzg",
"d3raqdz"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
7
],
"text": [
"Phones and monitors are two very different products in two different markets.\n\nMonitors are also generally much larger than phones, and bigger screens cost more.",
"Pricing is all about what the consumer is willing to pay, and what the company needs to earn to keep its doors open. What it costs to make the product is only a single variable in a formula that includes material costs, administrative overhead, competition, politics, marketing, consumer research and expectations, research and development, tax law, etc. \n\nYou could, with access to enough information, put together a complete list of every decision that went into a particular product line or device. Really though, it boils down to basic economics like supply and demand. If enough electronics companies can afford to get that phone or monitor to market for $400, and enough consumers are willing to pay $400 for it, that's all that matters.",
"Screen cost go up exponentially with size due to greater likelihood of flaw, damage, etc. So if 50 phone screens were equal to a single monitor, that monitor might cost 200x what one phone screen does. It's kind of like diamonds, where a lot of little diamonds cost nowhere near what one large one does."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.