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
an2s49
what are the differences between an exempt and non exempt salary employee?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/an2s49/eli5_what_are_the_differences_between_an_exempt/
{ "a_id": [ "efq9ufv" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Exempt employees are \"exempt\" from overtime pay. That means you are not required to be paid overtime, ever. Exempt employees are generally white collar workers in management or professional (usually educated) positions and almost always paid on salary basis. If your position is primarily management and you're salaried, there is a quite good chance you're exempt.\n\nNon-exempt employees are your standard employees and all overtime and minimum wage requirements apply, even to salaried employees (who must get paid overtime, yes even in excess of their salary). You get paid overtime, meaning you get paid for every hour you work, no matter what. Non-exempt employees are the \"catch all\", its everyone who is not *specifically* an exempt employee. Its the exempt people that are the exception, the non-exempt person is the standard." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
enbf50
how do the membranes on tide pods (and the like) dissolve in water but not because of the liquid inside?
Tide pods and other laundry pods, popping boba, bath oil beads, etc... When they sit in water for a bit, the membrane dissolves and the liquid inside is released. How come that liquid inside doesn’t dissolve the membrane first?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/enbf50/eli5_how_do_the_membranes_on_tide_pods_and_the/
{ "a_id": [ "fdxjduf" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "The membrane is made from something that is only water soluble, so the liquid inside, not being water, doesn't dissolve the membrane." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
1kgxzc
if i put a 1 gallon jug of water on my chest, it feels heavy, but when i swim at the bottom of a pool, i don't feel crushed. why?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kgxzc/eli5if_i_put_a_1_gallon_jug_of_water_on_my_chest/
{ "a_id": [ "cbotf5r" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Cause when you're at the bottom of a pool, the weight of the water is pressing on you uniformly, from all directions.\n\n(You *do* feel it on your eardrums, however.)" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
18kfcm
why are cuban cigars such a big deal? why are they illegal?
Are they just really good or something? What makes them good???? Why are they so valuable? Edit: Thanks for taking the time to answer. To all you who guffawed like "OMG, YOU DON'T KNOW THIS?" fuck you. You're not helpful at all.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18kfcm/eli5_why_are_cuban_cigars_such_a_big_deal_why_are/
{ "a_id": [ "c8fk5sr", "c8fk6kj", "c8fkdmv", "c8fl2f1", "c8fm1rq", "c8fm4nb", "c8fmb0g", "c8fmi9u", "c8fmiyz", "c8fmpk7", "c8fo393", "c8fucko" ], "score": [ 447, 11, 50, 56, 2, 88, 10, 7, 10, 9, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "We have an embargo against Cuba. Meaning all trade with the country is off limits. It's got nothing to do with the cigar and everything to do with Cuba.", "Cuban cigars are illegal because of a trade embargo imposed by the United States on Cuban products. They are valuable because they are seen as a \"forbidden fruit\". There is nothing that makes them significantly better than cigars you can buy legally.", "What they said. If you bar-tend in Cuba, you'll notice that rum is hardly worth anything but coke will be expensive as hell. Same idea but vise versa; Cuba cannot trade with the United States so Coca Cola is very hard to come by.", "To add: Cuba was and is famous for making cigars, so the fact that they're illegal adds to their rare luxury status", "People tend to think of Cubans as the best cigars due to movies, also the embargo makes people want what they can't have. Most of the best cigars in the world now come from other locations, like Nicaragua and Dominican Republic.", "As an avid cigar smoker, /r/cigars, and an Aussie, I can tell you that cuban cigars are so desirable because of their quality. That isn't to say that Nicaraguan, Dominican republic, or Honduran cigars aren't good, in fact they are great and are steadily becoming better and better and a Nicaraguan/Honduran brand called [Padron](_URL_0_) are easily my favourite smokes. \n\n But Cuban cigars have an edge quality wise. They smoke almost perfectly almost every time. The flavours are clearer and much thicker. The smoke on an aged cuban is like velvet. \n\nOh, and they are only illegal in USA.", "There are plenty of great answers here but I just want to say as a Canadian (which has access to stuff like Cuban cigars and Kinder Surprise eggs) having bought a few for celebratory purposes after basic training, they're okay. Nothing to write home about. The flavor is a bit stronger and they come in a lovely packaging but that's pretty much it. You're not missing much. \n\nEdit: oh and they go for about $7.50 to about $14.99 for the nice pretty fat ones. Which is reasonable for their reputation. I'm interested if anyone can give me a little insight on what they cost over stateside?", "Trade embargo from the cuban missile crisis days. \n\nThey aren't illegal here in China, I have smoked quite a few and actually MUCH prefer Dominican. \n\nCuban Rum however, is the absolute best!", "Why are they a big deal? They are that good. Ideal climate and generations of perfectionists creating the finest possible product. No doubt some of the hyperbole is due to their forbidden status in the USA, which makes them badass.\nWhy are they illegal? After the revolution, Castro nationalized the cigar industry - basically stealing all of the companies from the owners, thus the embargo on these products was legally justifiable (not just an anti-communist move). \nI'm an Aussie, so I don't have any problems with the legal status & I happily pay more for the quality. ", "Did you know Cuba is one of the two only countries in the world that Coke doesn't sell to?", "[Here](_URL_0_) explains all the sanctions around the world that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) enforces.", "You're my friend and Johnny is my friend. Johnny was mean to me, so I don't play with his toys and I don't want you to play with his toys either.\n\nJohnny=Cuba \nI=USA \nYou= USA Civilian\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.padron.com/" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx" ], [] ]
33pexe
law of large numbers
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33pexe/eli5_law_of_large_numbers/
{ "a_id": [ "cqn3thn", "cqn3utt", "cqn3w1i", "cqn41xp" ], "score": [ 16, 13, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It is pretty simple. The average of whatever experiment you are doing (flipping coin/rolling dice) should approach the expected value the more times you repeat the experiment.\n\nFor example, if you are rolling a die, the expected value is 3.5. If you only roll the die a couple times, you might have averages pretty different than 3.5. However, if you roll the die 1000 times, your average should pretty close to 3.5.", "The Law of Large Numbers is often misunderstood, and there's a good chance I'll get it wrong so of other people correct me that's a good thing.\n\nSay you have a 'fair coin', which means if you flip it in the air you have an equal chance of getting heads or tails. Flip it 10 times. How many times did you get heads? Well nobody can predict that perfectly, it's a random chance after all. You might have gotten five heads, or zero, or even ten. However, chances are the number of heads you got was close to five. 5 heads out of 10 flips, or 50%, is what is called the \"expected value\" of the experiment. When you flip a fair coin you expect to get heads 50% of the time.\n\nWhat the law of large numbers says, is that the more times you run the experiment, the more closely your overall result will 'stick' to the expected value. Large deviations from the expected value become so improbable that they are practically impossible.\n\nSay you flip the coin 10000 times instead of 10. You might get 5000 heads, or 4993 heads, or 5070 heads. But the possibility that you will get 9000 heads is so low I can safely say it will never happen.\n\nThe misunderstanding arises because people seem to think that the law helps predict what will happen on future coin flips based on previous ones. Suppose you 'know' (and I put know in quotes because the knowledge is irrelevant), that you are 5000 flips into your experiment and you've only gotten 2450 heads. Does this mean that the next flip is more likely to be heads because heads 'are due'? No, it does not. The coin flips are 'independent events' so past history cannot predict future results.", "Imagine you have a dice. The odds that you roll, say, a 3 is 1/6. But if you roll the dice three times, you might never get a 3. Even if you roll it ten or fifteen times, it might be the case that 1/8th or 1/4 of your rolls will come up 3, rather than the expected 1/6th. \n\nBut, if you rolled the dice a large number of times, hundreds or thousands of times, or millions. then you'd expect it to get closer and closer to a 1/6th of your rolls being threes. **That's the law of large numbers: the more times you do something, the more closely your results are likely to approach what you'd expect by chance.**", "You want to know the average of how many people that eat breakfast every day in your city so you bring 10 people in for questioning and give them a survey asking them this question. Lets say that there are 100 000 people living in your city. That means you're asking 0,0001% of that population, which is quite small. The more people you ask the more accurate your average number gets. If you ask 100 people it gets closer to the **actual** average, yet 1000 gets you closer, so on and so forth. If you ask 100 000 which is 100% you have the average (not taking lying and such false premises into account).\n\nTL;DR: When looking for average answers of something you get more accurate the more people you have. So when that Wednesday comes you can predict with great (not 100%) accuracy that < average answers > will eat breakfast in my city today." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
1w411l
why is it harder to breathe when it's cold outside?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w411l/eli5_why_is_it_harder_to_breathe_when_its_cold/
{ "a_id": [ "ceyhkke" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The cold air makes the bronchi constrict because its not use to it and and not let as much air go through to the bronchioles \n\nafter getting use to the cold you bronchi will relax and you will breath easy \n_URL_0_ this picture will aid what im saying" ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://www.teachpe.com/anatomy/respiratory_system.php#a" ] ]
484ov0
why do cereals and yogurts have a list of the colors used on the packaging?
I mean it can't possibly be helping anyone, I couldn't imagine any regulation that enforces this, plus nearly no food items use this, only a few random ones.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/484ov0/eli5_why_do_cereals_and_yogurts_have_a_list_of/
{ "a_id": [ "d0h50h2" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "**Edit:** I'm assuming that OP is talking about the dots printed on packaging (where there's one dot for every color used in the printing process) and not about the list of artificial colors in the ingredients.\n\n > nearly no food items use this, only a few random ones.\n\nAlmost all of them have it. It's just usually hidden under a glued flap somewhere. It's used during the printing process when they print the designs onto the packaging to make it easy for computers with cameras to inspect every single package that comes off the assembly line to see if all the colors are printing properly, and if not, precisely which ones are faded/missing." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
43fsfy
why is the cost of groceries still high when the price of gas has fallen back down?
I remember a while back, when gas was absurdly expensive, that reports were stating that grocery prices were high due to an increase in gas prices. I've noticed that over the last few years, as gas has maintained a mostly steady lower price, the cost of groceries hasn't come back down to with it. Was this never a correlation?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43fsfy/eli5_why_is_the_cost_of_groceries_still_high_when/
{ "a_id": [ "czhvpwu", "czhzlum" ], "score": [ 7, 9 ], "text": [ "Fuel isn't the only expense. A huge one is water, and in California in particular, a lack of water for agriculture has resulted in higher prices (either as a result of paying more for water, or having smaller yields with the same demand, or both).", "What /u/Teekno said, water, is a huge part of it, and not limited to just California - reports were that last summer was so dry in the midwest that grains and corn were also going to have a much smaller crop this past fall, on top of the pork shortage, and this past winter [has killed over 30k dairy cattle,](_URL_0_) which will lead to milk/butter/cheese shortages as well. \n\nIn short: Blame the weather : < \n\nBut also, as they raise prices, folks get used to them, and even if the base costs went back down, that doesn't mean that manufacturers/grocers have to lower the prices back down, it just means that they can profit more." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/03/how-a-freak-blizzard-wrecked-texass-dairy-industry.html" ] ]
23qftl
do antivirus programs such as avg and norton actually work or am i throwing away my money by purchasing one?
Are modern computer viruses too complicated for these programs?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23qftl/eli5do_antivirus_programs_such_as_avg_and_norton/
{ "a_id": [ "cgzkkw8", "cgzlo6s", "cgzmmbv", "cgzsowj" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "They \"work\" in the same way that a safety net will *probably* save your life. If you happen to fall where there *is* a safety net, and it's designed right, you won't die.\n\nIf some new virus comes along that nobody has seen before, you're screwed. If the detection algorithm fails to detect it, you're screwed.\n\nIn short, it's better than not having one (particularly if you run Windows), but it doesn't give you carte blanche to visit whatever site you want and assume that you won't get infected.", "Most Anti-Virus programs work. Just as people create new viruses, the companies that make antivirus programs also find new ways to counter it. There are review sites for AVs such as _URL_0_\n\nThere are some decent free options out there.", "ive used microsoft security essentials for years...its free and has worked great for me", "No, modern virii aren't too complicated for the anti-virus and they can be worth paying for. \n\nMost virus detection (largely) works off fingerprinting malware it finds on one system, then distributing this fingerprint database to you via updates so you're protected if you ever run across it. Malware authors can alter their programs to a point where it's so unlike anything else it's undetected (what they refer to as FUD [fully undetectable]), but it will often only stay like this for a short period of time (a couple of days depending on how it's distributed). \n\nA commonly held perception is that \"safe browsing\" or \"not visiting porn sites\" etc will protect you from malware. This is straight out incorrect in the same way that pulling out during sex is effective birth control - it might work most of the time but it really sucks that one time it doesn't. Malware can easily be spread through compromised sites (i.e. they hack your favorite news website and now if you visit this 'safe' website you're infected) or via malware in advertisement. Although youtube are certainly much better at stopping this than many other companies there are examples where malware has been served up in ads on youtube, so even visiting sites typically as 'safe' as that can put you at risk. \n\nELI5 - TL;DR - Yes they can be worth it, yes you can get malware even if you're not visiting 'dodgy' sites or opening l33t_keygen.jpg.exe\n\nSource - Computer security nerd who enjoys reverse engineering things, writing exploits etc. \n\nEdit: I suppose I answered more of a \"is it worth running anti-virus\" rather than \"is it worth paying for anti virus\". For that there is no straight answer, it all boils down to how valuable money is for you and how valuable your data is that you're protecting. Check out benchmarks here - _URL_0_ \n\nIn /general/ paid solutions perform a little better, but it's up to you if it's worth it." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/" ], [], [ "http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-8/novdec-2013/" ] ]
2cv2yp
why any time i let a device download the updates it wants to, it runs slower and less reliably than before.
Seriously. I'd love to know. I have a Sony Xperia that is turning into a progressively shittier phone every time it downloads something. Seen the same thing with laptops and PC's though. Why don't the updates make it better?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cv2yp/eli5_why_any_time_i_let_a_device_download_the/
{ "a_id": [ "cjjbe13", "cjjeon4", "cjjeua9", "cjjfm3r", "cjjkbhx" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The updates make that one device run better... IF there wasn't any other software that depends on it. \n\nWith most device drivers, auto-updating is ok. Ideally, you would save the updated file first, uninstall the old device driver and clean up any traces in your registry [Windows], remove dead links, shared libraries, and other stuff that gets left behind. Restart clean, then install the updated driver. \n\nOn your phone, it is part operating system issues ( registry clutter, old files & links) and part using extra space in RAM. ", "Too also add, the more space that's utilized on a storage device (hard drive, memory card, SSD, etc.) the slower the device becomes. This is caused by the 1) more information on the hard drive that the file system has to manage and memorize for read/write operations (e.g. when you open, modify, or delete a file) and 2) the operating system (OS) has less space to use when performing operations, this is known as SWAP or virtual memory. Basically virtual memory is when the OS uses the storage device in conjunction with the RAM modules to complete tasks at a faster and more efficient rate than using RAM modules alone. \n\nAs another user said, updates \"add\" to the operating system and some updates can push the needed system resources that the operating system needs past what the hardware can provide, causing slowness overall. Put it this way, waking up is fairly easy for the average human being who gets enough sleep. Now imagine that after an \"update\", you now have to solve 43 moderately complicated math problems before you can wake up.\n\nOr in the case of a security update, for example, say you go down stairs for breakfast, but first you have to check every door (internal and external) and window, verify they are locked, and if not, write a report on why they're not locked, then lock them and write another report about it, then reverify everything you just did, and the write a final report on the tasks you just did, then you can have breakfast, but you're still monitoring the doors and windows. ", "Depends on what kind of changes are in the update in question.\n\nSometimes there are added features and services, which means more things for the device to run, so it takes more resources. But sometimes it may just be bug fixes, optimizations, etc ... Which can make the device run better.\n\nAlso depends on the way the device updates itself. Maybe it's coded by an idiot, and the update process keeps every single update package on the device's storage, which means, in time, slower storage access, which makes it run slower sometimes.\n\nIt could also be that the manufacturer has badly made software that gets more bloated each and every time ...\n\nThere's no one simple rule, in the end. Very much like \"How come my computer is slow ?\", usually.", "Most updates are to fix a specific bug or security flaw.\n\nAs an analogy, let's say that each bug or security flaw is like a chip in the drywall in your house. And each update is the spackle+texture+paint that you fix it with. The more holes you patch with spackle, the shittier your wall is eventually going to look. If you have to patch 5 holes you can probably do it without anyone knowing. If you have to patch 500 holes over the course of 5 years then it probably is going to look worse than the original, right?\n\nLots of other updates are to add new features. Let's say you have a blender. It works OK, but you can't blend bricks like you see on YouTube. You go to the manufacturer's website and they sell a new model of blender with a heavier blade that can cut bricks. The new model of blender is $450, but the blade is only $50 and it uses the same mounting system as your current blender. So you pick up just the blade, and install it on your blender. Now your blender is slower, because you're trying to use a heavier blade with the same power. The new model of blender has more power to help it use the heavier blade. The heavy blade may technically work with your blender, but not as well because it wasn't designed to. Same thing with the updates: they are designed for the latest hardware, not the old stuff.", "A lot of updates, especially on phones, make things look prettier, add features and make tasks simpler to perform. All of these things demand more from the hardware which hasn't changed since you got the phone so the result is that things take longer to load and the overall experience becomes sluggish. \n\nSometimes updates aren't very well made and leave old files and stuff behind meaning that the phone or computer has even more to deal with making it slower.\n\nI usually wipe my phone at least once a year so that any old bits and pieces from updates are gone and it is running the latest version. This makes a huge improvement on speed and battery life." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [] ]
aa8wia
- why does a new song sound amazing on multiple plays the first day only to sound oddly bad and repetitive the day after?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aa8wia/eli5_why_does_a_new_song_sound_amazing_on/
{ "a_id": [ "ecpwvh3" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "I feel like this depends on the type of songs you're listening to. What music are we talking about?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
azkyw4
what does an audio file consist of?
For example, every photo we take with our cameras, are only consist of little pixels. So lets say, If I just open paint and put 1920x1080 amount of perfectly placed dots, it will be the same as the original 1920x1080 picture. Because that picture is ONLY consist of pixels, nothing more. What I'm saying is it's probably almost impossible to do, but TECHNICALLY it's legal and its working. & #x200B; But what about the voice recordings? Let's say I have recorded my sound for 10 seconds. But now I want re-create that sound with a program/software. What info do I need? I just want a TECHNICALLY working solution for imitating my voice. Hope I'm clear, sorry for the english.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/azkyw4/eli5_what_does_an_audio_file_consist_of/
{ "a_id": [ "ei8i3rd", "ei8iqw6", "ei8itaj" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Sound is pressure waves. A microphone detects the pressure changes and outputs electrical currents depending on how much the pressure changes. A sound card will detect the voltages that the microphone creates on the wire. It does this by periodically \"sample\" the signal and converts the voltage reading into a binary number. Compared to an image a sound file also consists of \"pixels\" or rather \"samples\". Because instead of an X and Y axis you have a time axis. And instead of colors for the pixels you have the pressure value in the sample, or potentially several values for stereo or surround sound. And just as an image have a resolution and a color depth an audio file also have a sample rate and different depths.", "A sound is just a sequence of amplitudes against a time axis. You can create a file of the sound pressure value for a set of time intervals equivalent to the pixels on a picture. The sound data is a lot simpler than the picture. It's a single dimension, time, instead of two, x and y, and a single value for each point, amplitude, instead of three colour coefficients, R,G and B for instance.\n\nA real file contains a litte bit more information than the raw data though. Resolution of the picture or time division of sounds for instance. If you then add factors like data compression, it adds more complication to the file structure.", "When you use an audio editor to zoom in on the recorded waveform, you will see that it’s a graph. That graph shows the actual back and forth movement of the microphone’s membrane as it was shaken by the air when you spoke. It’s the footprint of your voice. \n\nSound is, after all, just something shaking back and forth, and sound recording is only a matter of mapping that motion as accurately as possible. \n\nIn theory you could certainly draw that graph manually in the same way as you could recreate a photo pixel by pixel. I’m just not sure why you would." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
21980b
wouldn't it be cheaper for insurance companies to cover lasik surgery once, instead of a lifetime supply of contact lenses/eye doctor appointments?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21980b/eli5_wouldnt_it_be_cheaper_for_insurance/
{ "a_id": [ "cgat5w0", "cgatlzo" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Lasik or PRK doesn't preclude never needing to see an eye doctor again -- most people will need multiple corrections over their lives, or will simply need to start wearing glasses again.", "Only if they're sure you'll be a customer long enough. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
8evav0
why do so many languages, even when some use a completely different alphabet from english, use the same punctuation at the end of their sentences?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8evav0/eli5why_do_so_many_languages_even_when_some_use_a/
{ "a_id": [ "dxycs5k", "dxydohe", "dxzrtd4" ], "score": [ 9, 85, 3 ], "text": [ "¿Está usted seguro de eso?", "Western influence.\n\nSome languages have independently invented their own versions of various punctuation. For example, there are several different variations of the period. However, Western influence is causing some cultures to forego their traditional full-stop mark for the period as we know it in English.\n\nFor some other characters where the concept previously did not exist in the language (like the question mark in Japanese), they just purely imported it from English.", "I live in Thailand, the language here as no punctuation nor does it have spaces between words" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
2z8shu
how/why do celebs insure parts of their body (i.e . taylor swift's legs for $40 million)?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2z8shu/eli5_howwhy_do_celebs_insure_parts_of_their_body/
{ "a_id": [ "cpgnt5s", "cpgnugg", "cpgnyc3", "cpgnyyk" ], "score": [ 21, 2, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "Taylor Swift believes that her legs are a big part of how she earns her living: people find them attractive and she uses them for dancing. If they were to be damaged or become less attractive, she would lose out on potentially millions.\n\nSo if an insurance company is willing to take on that sort of risk, she gets a policy opened up on her legs. There will be all sorts of provisions in that policy like \"We won't cover any damage due to aging, or you getting fat\" and \"We won't cover you if you do something stupid, like jumping out of a window to try breaking your leg on purpose.\" People make good money to figure out what is excluded from the policy, and I'm sure Swift's lawyers fought to get as many possibilities covered as possible.\n\nThen it's just like any other insurance policy. Swift puts up some money or pays in installments... Let's say $5-$10 million over 10 years. For all I know, it's way less or way more. If her legs stay good, the insurance company made a good bet. If they don't, the company will pay out $40 million, to make up for the fact that Swift is losing out on leg-based income.", "Take models for example, if something would scar their legs they probably wouldn't get any jobs for photo shoots anymore. This is why they get insurance for a certain body part. At least that's what I always assumed.\n\nMost celebrities probably don't need to, but they have the money, so...\n\nAlthough I don't know what insurance company you need to get an insurance like that.", "That Taylor Swift comment was a joke just FYI. But other celebs have done it because their body parts are part of their livelihood. ", "How? Seek out an insurance company, establish a value, discuss conditions, sign a contract, remit premium, and that's that. LLoyds of London is famous for insuring body parts and other difficult to insure items (cigar collections, classic automobiles, flowers, etc).\n\nHow *legally*? Any asset is insurable against loss, especially profit producing assets like businesses, machines, and key personnel. In the case of a performer, they are the asset, their body is what earns them a living. Because of this, they can insure against the loss of income due to the loss of use or disfigurement of a body part. \n\nWhy? Because crap happens. Argument's sake, Ms. Swift is in a car accident and loses her legs. She can no longer earn money by performing on stage. That $40m insurance covers the estimated value of lost money from performances she would have earned over the rest of her life. Not to mention, lost opportunities to be a spokesperson (for instance, she's a spokesperson for Keds Shoes and L.E.I jeans). The insurance company and Ms. Swift agreed this is a reasonable estimate of income, and agreed on a reasonable premium to protect against this risk.\n\nMany people at this point ask, \"what about the other stuff? Cancer or hearing or other medical issues and accidents?\" Performers of this caliber usually have \"disability insurance\" to cover accidents that make them unable to work, \"critical illness\" insurance to cover against things like cancer. This type of key item coverage is usually the final step to get big dollar coverage in case the unexpected happens." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
5qfgbc
boomerangs
How do they actually work ?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qfgbc/eli5_boomerangs/
{ "a_id": [ "dcyuekv", "dcyunjt" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Oddly enough, they were never originally meant to \"come back\". They were hunting tools, and the returning effect is just a product of improved aerodynamics. \n\nThere are two things happening. The boomerangs shape is similar to that of a planes wing, creating high pressure on one side, and low pressure on the other, generating lift. Secondly, when the blades are spinning, they \"want\" to spin about their central axis. \n\nThe end effect meaning it acts in a similar way to a gyroscope. As gravity pulls on one side, the boomerang will either arc to the left or right, depending which way its thrown, and the lift generated will \"usually\" be enough to carry it in a circular motion till it returns to its point of origin (Hopefully you're not still standing there when it does though)", "OP, if you type that exact question into Google, you will find your answer. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
28n8u0
if explain like i am five is for complex topics why can i google 90% of the answers?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/28n8u0/eli5_if_explain_like_i_am_five_is_for_complex/
{ "a_id": [ "cicidz1", "ciciklh", "cicimx0" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "First, I'll just say that you have a good point for some of the questions here.\n\nHowever, ELI5 isn't so much about topics that you can't find an answer on Google as it is about topics that you can't find an answer *that you understand* on Google. It can be difficult to get a good explanation of something like black holes or photosynthesis from the typical Internet resources. Comments on ELI5 usually explain topics in a variety of ways, which can greatly enhance the process of understanding a subject, especially for someone with no background in the topic.", "There are multiple circumstances that I use to explain this phenomenon.\n\n1. Some people are just bad at researching information on the internet. They literally don't know how to use google right. They don't type in the right thing to search\n\n2. Laziness. I think some people don't want to sift through links in the search results and then look through all that content for the answer. So they just post it on here and wait, hoping some bored redditor will answer their stupid question.\n\n3. Upvotes. I think some people even post ELI5 questions they already know the answer too. Just to get some comment karma.\n\n4. They are from the American Midwest\n\nThat is all I can think to explain this breakdown in human intelligence you speak of.", "I'm removing this because it's actually asked pretty frequently.\n\nThat said, I also want to to give you an explanation coming from a mod.\n\nThe long and short of it is that this is an educational subreddit for *any* issue, no matter how simple it may seem to *some* users. ELI5 is nothing if not a haven for thick skulls, slow wits, and those of us who didn't pay attention in high school.\n\nWith that in mind, google/wikipedia don't always produce easy-to-parse explanations. What one person might be able to pick up quickly from the 'pedia might absolutely stump someone else. Even if 99% of people understand the google-able answer, there's 1% that doesn't. ELI5 is meant to be—among other things—an accessible environment for that 1%.\n\nPeople also like to give their own explanations, which may offer different insights than those available elsewhere on the internet. We want to give those people a place to contribute to the discussion as well. We want to foster those contributions as much as we want to field users' questions.\n\nAt any rate, we've considered the \"google first\" rule on *numerous* occasions, and decided against it pretty unanimously every time. Setting aside the fact that it's not easily enforceable, we feel that it's more or less understood that a person asking a question here has looked to other sources and failed to find or understand them.\n\nPlus, some of the explanations we get in here are *waaaay* better than those you'll find elsewhere.\n\nAnyway, I hope that gives you some insight." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
1idyq3
american pragmatism
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1idyq3/eli5_american_pragmatism/
{ "a_id": [ "cb3jhqq" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I'm going to assume you mean the *philosophical school* of pragmatism, which originated in America, and not the watered-down idea of \"pragmatism\" which is used to mean \"willing to get along with others\".\n\nAround the beginning of the 1800s, a German man named Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy. Kant had been working to solve a philosophical problem that had been growing for centuries: the dispute between the Rationalists and the Empiricists. This dispute was about a seemingly simple question: what is the ultimate source of our conceptual knowledge?\n\nThe Empiricists took what I think you will agree is the position more in accord with common sense. They believed that knowledge begins with the senses. You see a certain shape that moves in certain ways and makes certain sounds; let's say that its shape gives it four legs and a tail, and it barks.\n\nThe Empiricists say that, when you are born, you are a blank slate (tabula rasa): you have no idea what this thing is. But, they say, you see a multitude of creatures that resemble it during the course of your life, and to organize your knowledge you ignore (or \"abstract from\") all the differences between the different creatures and mentally focus only on what is similar. Thus, you have mentally created a *concept* by abstraction from particular creatures. You will now give a name to that concept and call all such creatures \"dogs\".\n\nThe Rationalists take issue with this. When you say that you are going to ignore all of the differences between the individual dogs, what do you mean? If you ignore height, weight, shape, color, and sound, because all of these things vary between individual dogs, what are you left with? Something that has no legs, no weight, and makes no sound is certainly not a dog. Besides, your senses are human and fallible: how do you know a dog really has four legs, and that you did not just imagine it was that way, as naive people think a stick bends in water? With these and other arguments they purport to prove that one could never acquire concepts this way. And even if they grant that you could do it with the concept \"dog\", how are you going to get \"justice\", \"good\", or \"God\"?\n\nInstead, the rationalists say that we are born already with the seeds of our conceptual knowledge within us. Some, like those who more closely follow Plato, say that we experienced them in a past life, and that if we study particular objects in this world long enough, we will suddenly remember these concepts. Others claim that God directly inspires people with conceptual knowledge.\n\nBy the time of Kant, though, the two sides had pretty much succeeded in demolishing each other. The Empiricists had shown that theory of innate knowledge was full of holes: whatever knowledge you might have from your past life has no relation to this life. Concepts say nothing about the particulars. And the Rationalists had destroyed the arguments for abstraction, so that there was no way to get from particulars to universal concepts. David Hume, an Empiricist, had ended up admitting that no firm conceptual knowledge was possible, throwing logic, cause-and-effect, and God out the window.\n\nKant wanted to restore not only logic and its orderly natural world but also \"God, freedom, and immortality\". To go over it in extremely brief terms, he said that the problem comes from thinking that our mind is some kind of passive mirror in which reality is reflected. Rays of light from reality hit the mind (or so people think), and therefore we see it.\n\nNo, says Kant, the mind does not perceive reality, *it creates reality*. Now, it doesn't create true reality the way God does, but it creates our own personal reality, which he called the \"phenomenal world\". It is this world to which logic, causality, mathematics, science, etc. apply. And we know that the laws of logic will always apply to this world because they are the rules the mind uses to create the world. It's just like if you use a black pen to write an essay, you know that the essay must be black and not red, no matter what you write about or in what language. But, says Kant, there is another world, the \"noumenal world\", which is the true reality we can never experience. That is God's domain, and we can't say anything about it.\n\nLike I said, Kant totally changed the philosophical world. However, people after him saw some problems. First of all, how do I know that your \"phenomenal world\", the reality created by your mind, follows that same rules as my reality. Some, like the Marxists and the Nazis, said that it doesn't. There is \"bourgeois logic\" and \"proletarian logic\" or \"Jewish logic\" and \"Aryan logic\", and even if you prove capitalism is right in bourgeois logic, it's still wrong in proletarian logic.\n\nAlso, there is supposed to be this \"noumenal world\", but we can't say anything about it. What good is it, then? Most people said to get rid of it, so we now have only the subjective reality created by our own minds, and maybe that is not the same between you and me.\n\n**Here (finally) is where the Pragmatists come in.** They look at all this and say, \"Why are we worrying about phenomenal worlds and noumenal worlds and all that? Let's be practical.\" Their idea of being practical was to say that the job of the mind is not to comprehend reality (that is impossible) but to enable us to accomplish our goals. When do we start thinking about things? When we have some kind of problem that is blocking us from progress. Thinking is a \"*dis-ease*\". Therefore, we shouldn't start with a grand scheme of the most basic truths about reality and proceed from there, but just take off from wherever we have a practical problem.\n\nFor Pragmatism, truth is literally defined as \"what works\". That is, the usual relation of truth to effectiveness is reversed. It is not the case that we learn, for example, what oxygen really is, and then we come up with a method that works to produce oxygen because we know that water is made of oxygen and hydrogen. Rather, the only \"truth\" is that if you want to breathe underwater, you had better go through this series of steps that we call by the name of \"producing oxygen\" and then fill a tank with it. But you must not imagine that you have really identified \"oxygen\" as something apart from the human mind.\n\nOr take the question of free will. Some say that man must have free will because we all experience a feeling of being able to choose our actions, and we hold others responsible for bad actions. But others come right back and say that if we have free will, then we are saying that there is no cause of any of our actions; we could be in the exact same situation and do one of two different things with no apparent explanation. Furthermore, it violates the laws of physics because we are, after all, just made of matter, and matter always acts the way it has to based on external forces. So, we too act just the way we have to based on external forces, and free will is an illusion.\n\nNow, the Pragmatists say that you're never going to get anywhere with this. Just look at the practical consequences of the debate. If we go with the people who say free will is an illusion, are they going to repeal all of the criminal laws? Are they going to stop rebuking people who do bad things? Are they going to stop failing students who give the wrong answers on the test? No, they say: even though people have no free will, rewards and punishments are what keep them acting in ways beneficial to society. Okay, say the Pragmatists: there is no real difference between the position that free will is true and free will is false. The debate is pointless, and we dismiss the question.\n\n**Wow, that became really huge. If you want the shorter version, just take it from the part in bold.**" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
88tvca
how does the planet recover from radioactive containment?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/88tvca/eli5how_does_the_planet_recover_from_radioactive/
{ "a_id": [ "dwn6o1d", "dwn70fi" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "containment or contamination?\n\nRadioactivity by default just goes away. it is the result of decomposing unstable particles. They have a half life and basically dwindle into nothing-ness (well given off as energy).\n\nSo it recovers primarily by waiting, we have remediation tactics and technologies as well that can help clean up very radioactive areas.\n\nIt is worth noting that the earth is radioactive by default, its the dose that makes the poison.", "The planet doesn't, but it also doesn't need to.\n\nA large portion of the Earths heat comes from radioactive decay in the mantle.\n\nLife in general though, well the Earth it's self is radioactive, so life has evolved to survive small doses. Large doses can be hazardous to a population of animals or a large area of land, but most studies show that radiation is mostly beneficial, until it reaches fatal doeses, or your species lives long enough to develop cancers from exposure.\n\nLong term though it's not an issue. Only a local problem really. On the timescales of continental drift it has little to no impact (due to weather etc, and the fact it's not a huge disaster to begin with).\n\nA nuclear war would be a different story, that could, in theory sterilize the Earth, so life would have to start again." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
18iu5t
can someone please explain "foot pounds of torque"
Tried reading the wikipedia article and just can't wrap my head around it
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18iu5t/eli5_can_someone_please_explain_foot_pounds_of/
{ "a_id": [ "c8f5zll", "c8f6ben" ], "score": [ 3, 5 ], "text": [ "Torque is force applied at some distance from a thing's center of mass. Imagine a wheel balanced horizontally so it can rotate freely. If you give it a shove at its center of mass, the wheel won't turn. Depending on how it's fixed, either it'll just *move* away from you, or it'll stay put and you'll accomplish nothing. But if you give it a nudge at an angle from the center of mass, the wheel will turn.\n\nQuantify torque by measuring how hard you push and how far the point you're pushing on is from the center of mass. Pounds of force times feet of distance gives you foot-pounds of torque.", "Think about it like this:\n\n1 foot pound of torque means you've got precisely the amount of power needed to lift 1 pound on a 1 foot lever. 100 foot pounds of torque means you've got the power to move 1 pound on a 100 foot lever, or 100 pounds on a 1 foot lever. Of course you need to ignore the weight of the lever in this thought experiment.\n\nIt's simply a measure of how much work something can do, as opposed to horsepower which is really a measure of how fast that something can do the work.\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
2vm3v2
why is death such a morbid concept to humans, even though it is a biological process for every living thing to die?
All things die. But for humans it is very tragic when other humans die, even though it will eventually happen to everyone. Things like genocide, rape, or cancer are terrible things that can happen to people and should be grieved over. But because everyone will die, wouldn't you think it would be painless for others if the deceased went peacefully at an old age?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vm3v2/eli5_why_is_death_such_a_morbid_concept_to_humans/
{ "a_id": [ "coiw41s", "coiwil3", "coix0k0" ], "score": [ 10, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "The fact of not knowing exactly what is going to happen afterwards, jumping into the unknown can be terrifying to most but others may find it intriguing. If people knew what was going to happen it may be more accepted. For example: My greatest fear is the ocean, only because i have no idea what is down there and i don't know what to expect, and I wont go anywhere on a boat. If I knew exactly what was down there I would be more excepting of it and i may not be so afraid to do anything in the ocean", "Because its an unknown and we miss people when they're gone. ", "Just because something happens to everyone doesn't mean it's not bad. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
1sk4ba
what is happening when i "walk off" a minor injury?
I jumped off a ~5 foot wall earlier today and landed awkwardly, twisting my ankle a little bit. It hurt really bad right away, but after walking for 5 minutes I barely felt it at all. What is happening in those 5 minutes to cause such severe immediate pain to go away very quickly?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sk4ba/eli5_what_is_happening_when_i_walk_off_a_minor/
{ "a_id": [ "cdyfuwd", "cdymmb8" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Relevant article: \n_URL_0_", "Wow okay lots of speculative answers here. Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about want to chip in?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2013/07/22/after-a-sprain-dont-just-walk-it-off/" ], [] ]
a4m87s
the difference between a legal and an illegal war.
Yes, I know there are numerous treaties and conventions governing conduct in war but is war itself legal and is there a distinction between a legal and illegal war?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a4m87s/eli5_the_difference_between_a_legal_and_an/
{ "a_id": [ "ebfooy1", "ebfp33a", "ebfwszc", "ebfzdvt", "ebg12ge", "ebg1hkh", "ebh1x1f" ], "score": [ 17, 1156, 11, 48, 65, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Legal wars have a declaration of war before people start shooting. Most other things that we colloquially call \"war\" are \"police actions\", \"peacekeeping\", or \"nation building\".", "In just war theory we can distinguish between *jus ad bellum* (right to war) and *jus in bello* (right in war). The first concerns itself with what are justifications for going to war, and the second with proper conduct when in war. Together these can be seen as the law of war. Over time there has been a number of sources for \nlaw of war, most famously the Geneva convention. \n\nOne of the biggest concepts in international politics is sovereignty. All states have sovereignty, which means that whatever happens within their borders is their own concern, and other states can't violate this sovereignty.\n\nCurrently, in international law there are two main reasons when going to war is seen as legal and thus acceptable to the international community. First is self-defense. Second is if the UN Security Council permits it. Since the 1990s there is also the introduction of the concept of Resonsibility to Protect, which means that the international community should intervene in gross human rights violations, even if those are happening within a country and thus intervention violates the sovereignty of that country. R2P however is not something that states can unilaterally invoke, it should go through the United Nations.\n\nBecause of this, any act of war that is started without Security Council clearance and that is not committed in self defence is illegal under international law.", "\"Legal war\" is basically defined as one where your neighbors decide that it was an acceptable idea. The crusades were \"legal\" because the rest of Europe decided that they were justified in their reasoning (wanting to retake Jerusalem) and thus didn't get angry about it.\n\nWhen you have multiple sovereign states that exist near each other, and all of them have armies, they have to trust that their neighbors won't attack them. If a country only goes to war for specific reasons (you invaded me, you kidnapped my queen, you have a different religion than me) then their neighbors can feel confident that by avoiding these actions they can avoid being attacked.\n\nIf the country simply goes to war because they feel like it, or because of things that you can't control (I kill you because you have non-aryans) then it is declared an illegal war. When a country declares a war illegal, they are asking other countries ti help them stop it.\n\nFor instance, Ukraine is saying that Russia's aggression towards them is illegal. This doesn't necessarily mean they are breaking the law (they are breaking international law but that is not really something that can be enforced) but rather that Ukraine is saying \"they are bad dangerous people who can't be trusted to not attack their neighbors. Please help me beat them up so they will stop attacking their neighbors\".\n\nThis also explains why we sometimes care about illegal wars (nazi Germany) and sometimes don't (Darfur). We only really care if a country is dangerous if they are dangerous to *us*. If not, then our concern over whether the war is legal or illegal is pretty small.", "War is illegal, with 3 exceptions, as stated in the Chapter VII of the UN Charter.\n\nYou can declare war if you are going to get attacked imminently, war can be allowed by the UN Security Council, and you can engage your troops in a country that requested assistance and has accepted your intervention.", "Going for the real ELI5 prize here.\n\nMost of the world uses a thing called \"Just War Theory\" to decide what is a legal war and what is an illegal war. For a war to be legal, it has to abide by three sets of rules: one set of rules covers what happens before the war starts, one set covers what happens during the war, and one set covers what happens when the war ends.\n\nThe set of rules before a war is made up of six rules: 1) **you must be a state** to have a legal war, so the United States or North Korea can have a legal war but something like a company or a church or just a big group of people can't have a legal war, 2) **you must tell everyone**, including who you're going to go to war with, that you're going to have a war, 3) **your goal must be to create a better, more peaceful world by going to war**, so your goal could be to stop terrorism or genocide but not to gain more land or resources, 4) **you have to have a good chance of winning the war**, 5) **you can only use a \"proportional\" amount of violence in the war** so you can't just bomb everything, everywhere, you have to limit the violence only to what is absolutely needed to win, 6) **you can only go to war after you've tried everything else**, so you have to try all other non-violent options first like talking to your enemy to try to find a compromise.\n\nOnce you've done those things, you're ready to go to war! There are five rules to follow during the war for it to be a legal war: 1) **you can only attack the enemy and no one else**, so you can't attack people that aren't in the enemy's military and you can't attack them if they've already given up or have gotten too injured to keep fighting, 2) **your attacks have to be only as rough on your enemy as is fair based on what the enemy has done**, so you can't just use huge weapons unless the enemy is doing such bad things that that would be an equal response, 3) **you can only do things against your enemy if it helps to win the war**, so blowing up a factory that makes weapons for your enemy is okay but blowing up just a plain old office building is not, 4) **you have to treat people from your enemy's military that you capture or that give up to you fairly**, 5) **you can't use evil methods**, so you can't use things like rape, forcing your captured enemy soldiers to fight against your enemy, or certain weapons like nuclear bombs or poison gas. \n\nNow that you've done all that and you've defeated your enemy, it's time to end the war! There are five rules left: 1) **you have to have a good reason to end the war**, so either you accomplished your goal you set in rule #3 of the first set of rules or you have decided you aren't going to be able to accomplish that goal legally, 2) **your plans for ending the war can only include things like an apology from your enemy and getting your enemy to pay only for things that they messed up**, so you can't just get whatever you want and take revenge on your enemy, 3) **you and whoever you make the agreement with to end the war have to be the leaders of both sides and you have to tell everyone about your agreement**, 4) **you have to make it clear who was involved in the war and the causes of the war and who wasn't and you can't punish those who weren't involved**, 5) **your punishment for the enemy has to be equal to what they did wrong**.\n\nIf the world believes you have done these things, the war was legal, and if you don't, then the world will see it as illegal.", "TBH it comes down to who wins the war. We do have treaties and conventions determining what does and does not count as a war crime, but if you break those rules and decisively win it's not like anyone is going to be able to punish you for breaking them without going to war.", "The notion of legality between states is just a construct that doesn’t really mean anything. There is no court of law that can judge a state and send it to jail for behaving badly.\n\nThat being said, there are many international treaties and organizations that have agreed to behave a certain way and have contrived punishments to others that don’t stick to that behavior. The United Nations is one such organization. The Geneva accords is another such treaty.\n\nBut in practice, a state can just do whatever\nthe fuck it wants as long as it is willing to suffer through temporary economic sanctions from other states. An example is Russia annexing parts of two neighbors including military invasions. Nobody even blinked an eye. \n\nIf a leader is savvy enough and has the right leverage, he can manipulate the international treaties and alliances in such a way to basically allow his country to get away with any “illegal” war. Hitler did it. Putin’s doing it. The Brits, French, Italians did it. The Chinese are annexing large swaths of ocean right now.\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
6apkpv
why australia is allowed to participate in eurovision?
I just honestly don't understand it, and I myself am Australian! I just don't understand how a non-European nation can participate in something that has Euro in the name. I get that initially it was because of us being the biggest broadcast thing outside the EU, and because it was the 60th anniversary, but from the research I've done, we would've only been allowed back if we won, which we didn't. Am I missing something here?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6apkpv/eli5_why_australia_is_allowed_to_participate_in/
{ "a_id": [ "dhgfcz7", "dhgfypn", "dhghtdp", "dhghu5g", "dhgj63o" ], "score": [ 4, 6, 2, 2, 6 ], "text": [ "Regardless of what it is being said I believe it is political. Australia is not the only non-European country in Eurovision, Israel is in Eurovision too but Greece and Turkey are no longer in it despite being part of Europe. And I think this year Russia is not compete ", "They asked nicely. \n\nSince it's a TV show, more viewers means more money from ads. If Australia wants to participate, and thus have the show run in their country too, the creators profit.\n\nI'd also imagine that since us Americans are well.... our usual hyper-patriotic selves, Australia has a hard time hanging onto our coattails. ", "I think they added them as a kind of \"joke\" at the anniversary of the ESC and sticked with it since everybody think its hillarious. ", "There are also strong historical associations between Australia and European pop music. It was where ABBA first blew up in a major way, so much that it's become part of the culture, after ABBA's Eurovision victory put them on the map. The Australian pop scene has delivered many great bands too. It's just more in tune with the Europop sensibility.", " > On 10 February 2015, the EBU announced that in honour of the 60th anniversary of Eurovision, it had invited Australia to participate in the finals of the contest, represented by Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). SBS had been a long-time broadcaster of the event, which has had a large following in Australia\n\nA quick wikipedia search on EuroVision '15 gave me this.\n\nBasically it's a show that is watched a lot in Australia, a honor guest for the Anniversary." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [] ]
cw7u6g
how do barcodes work when the same item is sent to different places with different register systems, different prices assigned, etc.?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cw7u6g/eli5_how_do_barcodes_work_when_the_same_item_is/
{ "a_id": [ "ey8tlxw", "ey8to2d", "ey8ydyb", "ey9fih7" ], "score": [ 34, 4, 10, 2 ], "text": [ "The bar code is just another way of writing a number, which is also printed directly below the barcode.\n\nWhat happens is that the manufacturer says \"this bar code number corresponds to this product,\" and all of the stores list it in their systems under that number.\n\nIt doesn't communicate any information about price, however. So the store is free to assign \"UPC X = $Y\" in their own system totally independently of any other store's systems.", "Barcodes, in general, are just a specific way to encode an ID number. There's a specific way to read them. For example, this energy drink I've got in front of me has the barcode value of 610764863375. If I owned a store, I would have a system that I would need to enter all of the items I carry into. I'd enter this energy drink, with its description and barcode. When I scan the code, the system does a lookup for that number. It finds the energy drink record and outputs that price.\n\nThe barcodes don't tie back to some other system in any way - it's just a specific way to identify that item.", "Lots of folks mentioning that bar codes are just number formatting, but there are international standards. A bar code does not have to be registered. Someone can manually enter any information that they like. But most bar codes are registered, so that the same number means the same information no matter who scans it.\n\nGS1 is the big organization which is most widely used. You pay an annual fee, depending on how many bar codes you need. It isn't some crazy high number either. If I'm remembering correctly, my place has 100 numbers and it costs us a few hundred a year.", "Fun fact scanners scan the \"spaces\" (white part) not the lines (black part) of barcodes. Learned this by working at an Amazon return center where if the labels were covered we had to use Clorox wipes to rub off the top labels to get at the original ones and if the ends were covered you could still scan it." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
c485h8
do subprime loans hurt credit score?
Would future lenders look with scorn at it? Would it lower my credit score in the long term? EDIT: I am yet to take out this loan.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c485h8/eli5_do_subprime_loans_hurt_credit_score/
{ "a_id": [ "ervgkgw" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Subprime loans are reported by business name. They don't say Loan, subprime 1 of 1. They report the name of the issuer and your payment history, loan amount, and paid off/delinquent/etc." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
36g64y
every now and then i'll lay down to go to sleep and my tv (that's off) makes a loud popping sound. what is that?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36g64y/eli5every_now_and_then_ill_lay_down_to_go_to/
{ "a_id": [ "crdp44k" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Sometimes after watching TV for a while the internal heat makes the outer plastic expand and then it falls back into place as it cools down." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
2auxhp
zen buddism
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2auxhp/eli5_zen_buddism/
{ "a_id": [ "ciz1l68", "ciz29i0", "ciz2e8x", "ciz2kaj", "ciz36dl", "ciz3ong", "ciztx47" ], "score": [ 82, 5, 8, 9, 9, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "A very very long time ago, Buddhism started up in India. As time passed, many people started thinking many different things about it. One of these schools was called \"Mahayana.\" Some people who followed this school went to China. In China, many more people started thinking even more different things about it. In the 500s, a group of people developed a set of beliefs about buddhism they called \"Chán.\" It combined Buddhist thought from India with other ideas from China, including Daoism. \n\nIdeas of Chán (a character pronounced \"zen\" when read in Japanese) reached Japan shortly after, but it never really took off until a school was founded by a guy named Nōnin in 1189. A bunch of his students traveled to China, brought back different philosophies from Chinese Chán masters, and founded the different branch schools of Zen Buddhism that you'll see around today.\n\nIn the 1960s, a guy named D.T. Suzuki came to America and published several books in English about Zen (his books are a great place to start if you want to know more about it yourself), becoming extremely popular with the hippy and new-age movements. This is one of the big reasons that popular American conceptions of Buddhism largely mirror Zen thought, even though Zen is practiced by only a tiny fraction of Buddhists in Japan, much less worldwide.\n\nGenerally what Japanese Zen philosophies share is a much lessened focus on special secret rituals, memorizing multitudes of heavens and buddhas, or other things that the wealthier, older Japanese buddhist schools like Tendai or Hosso focus on. It also doesn't focus on the things that much more popular jodo or jodo shinshu sects do, which is salvation by praying to the Amida Buddha. \n\nInstead, Zen focuses inwards on the notion that it's possible to \"awaken\" a \"buddha-nature\" (ability to think like the Buddha) inside yourself. The way to do this is to realize truths about the universe that, at first, seem to be nonsense. The ultimate goal is to truly understand how the entire universe is found inside of emptiness (which is supposed to sound like nonsense to the layperson). \n\nYou realize these truths by meditating. Meditating in zen is (stated very simply) a process where you sit and focus your mind as much as possible on nothing. The goal is perfect concentration and freedom from the distractions of all the things that go on in the world, with the ultimate goal of understanding what's going on beyond the world. Once this happens you will not suffer anymore. \n\nOne way to help this is to focus your meditation on phrases that seem like they make no sense called \"kōan.\" Some of these have become famous in popular culture in the west, such as \"what is the sound of one hand clapping.\" ", "Buddhism pretty much is the pursuit of enlightenment which is pretty much the realization of the nature of reality. It is thought that the reality we experience is false - not in the sense that we live in the matrix - in the sense that raw experience is pretty much \"ruined\" by thinking to such an extent that what we experience is basically illusory.\n\nSo Zen is a school of buddhist thought which pursues enlightenment like any other.\n\nIt is well characterized by it's Koans, which are short phrases meant to provoke the mind in some way, usually by providing a seeming contradiction, impossibility, or other sort of difficulty. The solution is usually not important because it is a good tool to meditate on. The most famous one is probably \"If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does it still make a sound?\" So you might say all kinds of things about physics or perception or whatever. A more interesting koan is on the wikipedia page: the japanese character for emptiness.\n\nContemplating nothingness and emptiness is big in Zen. It is considered important to come to understand the relationship between the mind and the environment. As a person contemplates themselves, existing, experiencing, or whatever kind of meditative practice they're doing, if they do it honestly, they are supposed to come to certain realizations about the nature of existence, namely, that there is no self, it is a construct of the mind, and that the ego and all that is sort of a self-perpetuating thing that has limited use and has overstayed its welcome.\n\nZen in popular culture has come to mean slow paced, unhurried, repetitive, calming, centered, grounded, and all these terms that mean different things to different people, but which basically mean chill.\n\nZen is a lot of \"Just look at what your mind is doing and don't succumb to your own bullshit. You won't believe how much bullshit there is, but you must act accordingly. What is the right way to act? Just look at what your mind is doing and don't succumb to your own bullshit.\"\n\nA human body\n\nSometimes farts.", " > Tanzan and Ekido were once travelling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was falling relentlessly.\n\n > Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a delicate silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.\n\n > \"Come on, girl,\" said Tanzan at once. Lifting the giggling maiden in his arms, he carried her over the mud and set her down again on the other side.\n\n > Ekido was troubled, but did not voice his concern until that night, when he and his companion reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. \"We monks aren't supposed to go near women,\" he told Tanzan, \"especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?\"\n\n > \"I left the girl there,\" said Tanzan. \"Why are you still carrying her?\"\n\n[That's zen](_URL_0_).", "The Buddha figured out, and taught others, that we suffer emotionally and mentally in life because we try to mentally \"hold on to\" things that aren't permanent -- the greatest of which is our own sense of self. His suggestion to relieve that suffering was to act and think in ways that help us live without mentally \"grabbing onto\" things all the time.\n\nAs a school of Buddhism, Zen teaches that the best way to achieve that is to practice a form of seated mediation, although it also incorporates walking meditation and encourages extending that manner of thought into daily activities as well. The Zen form of mediation has been described as \"sitting quietly doing nothing,\" which is a lot harder than sounds! Usually our minds are so busy flitting from one thing to the next, or obsessively pursuing one train of thought, that we rarely have a real sense of perspective about ourselves and the world around us. One goal of Zen meditation (or \"practice\") is to train yourself to be able to live with a healthier mental perspective so you can reduce that mental suffering. A second goal in some forms of Zen Buddhism is to reach enlightenment suddenly through mediation, what I paradoxically think of as strenuous non-effort.\n\nIn the U.S., \"Zen\" is often used colloquially to refer to a feeling of being \"in the zone,\" acting natural without a lot of conscious thought.", "Like all things, Zen is best understood in context. Buddhism had already been around for about 1000 years when Zen emerged in China. Before writing became common, it was really tough to preserve the Buddha's teachings from generation to generation. Everything was taught orally, and many mnemonic devices like lists (\"the three jewels\", \"the eight perfections\" etc.) and repetition were used to help people remember.\n\nEventually things got written down as the technology became more common. This was particularly so in the advanced civilization of China, which even had academics and literature. Over time, people started focusing perhaps too much on the written words themselves. Some started to worship the words (much as they still do today with the Bible and the Quran) and the ritual over the content.\n\nZen was a reaction against this state of affairs. The assertion was that enlightenment actually isn't found in books, it's in the direct experience of life itself. Zen schools actually did still use a lot of books, but most of the famous Zen ideas like \"no words, no sutras, no mind\" are intentionally overstating their case. Anytime you're going against the prevailing wisdom of the day, you tend to try to make a splash to get noticed.\n\nIn Zen, the shock value of \"making a splash\" became highly prized as something of a shortcut to enlightenment in and of itself. This is why you hear of Zen masters doing and saying outrageous things. Their goal was to say or do something that was in such sharp relief to what you would expect the normally stern head of the monastery to do, that it would instantly free your mind from its regular habitual patterns of thought (which in Buddhism cause needless suffering). \n\nThese days, we're used to people in prestigious positions saying irreverent things for comic relief, so the effect might not be as strong. Nevertheless, you can see how freeing it would be if your culture was much more strict. The goal of comedy is to \"crack up\" and give us a break from our regular mental nervousness. In that sense, it's really not that different from what these Zen masters were doing. There's even a classic story about a Zen master making a fart joke during an intense doctrinal debate between some monks. It was considered a perfect expression of enlightenment.", "come to understand your relationship to what you think you 'need', and how it makes you feel. then act towards your happiness.", "## Zen Starts in China, [*right here*](_URL_0_)\n\nSome guy named Bodhidharma gets off a boat in China in 500 CE and begins explaining to all the Buddhists in China that they are misinformed. Generations of teachers after him people mostly don't understand what it's about, everybody decides to call Bodhidharma and his followers, \"Zen\". \n\nZen isn't a religion because there is no truth or sin or \"good and evil\" or anybody that can purify you or save you or teach you anything that to believe in. There is no code of conduct. There is no religious \"practice\" or any other kind of method for living or enlightenment. \n\nZen isn't a philosophy because there is no idea that is better than other ideas or even a belief in ideas at all. Zen isn't nihilism because Nihilists believe in not believing in things.\n\n## Zen Comes To America, kind of \n\nA Japanese guy named Dogen went to China around 1200 CE to learn Zen but instead Dogen went back to China and invented a new Buddhism. He called his new Buddhism \"Zen\" so it sounded cool and in Japan the other names were already taken. The new Buddhism was very popular and nobody knew anything about Zen so why not call their new Buddhism by the name \"Zen\"? Japan has a few Zen Masters like a guy named Bankei who is famous for getting sick from sitting meditation and telling people not to do it.\n\nLater in America in the 60's some guy named D.T. Suzuki wrote about what Zen Masters teach and hippies thought it sounded cool and nobody understood it. Then Suzuki died and there weren't any Zen Masters around so the Buddhists (Asian Buddhists from the Soto church or activist Buddhists like Thich Nhat Hanh) showed up and told everybody that sitting meditation and quiet and kindness and being \"in the moment\" was Zen and now people think that.\n\nAnybody who [reads about Zen](_URL_1_) will quickly notice that there isn't any of that stuff in Zen, especially no meditation and quiet and kindness. \n\nInstead there is a bunch of yelling and hitting people and cutting cats in half with swords and asking questions that stump religious people, sometimes questioning priests so persistently that they literally die of embarrassment.\n\nThere are also lots of jokes, lots of arguing about stuff, more questions with answers that make no sense, silly dances, more jokes, writing poems about stuff, making fun of each other and some juvenile pranks. All of it is very serious though.\n\n## Zen is not Buddhism\n\nThe word \"Buddhism\" is a Western invention, like \"American Indians\". Just like Indians are from all sorts of different tribes that don't agree about stuff, Buddhists are from all sorts of different churches that don't agree about stuff. Calling all the tribes \"Indians\" makes it sound like they agree about something, calling all Buddha worshiping churches \"Buddhism\" makes it sound like they agree when they don't. For example, getting these \"Buddhists\" to agree on what \"Buddhism\" means is like getting all the Indians to agree on what the name of their one tribe is.\n\nSince Buddhists all believe in something, some \"good\" or some \"right thinking\" or some way of \"helping\" people (by converting them to Buddhism) or something that everybody should say is true, all the Buddhisms are religions. \n\nZen doesn't teach any of that stuff, so Zen is not a religion and thus Zen is not a form of religious or philosophical Buddhism.\n\n## What do Zen Masters teach then?\n\n1. *The Four Statements of Zen*: Not reliant on the written or spoken word; A special transmission separate from scriptures; Direct pointing at one’s mind; Seeing one ‘s nature, becoming a Buddha, a free person.\n\n2. Zen makes mind its foundation and \"no gate\" its gate.\n\n3. To unify and pacify the mind is Quietism and false Zen. \n\n4. To affirm something is to be bound in chains.\n\n...and so forth. I mean Zen Masters *say* that words aren't true but they talk and talk and talk. They won't shut up about it." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/101ZenStories/" ], [], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/lineagetexts", "http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/mumonkan.htm" ] ]
1pystx
why are the poverty guidelines set so low?
I've posted this before, but I only really got one less-than-complete response to it. I figured I'd try again today. So it's come to my attention that these are the figures one would have to dip under to be considered to be living under the famed "Poverty line":_URL_0_ Yet, currently living right around it, it's quite clear that the amounts listed are nowhere near enough to sustain the amount of people listed. The question has already been asked, so I eagerly away your responses.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pystx/eli5_why_are_the_poverty_guidelines_set_so_low/
{ "a_id": [ "cd7fasj" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The problem is that these guidelines are set using Census data, which is of all Americans, across the entire state.\n\nSo a family of four would absolutely not survive in NY at 23K a year - but if you drop them into Utah, chances are they could make do because the cost of living there can be much, much, much lower.\n\nI can't find a lot of state-based poverty guidelines, possibly because they are just relying on the federal guidelines - but in general its going to be because at those levels, there are places in the US where you can survive and still feed your family. They might not be *nice* places, but they *exist*.\n\nwhich is why basing policies wholly on statistics can be a problem - you apply an extremely wide net to cover an equally wide range of situations." ] }
[]
[ "http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12fedreg.shtml" ]
[ [] ]
a3dpn8
how do underwater speakers work?
I’m a swimmer and I’ve never understood how underwater speakers work. I get that sound waves travel at different frequencies in the air than in the water, but how do they get sound to travel the correct way so you can hear music in the water?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a3dpn8/eli5_how_do_underwater_speakers_work/
{ "a_id": [ "eb5aqee" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ " > I get that sound waves travel at different frequencies in the air than in the water\n\nNot at different frequencies, different speeds. Different frequencies produce different tones in air or the water, so sound can travel at all different frequencies in both.\n\n > but how do they get sound to travel the correct way\n\nThere is no \"correct way\", it is just \"the way\". Pressure waves move through the medium, there isn't any other way it can happen." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
48zhnv
if we americans strive to separate church and state, why are so many polling locations in churches?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48zhnv/eli5_if_we_americans_strive_to_separate_church/
{ "a_id": [ "d0nupdt", "d0nuq2f", "d0nuynl", "d0nv103", "d0nxfv8" ], "score": [ 10, 2, 9, 7, 3 ], "text": [ "Why cant they be?\n\nThe separation of church and state just means that there can be know government endorsed religion. It does not mean that politicians cant be religious or that government functions couldn't be held in a church etc.", "I have not seen this - where are you? -- as far as party caucuses and primaries I guess I can see this since this is not really a federal issue - but do you REALLY have official polling places in churches?", "Because churches are large buildings that are empty on Tuesdays. That's really all there is to it. It's available space that most churches are happy to make available for the civic good.", "Because churches are on every corner, they are generally under-utilized on polling days, etc... basically, they're convenient and free (I assume the ones used for polling do it for free)\n\nI'm a strong advocate of separation of church and state, and this doesn't bother me at all", "Churches don't have to pay taxes, so the least they can do to \"pay the government back\" for that privilege is to is provide polling locations." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [] ]
7adt1b
why is it 2017 and with all these crazy technological advancements, a phone call still sounds like you’re dragging your phone through gravel underwater.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7adt1b/eli5_why_is_it_2017_and_with_all_these_crazy/
{ "a_id": [ "dp94s6e", "dp94sq0" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Honestly sounds like something is wrong with either her mic or your speaker.\n\nBeckground noise will always be a thing, and your phone can't filter it out without listening to your conversation, which it can't do real time. So I would actually see if it happens will all phone calls, or if its just yours...", "Cellular or landline? VoLTE and a few new codecs have done a lot to improve cellular coverage and quality, not all carriers support it. \n\nLandline, there are often local issues. At my parents house, there is only one provider, and it is clear that the infrastructure around their neighborhood is poor: frequent outages, significant line noise, etc. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
2lfobp
what difference does it make it the universe is slowing down in expansion or accelerating? what does this mean for humanity?
Bill Nye recently said that the universe is accelerating in it's expansion and that was the most important discovery in the last 10 years. Now that we know this, what does this mean to us?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lfobp/eli5_what_difference_does_it_make_it_the_universe/
{ "a_id": [ "clubyrc", "clucaw8", "clucz8i", "cludgu1" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Entropy will forever increase, and then nothing.", "Probably won't mean anything for humanity if we could travel faster than light its a big galaxy loads of planets and resources. If you really wanted to stretch your expectations it would just keep taking longer and longer to reach different galaxies", "The discovery of the expansion of the universe leads us to answering some of the most fundamental questions like, how did the universe form, and what is matter. If we can come to understand that, we can come to understand our place in the universe and what we can do within it. That way, we can work with things like matter and anti-matter, fusion, neutrinos, dark matter and create things like the microwave-powered EmDrive.", "We don't know the difference yet or what it means because we don't yet understand *why* it's accelerating in its expansion. This discovery is completely contrary to everything we (thought we) knew about the universe, its creation, and basic properties of matter/energy/gravity. So we can't really explain what new discoveries or implications this will lead to, but this fact will likely be the precursor to a major shift in the way we understand the aforementioned topics. It's like when we shifted from the geocentric model to the heliocentric model of the solar system - if nothing else, it's a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
3zmjr5
why do diseases spread through pigs and birds more so than other animals?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zmjr5/eli5_why_do_diseases_spread_through_pigs_and/
{ "a_id": [ "cynd6cn" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Because of humans relationship with specific mammals and poultry through domestication and even more so now industrialization, the odds of animal pathogens mutating to spread to humans increase greatly.\n\nTl:dr It's a numbers game and we like chicken and beef and pork, so the odds are in our disfavor." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
axoo6q
how does nuclear fusion work on the atom-level?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axoo6q/eli5_how_does_nuclear_fusion_work_on_the_atomlevel/
{ "a_id": [ "ehuyuzc", "ehv0k70", "ehv1tuu", "ehv6xko" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Nuclear fusion is, by definition, on the atomic level. Nuclear fusion is when you smash together 2 light elements to get a heavier element. For example, smashing together 2 hydrogen atoms (each with one proton) gives you a single helium atom (2 protons).", "There are four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force (SNF), and weak nuclear force (WNF). You are probably familiar with the first two, and WNF can mostly be left out of this explanation.\n\nThere is a huge amount to this, but you could generalize by saying that SNF is an *extremely* strong force of attraction, but only over an *extremely* short distance. Contrast this with gravity, which is quite weak but has a very long \"range\". When two atoms approach each other, they are initially repelled (or sometimes stabilized) by electromagnetic force. If you push them close enough together, SNF kicks in and the two can basically merge together. Again, there's a lot more to this but this is an ELI5 explanation.\n\nAtoms don't like getting that close together, so it takes a lot of energy to pull this off in the form of pressure and temperature. That's why it's so hard to perform energy-effective, sustainable fusion on Earth, but it readily happens in the core of stars. ", "Let's say you've got a forest. If you break the forest in half, each half is still basically a forest with trees, just smaller. But at some point this will stop being true.\n\nLet's fast-forward. You've broken your forest down to just two trees. You break it in half again, each half is still the same (one tree). But now, when you break the one tree in half, you've got two different things (maybe one half is the roots and one half is the trunk). So, in this case, the tree is the atomic unit of the forest and, when you try to break it, things get weird.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAtoms are the \"atomic unit\" of matter, they are the smallest building blocks of matter that we can reliably work with and, under normal circumstances, they are quite stable. One atom does not just turn into a different kind of atom. Nature, however, if full of fun exceptions. Nuclear fusion is one of them!\n\n & #x200B;\n\nDespite being the atomic unit of matter, atoms are made of multiple parts\\*. For our purposes, we'll only worry about the core of the atom (the nucleus). This core is made of protons and the number of protons tells you what kind of atom it is. Hydrogen has one proton, helium has two, etc (you've probably seen this before on a [periodic table](_URL_1_)).\n\n & #x200B;\n\nNuclear fusion is when the nuclear core of two atoms fuse together to become one, new, heavier atom. This is weird. You wouldn't expect that you could bang two trees together and get single, new, bigger tree (weirdly enough, this is [actually kind of a thing](_URL_2_)). So, now you've stuck two hydrogens together. Each had one proton. Your new atom has two protons, so it is a helium. In the process of fusing together, a tiny amount of the mass is converted directly into energy (mass contains a LOT of energy when its directly converted). This energy comes in the form of heat and light. It is the basis for how all stars work.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n\\*If you want to get fancy, subatomic components are themselves made of even smaller things called quarks. Quarks are extra weird (although some are [just strange](_URL_0_)) and I would probably not explain them to a five year old.", "Heat is just the energy of atoms vibrating. \n\nHeat stuff hot enough and it will melt. Hotter and it will boil and vaporize. \n*Hotter* and it will become plasma: the electrons that normally surround the nucleus of the atom get loose and turn into a kind of electron soup shared by all of the nearby atoms.\n\nNow, if you squeeze this plasma and heat it enough, then some of those atoms-without-electrons are going to vibrate hard enough actually run into each other. And, if they hit each other hard enough, then, like two bullets that run into each other in midair, they can *stick together* and form a *single, larger* atom. \n\nWhen you go from very small atoms to slightly larger ones, the amount of energy that it takes the two smaller atoms just to *exist* is more than it takes for the one slightly larger one to exist. And when the two smaller atoms stick together to form the one larger one, then that extra energy is released and can be used to boil water, turn a steam turbine and generate electricity." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_quark", "https://www.ptable.com/", "https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9LUVYfjp5A8/VtDgMFeGxKI/AAAAAAAAGX8/eETZFE2DHiQ/s1600/DSC_0001.JPG" ], [] ]
2pzjvv
why passwords made on websites with requirements (i.e. exactly 8 characters) make a password 'more secure' if it decreases the total amount of possible combinations.
And if it doesn't make it more secure, why do websites still do it? Edit: Well, that escalated quickly... Edit 2: Ok, I think I've found some good explanations. Thanks, guys!
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pzjvv/eli5_why_passwords_made_on_websites_with/
{ "a_id": [ "cn1f42o", "cn1f7m8", "cn1f8g0", "cn1nxcf", "cn1oogx", "cn1ozw0", "cn1p6k8", "cn1p9u5", "cn1pmyg", "cn1r2e8", "cn1r56k", "cn1rcyp", "cn1tm8d", "cn1u232", "cn1uard", "cn1wbtb" ], "score": [ 69, 48, 287, 12, 3, 43, 33, 3, 9, 2, 3, 5, 12, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I've never seen 'exactly 8'. And it would not be secure.\nLength is vital. Complexity is important. Not using the same password on different sites is vital.", "It doesn't make the password more secure. Here's what I found in a search:\n\n_URL_0_", "They don't make it more secure, and you can use the rules to narrow down the possible combinations. Forcing people to use special characters may however be advantageous because it vastly increases the search space.\n\nThese requirements are usually implemented because there are a large number of people who would choose 'password1' or '123456' if you let them, and the restrictions are designed to force them to choose something more secure.", "Bad programmers are implementing bad security practices causing bad leaks. There's no excuse for password length limits anymore. It's really that simple.", "It doesn't.\n\n > why do websites still do it?\n\nBecause it costs a lot of time and money to update some of those larger systems to make them support more.", "I haven't seen a satisfying answer, so...\n\nThe general rule of thumb with passwords is that random is better and longer is stronger.\n\nAn 8 character password has only about 42 bits of entropy. ASCII only uses 7 bits (127 different options) and 35 of those are non-printable characters and can't reasonably be used. 42 bits is actually slightly stronger, but we're splitting hairs now. In any event, modern password crackers can brute force an 8 character password very quickly.\n\nThere are only three reasons I can reasonably think of that 8 character limits would be enforced.\n\n1. Ignorance. Someone just plain doesn't know any better. This one is the scariest because by now everyone should know better.\n\n2. Hashing function limitation. Believe it or not there are some hashing functions (e.g., ancient crypt()) that only recognizes the first 8 characters. You can enter more, but only the first 8 are checked. So if your password were \"password1\", that's 9 characters so simply entering \"password\" will let you in. In this case it's better to enforce an 8 character input limit so that you don't get a false sense of security with your 40 character password when 32 of those are ignored.\n\n3. Rigid database. Many (especially older) databases use fixed sizes for fields and once the table is created it's difficult, time consuming or impractical to resize them. If you have millions or billions of rows it could take hours or days to resize a column, during which you can't make changes to the table (effectively halting your business). Basically it requires every byte in the entire table to be read and written to a new location to make room. Modern databases have ways of avoiding that but many financial institutions or telecos still use the mainframe as their primary data store.\n\nIn either 2) or 3) there's a technical reason that I find understandable, but in any case it is inexcusable. Even when working with such a obsolete system these limitations can be avoided. It necessarily adds complexity and takes time. But it isn't that it can't done correctly, it's that nobody with the right authority is making it a priority.", "I can't believe people are passing off wild guesses as answers.\n\nThe most common reason for these kinds of restrictions is compatibility with legacy systems. For example, restricting the character space to the letters, numbers, and symbols on a keypad so the password can be used with an automated phone system.\n\nAnd you're absolutely correct. Such restrictions are a major hit to password security. Some programmers know better but don't have the influence to make the system better (businesses are loathe to spend money and create disruption on systems that work). Others programmers don't have knowledge or have bad knowledge on how modern password attacks occur and subsequently make botched attempts at security.", "Some sites are using A LOT of old code and changing it is often prohibitively expensive. Sometimes they will try to make changes within their limitations to try to increase protection. \n \nBesides, limiting passwords to eight characters is still not a problem IF people use randomly generated passwords (a password vault like LastPass and KeePass will help) AND the website locks down the account if too many wrong attempts are made. If say a website locks an account after 10 attempts, a randomly generated password is incredibly unlikely to be hacked in 10 attempts. ", "There are a few things you might be talking about here. Broadly, you want to imagine that in order to crack a password, we're having your kid brother type in every possible combination of characters until he hits on the right one. Your kid brother is probably going to take a shortcut and try all the words in the dictionary first, but ultimately he'll fall back on trying \"aaa\", \"aab\", \"aac\" etc. Keep that in mind. So here are the kinds of requirements we see:\n\n* must include at least 1 symbol, number, capital letter, etc. These are good things, because they expand the total number of characters your kid brother has to try. If he knows that the password system only takes numbers for example, he's only got 10 possible choices to iterate through for each character of the password. But if it's caps, lowercase, and numbers, he's got way more work to do.\n\n* must be at least X characters long. This is also a good thing, because with each extra character in the password, the number of possible combinations that your kid brother has to type grows significantly. So we make sure that the password has a certain minimum number of possible combinations required.\n\n* cannot be more than X characters long. This is bad because it limits the number of possible combinations you might have. Your kid brother is happy to see that number, because it tells him the worst case scenario of how hard this password will be to crack. But it belies a much worse problem in the way the password information is being stored.\n\nSee, when you're storing information in a database - as most every contemporary web application does - you write the information into tables, which you might imagine like excel sheets. You structure each table (sheet) in advance to be ready for the kind of information that will go into each column. For example, you'll have a \"username\" column that will store up to 32 characters of text, and you'll have a \"last logged in\" column that will store a date/time. The same applies for the password column; in the case of the sites with a character limit, someone defined the password field as being X characters of text, so they make sure you can't make a longer password than that. The problem is, this is only an issue at all if you're storing the password in plaintext. \n\nIn grown-up password implementations, you never store the password. Rather, you use a (more or less) one-way mathematical function called a _hashing algorithm_ to create a seemingly random combination of characters BASED on the password. We call that output set of characters a \"hash\". Hashing algorithms are consistent, so you if you put in the password \"correcthorsebatterystaple\" one hundred times, you will get the same hash back every time (for example, cbe6beb26479b568e5f15b50217c6c83c0ee051dc4e522b9840d8e291d6aaf46). That means that you don't have to store the actual password, you can just store the hash. When the user enters their password, you run it through the same hashing algorithm, and if the hash matches, the password must have matched, too. We do this so that if someone steals a copy of the database, they don't get a list of all our passwords... they just get the hashes. And as I mentioned above, the hashing algorithm is one-way - ie it's effectively impossible to go from cbe6beb26479b568e5f15b50217c6c83c0ee051dc4e522b9840d8e291d6aaf46 to \"correcthorsebatterystaple\".\n\nOne of the cool things about hashing algorithms is that they can return a fixed number of characters. For example, the hash I did above for \"correcthorsebatterystaple\" produces a 32 characters long hash. You'll get 32 characters no matter what the input is. This means that in your database, you can store the password as \"32 characters long text\", no matter what length your users choose.\n\nTL;DR: a grown-up password implementation is characterized by a minimum number of characters, sometimes a minimum number of symbols/numbers/capital letters, and no limit on password length. Any time you are given a limit on the number of characters, you know that it is being stored in plaintext and is therefore extremely vulnerable to being stolen. ", "It doesn't make it more secure, but it might make it more compatible with legacy systems. \n\nAll you need to know (as a layman) about password security is [here](_URL_1_) and [here](_URL_0_). This is in a nice and easy comic-format, but it is very much valid. Just don't use correcthorsebatterystaple as a password everywhere...", "Dan Goodin at Ars Technica has several excellent introductory articles focused on passwords and cracking that I think everyone should read:\n\n* _URL_0_\n* _URL_1_\n* _URL_2_", "Another common reason for 'only 8 characters' is interoperability with ancient systems. Some old mainframe it is using for a datasource somewhere in the process limited passwords to 8 characters, so they can't go beyond that until they get rid of that system... so everyone gets a password that is insecure, yay", "Requirements can sometimes increase the strength of your password and sometimes decrease it depending on whether or not those requirements result in a password that is, on average, stronger or weaker than what the user would have came up with already.\n\n* Exactly 8 characters long\n\nThis would inherently weaken any password it is given because attackers would know only to search strings that are 8 characters long (no more or less). With lowercase+numbers, that's a search space of 2.8 trillion, which sounds like a lot but it could realistically be cracked in a matter of a few seconds with any decent offline attack. \n\nUnfortunately even including upper, lower, numerics, and punctuation doesn't help you a whole lot against a pure brute force. At 8 characters, even the strongest password would fall in minutes. \n\n* Include upper case and punctuation\n\nThis is an example of a rule that, on average, increases the strength of the password. When creating passwords most people simply don't tend to include these characters. By enforcing this rule, attackers would know that every password they crack has these characters in it, which does decrease the complexity of the search a bit. But the tradeoff is substantial.\n\nUsing only lower case letters at 12 characters, a decent offline attack could take a week. Add numbers, and that number goes up to a year. Add upper case, it goes up to 10 centuries. Punctuation: a hundred thousand years. Welcome to exponential space.\n\n* No common words\n\nThis substantially increases the security of your password because it protects against dictionary attacks. \n\nA typical english dictionary might have around 50,000 words in it. You can imagine how quick it would be to even try 2 or 3 length permutations of each word considering an offline attack can be in the billions of guesses per second. \n\n* Password must be between 8 and 16 characters long\n\nThis is one you want to watch out for, not because it makes your password less secure, but because its indicative of an insecure method of how they store your password on their servers.\n\nThe most insecure systems in the world would simply store your password in their database exactly as you type it in. If a hacker got a copy of their database, your password is gone instantly.\n\nMore secure systems hash the password using a deterministic hashing algorithm. Like encryption, a hash algorithm takes some text and turns it into something crazy looking. Unlike encryption, hash algorithms are 1-way; there's no way besides brute force to go backward. So a SHA-256 hash of \"password123\" is `ef92b778bafe771e89245b89ecbc08a44a4e166c06659911881f383d4473e94f` but \"password124\" is `33631376724e5d5480fa397dfcf03b66ad47b934ab495174d7058c38f2bb0087`. Completely different despite the originals being kind of similar.\n\nThe most secure systems use hashing, but they don't *just* hash your password. They also throw in some other (deterministic) characters, like your email. So maybe they store the hash of \"[email protected]\", which produces a hash totally different than password123. \n\nThis is secure because (in the case of #2) if a couple people have the same password they produce the same hash. Attackers might first search the compromised database for anyone with the same stored hash, then focus the attack on those people because (A) they clearly have a weak password given they're using the same one, and (B) he gets multiple accounts for the price of one attack. Throwing in the email throws off the hash and adds protection. \n\nIf the website clearly specifies they don't accept passwords longer than something reasonable, like 16 characters, it might be because they are storing the password in plaintext in their database and their database is set up only to store things that are that long. But it doesn't guarantee this. Websites like google max out at like 128 characters not because its insecure, but because its just practical. \n\n* But all of this only matters\n\nin offline attack scenarios. Brute forcing someone's password on a live website, *even* if the website doesn't lock you out after fifty attempts, can only be done at a rate of like 1-20 attempts per second. All of the figures I listed above assume a rate of like 100 billion guesses per second. Even an insanely weak password like \"mittens01\" would take centuries to brute force online.\n\nThe end result of this is thus: Using strong (unique per website) passwords wherever you can has no downside. That being said, your security might be out of your control. Even the strongest password means nothing if they have access to a plaintext database. \n\n* That being said\n\nSecurity is such an interesting field because while it might seem like requiring users to use punctuation always increases security, it doesn't. Maybe the user has one password they use for all websites (\"Mittens99\") but requiring punctuation means they have to create a new password, which means they write it on a post-it note and stick it to their computer. Not so secure anymore.\n\nOr lets look at biometrics. Great. Your account is secured with your fingerprint. Whoops, your email provider's database was just compromised and they weren't storing your fingerprint properly. Now your bank, which *was* storing your fingerprint properly is *permanently* insecure, because... you can't change your fingerprint like you can change your password.\n\nOr you use 1Password to store your passwords so you can create super strong ones that are unique for every website. This is a good idea. But, its not foolproof. Are you using a decent master password? Remember that, if compromised, your 1Password database isn't inherently a *tenth* as strong as an enterprise account database. [Make sure your password is good enough](_URL_0_) to withstand even trillions of guesses per second. Are you syncing the database with Dropbox or iCloud? Do you trust [iCloud](_URL_3_)? How strong is your Dropbox/Apple password, because that's an attack vector. Do you sync to your phone? Is your phone encrypted?\n\nAlso, [use 2 factor authentication wherever possible](_URL_2_). \n\nAnd even if you do everything right: [Your security is not in your own hands](_URL_1_), because even huge companies like Amazon and Twitter simply don't fully comprehend the possibility behind high profile or targeted social engineering attacks. ", "'Exactly' 8 characters sounds like it is talking to some ancient backend system that has a 8 character fixed-length field that can't deal with anything shorter , and has other ancient systems talking to it such that it can't be changed to deal with anything more complicated such that longer passwords could be hashed down to something that fits.\n\nIn some cases it'll say it has to be a X digit number to deal with old bank-by-phone systems.", "I never understood why some sites forbid the use of spaces in passwords. ", "If a website tells you to make a password exactly 8 characters don't use that website. That's a complete disgrace to Security..." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/33470/what-technical-reasons-are-there-to-have-low-maximum-password-lengths" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://xkcd.com/792/", "http://xkcd.com/936/" ], [ "http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/08/passwords-under-assault/", "http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/how-crackers-make-minced-meat-out-of-your-passwords/", "http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/10/how-the-bible-and-youtube-are-fueling-the-next-frontier-of-password-cracking/" ], [], [ "https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm", "http://hackticool.com/post/75171875746", "https://www.authy.com/", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_photo_leaks" ], [], [], [] ]
35548g
if i invest $100 into stocks and they drop, will i owe money? or just lose my $100
Actually can anybody just explain stocks to me as simple as possible? I've read about it but clearly it hasn't stuck because it's still very confusing to me, I wouldn't even know where to go to make an investment.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35548g/eli5if_i_invest_100_into_stocks_and_they_drop/
{ "a_id": [ "cr1386b", "cr13dzt", "cr13wfd", "cr14luz" ], "score": [ 3, 10, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "You just lose your $100 (or more likely, a portion of it).\n\n > Actually can anybody just explain stocks to me as simple as possible?\n\nBuy low, sell high. The art is in knowing *when* they're high and *when* they're low, when they'll go up and when they'll go down. Everything else is more or less window dressing on that.", "You can never lose more money than you put in on the stock exchange (inflation ignored)\n\nExample: I have $100. Shares are going at $1 each. I buy 100.\n\nI have $0 and 100 shares. Share prices drop to $0.9 each.\n\nI have $0 and 100 shares. I need some cash for a new video game so sell half my shares at $0.9 each.\n\nI have $45 and 50 shares. The price then drops to almost no money at all, the company is going bust and shares are worthless. I sell my 50 shares at $0.01 each.\n\nI decided not to buy the game so have $45.50 and no shares\n\nA shit turnover, but I haven't gone into debt.\n\n---\n\nThe risk comes when people borrow money to invest in stocks which is a super risky game but can pay off well", "Thanks everyone. Definitely grasp it a little better now.", "If you buy 1 share of a stock for $100, you own a very small fraction of the company. \n\nSay on Monday you buy 1 share for $100 of Acme Incorporated, on Wednesday some bad news about Acme's product comes out, and the share price drops to $50. You still own that 1 share. If you sell it, you'd sell it for $50, and lose $50 on your initial investment. If you kept it, maybe the stock price will eventually go back up above $100. (ignoring inflation in this example)\n\nLet's say you keep it, and the company goes bankrupt. That 1 share you purchased for $100 might become worthless. But you'll never owe additional money in this example. \n\nIf you buy stocks on what's known as margin. You ask the bank to loan you some additional money, so you'd put in $75, and the bank loans you $25. Now if the stock goes to $50, the bank might declare a margin call, meaning they want their money back now. In that case you might be forced to sell at $50, pay them back $25, and you'd keep $25. In other words you'd lose $50.\n\nAnother way to trade the stock is known as \"short selling\" a stock. Let's say I think Acme's new product will be a flop. Or maybe I think they won't meet their earnings estimate. I can borrow a stock from the bank for $100, immediately sell it, keep the $100 (minus the fee to borrow the stock), with the promise to buy it back later on, and return it to the bank. But let's say I'm wrong, and the new product is a success, now the stock is at $150. I still owe the bank that 1 share. So I'll have to buy it at $150, and give it back to the bank.\n\nFinally there are option trades known as \"call\" or \"put\" In those two situations, you can find yourself owing far more then your initial investment. But a novice investor should stay away from margin trading, and options trading." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
dlsmbv
what does the wattage rating on a light bulb package mean?
For example, I have an LED bulb. Package says it is 60 Watt equivalent. But also energy effecient (9W). And the lamp I am screwing into says maximum of 100 watts. So why would the package even bother saying it is 60 Watt equivalent if the only thing that matters is that it is less than 100W (which it easily is at 9W)?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dlsmbv/elif_what_does_the_wattage_rating_on_a_light_bulb/
{ "a_id": [ "f4u1mio", "f4u43ih" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Aka the light bulb emits an amount of light similar to that a 60-watt incandescent bulb would put out, while only using 9 watts.\n\nThe lamp fixture is only designed to handle loads and the resulting heat from a device consuming 100 watts of power or less, which is clearly not an issue using your choice of light bulb", "Until the 90s, just about every bulb was an incandescant so people were calibrated to how bright a 40W, 60W, and 100W bulb were. If you had a fixture with 3 60W bulbs it would light a fair sized space, while a 100W lamp was still fairly bright on its own. LEDs were marked with an incandescent equivalent to let you know roughly how bright it is because there are old 9W LED bulbs that are 40W equivalent and newer 9W 100W equivalent bulbs\n\nNow for older incandescent bulbs, only 2% of the power used turned into light and the other 98% became heat which was a problem for a lot of fixtures. Putting 3 100W bulbs into a fixture meant for 3 40W bulbs could start to burn your ceiling and start a fire.\n\nModern LED bulbs are significantly more efficient(~20%) so they have much lower total power ratings while giving off the same light so you don't really need to worry about lamp wattage.\n\nTLDR - 60W equivalent is for brightness, the 100W max rating on your lamp is worrying about heat, they aren't worried about the same thing" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
38b838
why do animals prefer running water to standing water
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38b838/eli5_why_do_animals_prefer_running_water_to/
{ "a_id": [ "crtqhjl" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "They naturally know that still water is more dangerous than running water. It is more likely to have bacteria, molds, algae, or other things that can kill or make them sick. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
1ghnve
nutrition labels: what does each category mean, and how does each category affect your health?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ghnve/nutrition_labels_what_does_each_category_mean_and/
{ "a_id": [ "cakj71l" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I am not sure what exactly you want to know, but I will write something!\n\nThe main categories on a nutrition labels are:\n\nEnergy (kcal/kJ)\n\nProtein\n\nCarbohydrates\n\nFats\n\n\n**Energy** is measured in calories (kcal) or joules (kJ). One should eat around 2000 kcal per day (woman) or 2500 per day (men). When you eat more than this you will gain weight. When you eat less, you will lose weight. It is very simple like that! It will vary slightly from person to person, of course, depending on how much muscle and fat one has. But those amounts are a good rule of thumb.\n\n**Protein** is like building blocks for your body. It is used to build a lot of things. Big things like muscle are primarily protein, but also tiny things like enzymes are protein! You get protein from different things, primarily meat. Vegetarians might get proteins from beans. One should get approximately 0,85g of protein per kg bodyweight per day, if you are not excercising (sorry for the units - I am not American). If you are exercising and want to build muscle you will need to eat more than that. Proteins are also good at making you feel full, so if you want to lose weight it can be good to eat some protein, so you wont feel so hungry. \n\n**Carbohydrates** are the things like sugars, bread and potatoes. They are the easiest form of energy for you body to use. The easiest of all being pure sugar. Some things are made of long chains of sugar, which will need to be broken down to single-sugar units in order to be used. Some carbohydrates can not be broken down by humans at all! Those are important too! They help you with your bowel movements. Those are called fibers. It's easy to get too many carbohydrates. There are a lot of them in things like soda and juice. Those are especially \"dangerous\", because they don't really make you feel full at all! When you eat too many carbohydrates, you will have to much energy and the excess energy will be stored as fat. That's why it's good to cut sugary drinks out of ones diet, if you want to lose weight! You should primarily get your carbs from vegetables. They are also filled with vitamins and minerals which are good for you!\n\n**Fats** are the most energydense of these categories. One might want to avoid eating too much fat, but it is VERY important to get at least some! Most of our brain is made of fat. All of our cells are composed of fat. We need some fat to function. But there are different kinds of fat. There are both butter (made of dairy) and oils (made of vegetables) and the kind you find on your meat (animal fat). People strongly disagree on which types are the healthy ones and which types are bad for you. For now I will just say, that you should vary your diet and not only eat one type of fat.\n\nThe most important thing is: Everything in moderation! It is okay to have some soda once in a while, but it doesn't really benifit you in anyway nutritional. ½ a liter of coke is 210 calories (~ 10% of your daily caloric intake). If you drink one per day for a month that is 210*30 = 6300 kcal which corresponds to almost 1 kg of fat! That's like 10 kg a year!\n\nWell. That is all I have for now. Feel free to ask." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
31fkqr
with tesla being banned in some states what does it mean to go across state lines and buy the car? do you not just order online?
Wouldn't you address still just be from the state its banned in?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31fkqr/eli5_with_tesla_being_banned_in_some_states_what/
{ "a_id": [ "cq12co0", "cq12dd4" ], "score": [ 5, 6 ], "text": [ "Tesla is banned from having their own dealerships in those states. Traditionally auto manufacturers are not allowed to own car dealerships.\n\nThe cars themselves are not banned from these states.", "The cars themselves aren't banned. Just dealerships. Because they don't fit the legal description of a car dealer, since the parent manufacturing company is selling them direct. \n\nYou can still buy one elsewhere and own it in that state." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
3ifby0
can we train our voices over time to get higher or lower?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ifby0/eli5_can_we_train_our_voices_over_time_to_get/
{ "a_id": [ "cufxd3p", "cufy8wl" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Yes. Ever seen someone do impressions?", "Yes, this is possible. In my job I have to sometimes raise the volume of my voice and realized that lowering the pitch allows my voice to be heard better. Since I've been doing this I've been able to lower to tone of my voice even more. Any voluntary muscle can be trained and strengthened to an extent. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
9gqglr
what do the "pill" terms mean when online asking to be "blue/red/black/etc pilled" on a certain subject/topic?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9gqglr/eli5_what_do_the_pill_terms_mean_when_online/
{ "a_id": [ "e664hw0", "e66as5o" ], "score": [ 15, 4 ], "text": [ "It is a reference to the famous scene in the Matrix when Morpheus offers Mr. Anderson one of two options. \n\n-Take a blue pill, the story ends wake up tomorrow back in your bed and fall back in line with whatever beliefs you have.\n\n-Take the red pill and experience the full unredacted truth of your existence, good or bad.\n\nIn terms of topics I've seen used in recent memes and discussions, being \"red-pilled\" implies no longer blindly believing the stance one holds regarding their allegiance to the political left.\n\n\"Black-pilled\" is a prophetic and usually apocalyptic scenario involving occultism, mysticism, and other topics of usually unbelievable proportions.\n\n\"Blue-pilled\" is the opposite of both. Essentially ignorance is bliss. Learn nothing of the true nature of things, but at the same time remain completely insulated in a false sense of security and we'll being.", "There is actually a Wikipedia article about this:\n\n_URL_0_\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill" ] ]
5f3f5f
how come when i'm dizzy my vision always spins to the right? do other people's spin left?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5f3f5f/eli5_how_come_when_im_dizzy_my_vision_always/
{ "a_id": [ "dahc5bd" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "Inside your inner ears are structures and fluid that help you detect motion. The fluid in your inner ear moves when you move. After spinning around, for example, the fluid in your inner ear also spins. When you stop, the fluid keeps going. You feel dizzy because your brain is hearing conflicting stories from your eyes \"we stopped moving\" and your inner ears \"no we didn't\". \n\nThe eyes' muscles begin to work to stay focused on the environment which the inner ears are insisting is \"spinning\". \n\nSometimes dizziness is because of an infection or other condition that affects how the inner ear performs its job. \n\nAs for your vision spinning to the right, that often depends on which ear is affected. I have a condition that causes occasional vertigo and if my right inner ear's structures are affected, my eyes deviate to the right when I'm experiencing an episode. \n\nI'm sure there is a far more accurate explanation that could be given. This is just what I've been told. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
2liour
why is a 3d printer considered a printer?
I cannot understand how it's a printer or how it's not just an advanced manufacturing machine.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2liour/eli5_why_is_a_3d_printer_considered_a_printer/
{ "a_id": [ "clv564y", "clv565d", "clv56xi" ], "score": [ 4, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It's mostly called a printer because that terminology is easy to understand to most people. The same way that an inkjet printer has a head which moves back forth across a tray to reproduce an image, a 3D printer has a head which moves back and forth across a tray to reproduce a shape.\n\nI can see your point, but this is a case of \"If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...\" ", "Because the way it deposits material is almost exactly the same way as an inkjet printer. All that happens is that the plastic gets stacked, allowing the printer to create in three dimensions, rather than just two.", "It's more of a design. We understand the word \"Printer\". It sounds familiar and gives us a good idea of what it does. \n\nWe can also apply other logical semantics to it.\n\n*TO PRINT: to reproduce (a design or pattern) by engraving on a plate or block.*\n\na 3d printer reproduces a designt/pattern by engraving it not on a block or plate, but by printing it on itself.\n\nIt \"print\" layers upon layers of material to form a 3d image/item. a tower printed would start with a single layer, then the printer prints another layer on top of that layer, and then print another layer on top of that layer and so on and so forth until you have the entire tower. \n\n[you can see this process better in this video, albeit quite briefly](_URL_0_). there you see the builder scanning back and forth, adding a new layer to the material one inch at a time, like a normal printer would print out a normal page one line at a time. it's this similar motion and build process that we can recognize as a \"printer\"" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "http://youtu.be/8aghzpO_UZE?t=2m39s" ] ]
25w9cz
why is there no b#
Why is there no B# (or E-flat if you prefer)
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25w9cz/eli5_why_is_there_no_b/
{ "a_id": [ "chlbdya", "chlbf40", "chlbpyp", "chlbpyr", "chlihrx" ], "score": [ 2, 7, 3, 3, 8 ], "text": [ "Not exactly sure why there isn't, but just to clarify about what you said about Eb, there is one. You meant to say C-flat. There also isn't an F-flat or E#.", "There is\n\nB# is an enharmonic respelling of the note C. it all depends on the context its used. you wouldn't spell a G# major chord with a C in it, you'd use B#.\n\nalso, Eb is an enharmonic of D#.", "An octave is broken up into 12 semitones (the smallest distance between notes that is used in Western music - not sure how much you know about music theory), but only 7 note names exist. Because of this, most non-accidental notes have a whole tone (2 semtones) between them. However, if all of them had a whole tone between each other that would make 14 semitones - 2 too many. So, B-C was made to be 1 semitone distance, and E-F.\n\nRealistically you can have a B# or a Cb, and would use it in certain situations, but it sounds the same as a C or B respectively", "It is because there are only 12 notes in an octave.\n\nc, c#, d, d#, e, f, f#, g, ab, a, bb, b\n\nIt's somewhat arbitrary which notes have semi-steps attributed to them. \n/e: to clarify, I mean you could technically rewrite all music to go from c through k without any flats, whatsoever.", "This is a really good question. If I understand it right, you're asking about the reason why the scale sounds good without a black note between e/f or b/c. There's a nice math-based answer.\n\nFirst, you need to know about \"beat frequencies.\" In short, if two musical notes have frequencies A and B, then the notes have *low* beat frequency with each other if you can write the fraction A/B using fairly small numbers. Low beat frequency sounds good to humans, and high beat frequency sounds bad. The fancy musical term for low/high beat frequency is \"consonance\" and \"dissonance,\" respectively.\n\nUnder this rule, what note pair should sound *the best*? Well, if your first note has frequency F, then you want your second note to have frequency 2*F. Then F/2F = 1/2, which can be written using small numbers, so it ought to sound good, right? This is an octave: every time you go up an octave on a piano, you double the note frequency.\n\nAside from octaves, what else should sound good? If our first note has frequency F, then the next best candidates should be, in order: (3/2)F, (4/3)F, (5/3)F, (5/4)F, (6/5)F. In a truly wild and beautiful coincidence of the universe, these fractions are approximately equal to: 2^(7/12) , 2^(5/12) , 2^(9/12) , 2^(4/12) , and 2^(2/12) . **The \"12\" in the bottom of those fractions is why music sounds good to humans!**\n\nSo now we know that it's a good idea to split the octave into 12 equal parts. That's why there are 12 notes (including black ones) in an octave. We also know that we should pay special attention to the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 9th of these twelve notes. If the original note was a C, then these new notes are D, E, F, G, A. That answers one of your questions: **the reason there is no black note between E and F is that, by coincidence, the second and third low-beat-frequency powers of 2^(1/12) are only one away from each other.**\n\nB is a bit of a bastard child here. The reason it sounds good is that it has low beat frequency with D, E, and G, which obviously tend to appear a lot in the scale of C. Some classical composers went so far as to declare B a \"black note\" and not part of the major scale, but I guess now we've decided that it plays nicely with DEG and that's good enough for us. So that's why we allow B = 2^(11/12) into the white key club, and so there can be no half-step between B and C.\n\nQuick aside: There's a decent case to be made that we should use B flat = 2^(10/12) instead of B = 2^(11/12) . People do this, sometimes, and it's called a \"Dorian mode.\" Songs in Dorian have a very distinct melodic feel to them. A couple examples off the top of my head:\n\n[Love You Madly](_URL_0_)\n\n[Work It Out](_URL_1_)\n\nAnyways, I hope that helps!" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uwjsG0cRf0&amp;feature=kp", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUw9Ej5VLnM&amp;t=18" ] ]
4or2mx
why do we sometimes have an urge to smell disgusting things?
Especially from our own environment.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4or2mx/eli5_why_do_we_sometimes_have_an_urge_to_smell/
{ "a_id": [ "d4ewmil" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "You mean like our poop? It's an evolutionary drive. Because animals often track other animals by scent, when we smelled our own poop we could gauge how strong the smell is and therefore gauge the level of danger we would be in after having defecated. The stronger the smell is, the further and faster it would travel and alert predators to our presence." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
lpubd
how does hydrogen turn into people?
I know you've heard the quote--I saw fourteen of you use it today. But how? What's the chain of events that begins with hydrogen and ends with people?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lpubd/eli5_how_does_hydrogen_turn_into_people/
{ "a_id": [ "c2umuk6", "c2umweu", "c2umzj8", "c2unjl7", "c2umuk6", "c2umweu", "c2umzj8", "c2unjl7" ], "score": [ 2, 13, 6, 2, 2, 13, 6, 2 ], "text": [ "Don't think of humans as the end in mind. Start with a building block like hydrogen and consider that it will, through numerous processes like fusion, gravitation, electromagnetism and so on, eventually take on every possible configuration it can. Other elements, molecules, rock, water, planets, cells, stars, everything. We are merely one result out of infinite possibilities, and it doesn't end here.", "Stars are bright and hot because in their cores they have nuclear fusion going on. Nuclear Fusion is when small elements are crunched together (fused) to form larger elements. Depending on the star, different atoms will be combined to create different elements. Some stars convert hydrogen into helium. Other stars convert helium into relatively light elements (like oxygen and carbon), and still other stars (usually very large stars that are in the process of dying) create heavier elements like gold and uranium. \n\nSome stars will explode when they die, spilling a chunk of their constructed elements out into the universe. These elements might form into other stars (creating more heavy elements) or they might form into planets. \n\nNow, what about your body? Your body is made up of cells, which are made up of molecules, which are made up of elements. Since you *aren't* made up of entirely hydrogen, every element in your body must have at some point been formed by a star.\n\nSo hydrogen turns into people, but in a kind of roundabout way. First hydrogen has to turn into helium (in a star), then the helium has to turn into even heavier elements (also in a star), then the heavier elements need to turn into a planet (after the star explodes), then that planet has to produce life (through abiogenesis(we're actually not quite sure how this specifically happened on earth)), and then that life has to turn into people (through evolution).", "It's a pretty terrible quote, frankly.\n\nBut there are two important things you need to know about to understand this: baryogenesis and nucleosynthesis. Settle down, I'm gonna explain them.\n\nYou've heard of protons, yeah? Protons are one of the three particles that atoms are made of. Protons are particles called *baryons*; a protons is one type of baryon. There's another type of baryon that's also important: It's called a neutron. There are about a *zillion* other types of baryons that *aren't* important to us right now, but take all of these things collectively and we call them baryons.\n\nBaryons are not elementary things. That is, they're things which are made of other things. What are they made of? A variety of particles that are called *quarks.* The question, then, is how did quarks *initially* get together to make baryons? Or in other words, how did the first baryons come to exist?\n\nThe answer is the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the earliest period in the history of the universe, lasting from *zero* — what we call the time of the very first event that ever happened — to about 400,000 years later. Early on in the Big Bang, the universe was very hot and dense, so hot and dense that no matter could exist. Later, as the universe cooled, the first quarks appeared. But it turns out quarks, by themselves, are not stable, for deep and complicated reasons we won't go into here. Below a certain energy density, quarks are only stable when they link up in pairs and in threes. So as the universe cooled, those first primordial quarks did just that: They hooked up in pairs and in threes. The pairs we call mesons and we don't care about them right now; the three-particle collections of quarks we call *baryons*, and the proton is the lightest of all the baryons.\n\nBut when the quarks first congealed into baryons, the result was both baryons and *antibaryons*. You know, like antimatter? When a baryon of one type encounters an antibaryon of another type, the two particles annihilate each other, meaning they cancel each other out and release photons. When a *heavy* baryon and a heavy antibaryon get together, they release *very energetic* photons. Very energetic photons don't want to stay photons any more; they want to decay into lighter particles. We call these lighter particles *leptons*. The electron, which you've doubtless heard of, is a lepton.\n\nSo let's review what we've got so far: First the universe was very hot. As it cooled, quarks appeared. As it cooled further, quarks hooked up in pairs and triplets to form mesons and baryons and their antiparticles. But the mesons and baryons and their antiparticles all got together and mutually annihilated, releasing energetic photons which decayed into electrons. That's how both protons and electrons first came into existence.\n\nOf course, that raises the question: If all the baryons got together with all the antibaryons and annihilated to make photons and leptons … how come there are still baryons in the universe? I mean, we're *surrounded* by atoms made of protons and neutrons, and those are baryons, so how'd they get here?\n\nThe answer is called *baryon asymmetry*. See, way back when the free quarks first condensed into baryons and antibaryons, for every ten billion antibaryons that formed, ten billion *and one* baryons formed. So when all the annihilation happened, we had one baryon in ten billion left over with no partner to annihilate with. So those particles stayed around, and that's the origin of all the baryonic matter in the universe today.\n\nWhy did that baryon asymmetry exist? Nobody knows for sure. We already know about processes in nature that slightly favor baryons over antibaryons, so we know it's possible for that asymmetry to exist. But its precise nature is gonna remain a mystery for a while yet.\n\nAnyway, there we are, a bit after the start of the Big Bang. Quarks appeared, hooked up to make baryons, baryons annihilated releasing leptons and a *very slight* trace of leftover baryons. Meaning we had a universe that was filled with a hot gas of mostly protons and electrons and basically nothing else.\n\nAs this gas cooled, the protons — which have positive electric charge — and the electrons — negative electric charge — got together. You know what you get when you put a proton and an electron together, don't you? You get *hydrogen.* That's how hydrogen came to exist: The universe cooled, and all those free protons and electrons hooked up. So the universe went from being filled with a hot electron-proton plasma to a merely warm (a few thousand degrees) neutral hydrogen gas.\n\nWell, this hydrogen gas wasn't perfectly evenly distributed. It was denser in some places than in others. In places where it was denser, gravity started to pull the gas together to make it denser still. Once enough hydrogen gas gets together, a process called *nuclear fusion* can happen. Basically, if you squish two hydrogen nuclei — protons, in other words — together, they'll *stick* and make a helium nucleus. And if you stick two heliums together you get a beryllium, which is unstable and decays into a lithium … and so on. The trick is, none of these reactions can happen unless the hydrogen gas is really hot and really dense, which means you need a lot of it in one place. It took a few million years for this to happen, but once it did, you got *stars.*\n\nStars are where *nucleosynthesis* happens. You start with hydrogen and smoosh the nuclei together to make bigger nuclei, then smoosh those nuclei together to make still bigger nuclei … then the star explodes. Because those first stars that existed didn't live very long. They were really inefficient, so once they got to a point where they couldn't support themselves by fusing hydrogen into helium, they popped like balloons and scattered their contents through space.\n\nWhich meant now you had this big clouds of hydrogen *and helium*, which again started to collapse under their own weight and turned into the next generation of stars. These fused the heavier stuff inside them into still heavier stuff, then popped and scattered their fusion products through space, products like carbon and nitrogen and oxygen. These subsequent clouds collapsed again and formed stars … but that's not all. Those clouds also congealed to form things smaller than stars, made up of heavier elements that hadn't been present in the universe before, elements like iron and nickel and silicon, plus in at least one case a lot of leftover hydrogen that bonded with oxygen. We call these smaller things *planets* and the leftover-hydrogen-plus-oxygen *water*.\n\nAnd then one of those planets ended up having people on it.\n\nSo yes, in a sense hydrogen turned into people, first through the process of baryogenesis — where hydrogen appeared for the first time in the universe — and then through nucleosynthesis — where hydrogen got smooshed together to make more interesting things inside the cores of about three generations of stars and about ten billion years. But just saying that \"hydrogen turns into people\" somehow manages to throw away all the *interesting* stuff and leave just one mundane, totally uninteresting fact that's sort-of true but not really.", "Our sun is in it's second life cycle, and is in the region of 4.5 billion years old. Before this, a much bigger star, made of 99.9% hydrogen a little helium and a pinch of lithium (all residue from the big bang,) was floating around in space somewhere. This star had enough gravity in its core to fuse hydrogen in to larger heavier atoms like oxygen, carbon, iron and everything else that makes up the earth. Being so big, this star went into supernova. Basically it exploded, spewing all these heavy atoms out into nowhere. Thicker parts of this cloud of atoms started to gravitate towards each other, slowly clumping together, getting hotter and increasing its gravitational pull. As this clump grew in mass, it began the process of nuclear fusion again. The birth of a second, much smaller star from what was left of the first.\nNow, still spewed around this young star is all the thinner regions of the cloud of atoms. The gravity of the star, combined with centrifugal (spinning) force, began swirling the cloud into orbit around the star. The cloud, little by little, got thicker in places where all these atoms started clumping together. By centrifugal force and the even pull of gravity, these clumps were shaped into spheres, and became planets. Those closer to the sun are mostly made of dense iron - being heavier it was pulled closer by the new star - and those farther away are made from light, less dense gasses. In the earth's case, a large body of molten iron was surrounded by a thin cover of mostly hydrogen and helium. As the earth began to cool, forming the crust, volcanoes were erupting intensely over the surface, spilling forth water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia. A bit more cooling and bodies of water started to form, early oceans that were void of oxygen. \nThe earth was in this state 3.5-4 billion years ago. Through electrical activity (lightening), and the combining of early atmosphere gasses with the new oceans, and the odd atom of phosphorous that was kicking around, the first few basic building blocks of life were created. This pre-biotic soup, as it is known, consisted of a few amino acids and a couple of RNA bases. Add a few hundred million years, a few of these building blocks had formed into self-replicating molecules. A few of these molecules became bound together in an enclosed membrane, complete with instructions for copying itself, and life began. These very early bacteria - formed around 3 billion years ago - was the starting point for every living this on earth. Basic biological and biochemical processes were worked out. 2.7 - 2.2 billion years ago, the most important of biological process was worked out - photosynthesis. Suddenly, bacteria could create energy rich molecules using abundant CO2 and sunlight. But more importantly, they started mass producing oxygen. Oxygen changed everything. Much more energy was utilised when respiring with oxygen, and that meant life could replicate and diversify much much quicker. Bacteria started compartmentalizing regions of there cells, increasing efficiency. Some cells started collaborating, increasing survival, and some of these multi-celled organisms developed specialized regions, allowing them to out compete others. \nThe rest came down to survival of the fittest, with the most diversified most likely to reproduce and pass on those characteristics. Add another billion years or so, and that led to you.", "Don't think of humans as the end in mind. Start with a building block like hydrogen and consider that it will, through numerous processes like fusion, gravitation, electromagnetism and so on, eventually take on every possible configuration it can. Other elements, molecules, rock, water, planets, cells, stars, everything. We are merely one result out of infinite possibilities, and it doesn't end here.", "Stars are bright and hot because in their cores they have nuclear fusion going on. Nuclear Fusion is when small elements are crunched together (fused) to form larger elements. Depending on the star, different atoms will be combined to create different elements. Some stars convert hydrogen into helium. Other stars convert helium into relatively light elements (like oxygen and carbon), and still other stars (usually very large stars that are in the process of dying) create heavier elements like gold and uranium. \n\nSome stars will explode when they die, spilling a chunk of their constructed elements out into the universe. These elements might form into other stars (creating more heavy elements) or they might form into planets. \n\nNow, what about your body? Your body is made up of cells, which are made up of molecules, which are made up of elements. Since you *aren't* made up of entirely hydrogen, every element in your body must have at some point been formed by a star.\n\nSo hydrogen turns into people, but in a kind of roundabout way. First hydrogen has to turn into helium (in a star), then the helium has to turn into even heavier elements (also in a star), then the heavier elements need to turn into a planet (after the star explodes), then that planet has to produce life (through abiogenesis(we're actually not quite sure how this specifically happened on earth)), and then that life has to turn into people (through evolution).", "It's a pretty terrible quote, frankly.\n\nBut there are two important things you need to know about to understand this: baryogenesis and nucleosynthesis. Settle down, I'm gonna explain them.\n\nYou've heard of protons, yeah? Protons are one of the three particles that atoms are made of. Protons are particles called *baryons*; a protons is one type of baryon. There's another type of baryon that's also important: It's called a neutron. There are about a *zillion* other types of baryons that *aren't* important to us right now, but take all of these things collectively and we call them baryons.\n\nBaryons are not elementary things. That is, they're things which are made of other things. What are they made of? A variety of particles that are called *quarks.* The question, then, is how did quarks *initially* get together to make baryons? Or in other words, how did the first baryons come to exist?\n\nThe answer is the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the earliest period in the history of the universe, lasting from *zero* — what we call the time of the very first event that ever happened — to about 400,000 years later. Early on in the Big Bang, the universe was very hot and dense, so hot and dense that no matter could exist. Later, as the universe cooled, the first quarks appeared. But it turns out quarks, by themselves, are not stable, for deep and complicated reasons we won't go into here. Below a certain energy density, quarks are only stable when they link up in pairs and in threes. So as the universe cooled, those first primordial quarks did just that: They hooked up in pairs and in threes. The pairs we call mesons and we don't care about them right now; the three-particle collections of quarks we call *baryons*, and the proton is the lightest of all the baryons.\n\nBut when the quarks first congealed into baryons, the result was both baryons and *antibaryons*. You know, like antimatter? When a baryon of one type encounters an antibaryon of another type, the two particles annihilate each other, meaning they cancel each other out and release photons. When a *heavy* baryon and a heavy antibaryon get together, they release *very energetic* photons. Very energetic photons don't want to stay photons any more; they want to decay into lighter particles. We call these lighter particles *leptons*. The electron, which you've doubtless heard of, is a lepton.\n\nSo let's review what we've got so far: First the universe was very hot. As it cooled, quarks appeared. As it cooled further, quarks hooked up in pairs and triplets to form mesons and baryons and their antiparticles. But the mesons and baryons and their antiparticles all got together and mutually annihilated, releasing energetic photons which decayed into electrons. That's how both protons and electrons first came into existence.\n\nOf course, that raises the question: If all the baryons got together with all the antibaryons and annihilated to make photons and leptons … how come there are still baryons in the universe? I mean, we're *surrounded* by atoms made of protons and neutrons, and those are baryons, so how'd they get here?\n\nThe answer is called *baryon asymmetry*. See, way back when the free quarks first condensed into baryons and antibaryons, for every ten billion antibaryons that formed, ten billion *and one* baryons formed. So when all the annihilation happened, we had one baryon in ten billion left over with no partner to annihilate with. So those particles stayed around, and that's the origin of all the baryonic matter in the universe today.\n\nWhy did that baryon asymmetry exist? Nobody knows for sure. We already know about processes in nature that slightly favor baryons over antibaryons, so we know it's possible for that asymmetry to exist. But its precise nature is gonna remain a mystery for a while yet.\n\nAnyway, there we are, a bit after the start of the Big Bang. Quarks appeared, hooked up to make baryons, baryons annihilated releasing leptons and a *very slight* trace of leftover baryons. Meaning we had a universe that was filled with a hot gas of mostly protons and electrons and basically nothing else.\n\nAs this gas cooled, the protons — which have positive electric charge — and the electrons — negative electric charge — got together. You know what you get when you put a proton and an electron together, don't you? You get *hydrogen.* That's how hydrogen came to exist: The universe cooled, and all those free protons and electrons hooked up. So the universe went from being filled with a hot electron-proton plasma to a merely warm (a few thousand degrees) neutral hydrogen gas.\n\nWell, this hydrogen gas wasn't perfectly evenly distributed. It was denser in some places than in others. In places where it was denser, gravity started to pull the gas together to make it denser still. Once enough hydrogen gas gets together, a process called *nuclear fusion* can happen. Basically, if you squish two hydrogen nuclei — protons, in other words — together, they'll *stick* and make a helium nucleus. And if you stick two heliums together you get a beryllium, which is unstable and decays into a lithium … and so on. The trick is, none of these reactions can happen unless the hydrogen gas is really hot and really dense, which means you need a lot of it in one place. It took a few million years for this to happen, but once it did, you got *stars.*\n\nStars are where *nucleosynthesis* happens. You start with hydrogen and smoosh the nuclei together to make bigger nuclei, then smoosh those nuclei together to make still bigger nuclei … then the star explodes. Because those first stars that existed didn't live very long. They were really inefficient, so once they got to a point where they couldn't support themselves by fusing hydrogen into helium, they popped like balloons and scattered their contents through space.\n\nWhich meant now you had this big clouds of hydrogen *and helium*, which again started to collapse under their own weight and turned into the next generation of stars. These fused the heavier stuff inside them into still heavier stuff, then popped and scattered their fusion products through space, products like carbon and nitrogen and oxygen. These subsequent clouds collapsed again and formed stars … but that's not all. Those clouds also congealed to form things smaller than stars, made up of heavier elements that hadn't been present in the universe before, elements like iron and nickel and silicon, plus in at least one case a lot of leftover hydrogen that bonded with oxygen. We call these smaller things *planets* and the leftover-hydrogen-plus-oxygen *water*.\n\nAnd then one of those planets ended up having people on it.\n\nSo yes, in a sense hydrogen turned into people, first through the process of baryogenesis — where hydrogen appeared for the first time in the universe — and then through nucleosynthesis — where hydrogen got smooshed together to make more interesting things inside the cores of about three generations of stars and about ten billion years. But just saying that \"hydrogen turns into people\" somehow manages to throw away all the *interesting* stuff and leave just one mundane, totally uninteresting fact that's sort-of true but not really.", "Our sun is in it's second life cycle, and is in the region of 4.5 billion years old. Before this, a much bigger star, made of 99.9% hydrogen a little helium and a pinch of lithium (all residue from the big bang,) was floating around in space somewhere. This star had enough gravity in its core to fuse hydrogen in to larger heavier atoms like oxygen, carbon, iron and everything else that makes up the earth. Being so big, this star went into supernova. Basically it exploded, spewing all these heavy atoms out into nowhere. Thicker parts of this cloud of atoms started to gravitate towards each other, slowly clumping together, getting hotter and increasing its gravitational pull. As this clump grew in mass, it began the process of nuclear fusion again. The birth of a second, much smaller star from what was left of the first.\nNow, still spewed around this young star is all the thinner regions of the cloud of atoms. The gravity of the star, combined with centrifugal (spinning) force, began swirling the cloud into orbit around the star. The cloud, little by little, got thicker in places where all these atoms started clumping together. By centrifugal force and the even pull of gravity, these clumps were shaped into spheres, and became planets. Those closer to the sun are mostly made of dense iron - being heavier it was pulled closer by the new star - and those farther away are made from light, less dense gasses. In the earth's case, a large body of molten iron was surrounded by a thin cover of mostly hydrogen and helium. As the earth began to cool, forming the crust, volcanoes were erupting intensely over the surface, spilling forth water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia. A bit more cooling and bodies of water started to form, early oceans that were void of oxygen. \nThe earth was in this state 3.5-4 billion years ago. Through electrical activity (lightening), and the combining of early atmosphere gasses with the new oceans, and the odd atom of phosphorous that was kicking around, the first few basic building blocks of life were created. This pre-biotic soup, as it is known, consisted of a few amino acids and a couple of RNA bases. Add a few hundred million years, a few of these building blocks had formed into self-replicating molecules. A few of these molecules became bound together in an enclosed membrane, complete with instructions for copying itself, and life began. These very early bacteria - formed around 3 billion years ago - was the starting point for every living this on earth. Basic biological and biochemical processes were worked out. 2.7 - 2.2 billion years ago, the most important of biological process was worked out - photosynthesis. Suddenly, bacteria could create energy rich molecules using abundant CO2 and sunlight. But more importantly, they started mass producing oxygen. Oxygen changed everything. Much more energy was utilised when respiring with oxygen, and that meant life could replicate and diversify much much quicker. Bacteria started compartmentalizing regions of there cells, increasing efficiency. Some cells started collaborating, increasing survival, and some of these multi-celled organisms developed specialized regions, allowing them to out compete others. \nThe rest came down to survival of the fittest, with the most diversified most likely to reproduce and pass on those characteristics. Add another billion years or so, and that led to you." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
2vwj59
when a nuclear warhead is de-commisioned, what happens to the nuclear material?
Is it re-used in any non military capacity (like in a nuclear reactor) or is it sent to a waste site like Sellafield?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vwj59/eli5when_a_nuclear_warhead_is_decommisioned_what/
{ "a_id": [ "coli69p" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Both, actually. Usually used as fuel though, since it takes a whole lot less energy to repurpose it than make it from scratch." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
2lzq0v
how is spacecraft controlled over such long distances? how do scientists factor in obstacles such as asteroids?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lzq0v/eli5_how_is_spacecraft_controlled_over_such_long/
{ "a_id": [ "clzmgjk", "clzmpkx", "clzptid", "clzs4qw", "clzul9d" ], "score": [ 15, 13, 3, 19, 2 ], "text": [ "Preprogrammed commands with meticulous planning ahead of time. Asteroids are not obstacles space is tremendous and its hard to hit something on purpose and nearly impossible to hit anything on accident.", "They dont factor in asteroids at all. There's a basically 0 percent chance you will hit one. ", "We can calculate with a very high precision (read a few meters) where everything is going to be when the spacecraft may be at risk of colliding with it, so a path can be chosen that avoid them. However, it is also true that most of space is, you know, space, so as others have said, it will take some effort to even hit anything.", "For most of their journey, spacecraft do not fire their engines. Engines are fired to put the spacecraft into a specific orbit, and then it is left to coast under the influence of gravity until it needs to be put into a different orbit.\n\n For example, to go to Mars you would first have to wait until Mars is in the right position, so that it will actually be there when you arrive. This occurs roughly once every two years. \n\nFirst the spacecraft would be put onto a very large rocket whose job it is to get the spacecraft into low earth orbit, for which it has to accelerate to about 8km/s. The vast majority of the total fuel required for the mission is spent achieving this.\n\nFrom there, the spacecraft needs to accelerate out of earths gravitational field. Spacecraft travelling faster than escape velocity will follow a hyperbolic path, and you can calculate the angle that the spacecraft will leave Earth at. From this, you time the burn so that the spacecraft will leave Earth travelling parallel to the Earths orbit. \n\nMars is further away from the Sun than earth is, so you now need to get into a higher orbit. To do this, you typically use a [hohmann transfer](_URL_0_). The aim is to get the spacecraft into an elliptical orbit with the perihelion(closest point to the sun) on Earths orbit, and the apohelion(furthest point to the sun) on Mars orbit. To do this, you need to make sure that the spacecraft leaves earth travelling at the right velocity, which factors into earlier calculations.\n\nWhen the spacecraft reaches Mars orbit, you hope that Mars will actually be there (which is why you can only launch when Mars is in the right position). However, the spacecraft may be travelling either too slowly or too quickly to be captured into mars orbit. Typically, you will fire the rocket engines again until you are captured into Mars orbit.\n\nThese calculations all have to be performed with very high accuracy in order to actually arrive at Mars, which considering the distances involved is actually a very tiny target.\n\nAsteroids are few and far between. Hitting an asteroid is far harder than not hitting one.", "Specifically how Spacecraft are controlled over long distances:\n\nAll space craft are built with long range radios that can keep in touch with the earth. They will programmed to keep the radio pointed to earth and send back reports on where they are.\n\nThe people at mission control use the reports from the space craft to calculate exactly where the space craft is and what it is doing. They can plan to have it turn to face a direction or use its engines at specific times.\n\nWhen mission control has a plan ready to go, they send the plan to the space craft, which will wait until the time that it is told to, then it will follow the directions of the plan.\n\nSince most spacecraft are robots that are so far away that it takes light and radio signals several minutes or even hours to get to them and back, a lot of thought goes in to making the plans be exactly what has to happen to go where they want, and direct control is never assumed.\n\n(This is in contrast to something like Kerbal Space Program, where the player takes direct control of the space craft unless mods are used to add in more realistic elements)\n\nAs others have mentioned, it's HARD to hit things in space, even on purpose. basically, obstacles are not taken in to account because there is no way to react to them in real time and guidance systems are not really so powerful as to do so automatically, but there's little chance that they would need to in the first place.\n\nAn actual manned spacecraft, of course, would have a pilot and more powerful automatic controls that could allow it to avoid any obstacle that did arise unexpectedly." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit" ], [] ]
70kfe9
how do we know there weren't any intelligent civilization on earth before man
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70kfe9/eli5_how_do_we_know_there_werent_any_intelligent/
{ "a_id": [ "dn3sv3w", "dn3uu7v" ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text": [ "There would be evidence of it somewhere still on earth, and what we have found does not show that. Things like structures, metal tools, mass burials would be left behind somewhere. We have done a decent job of mapping things like extinction events as well as the growth of species over the last 540 million years, and there is no evidence of a species building an intelligent civilization. ", "An intelligent, industrialized civilization would leave a huge amount of evidence behind, even if they died out half a million years ago.\n\nPlastics and concrete don't decompose very quickly. We don't find ancient pieces of plastic or pebbles made of concrete underground. We've made billions of tons of both in the last few decades, and the Earth will never be the same as a result." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
m5znb
american educational system
What is grad school? What is elementary? What is junior high? What is a community college? What is an university?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m5znb/eli5_american_educational_system/
{ "a_id": [ "c2ydfb9", "c2ydsd4", "c2yjd6e", "c2ydfb9", "c2ydsd4", "c2yjd6e" ], "score": [ 66, 4, 2, 66, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Most children start school around 4 or 5 with kindergarten. This is the youngest level of school that the government says everyone must go to. Some parents put their children in preschool at an even younger age, but that's almost like day care and may not actually teach very much.\n\nAfter kindergarten is elementary school (they may both be part of the same actual school building). Elementary contains grades (or years) 1 through 6.\n\nAfter Elementary is Junior High (also called Middle School), which usually is grades 7 and 8, though it some areas it is 6 through 8, 7 through 9, or 6 through 9. Junior High is usually the first level at which students don't stay with one teacher for the whole day, but move from class to class. It's also the first time students may have some choice of what subjects they want to study.\n\nThe final level of school required by the U.S. government is High School, which usually is grades 9 through 12. These four years are often referred to as \"Freshman\", \"Sophmore\", \"Junior\", and \"Senior\" years, in that order. Highschool often gives students even more freedom that Junior High to choose what classes to take, but there are still some classes that all students are required to pass.\n\nAfter highschool, many kids feel they've had enough school and decide to go get jobs. Some, however, continue on to college. A college is a school for adults that offers specialized programs to study specific topics. Some colleges may only offer a few subjects, such as Science and Engineering, or various kinds of Art. Some, called Universities, are a group of colleges that all work together and teach a very broad range of subjects. Colleges are often very selective about who they accept, and only students who did well in highschool are likely to be allowed in. Community colleges are cheaper colleges that are often funded by local and state taxes, but allow students who might not qualify for more prestigious schools to still take classes and earn a degree.\n\nMost colleges confer degrees. A Bachelor's Degree usually takes around 4 years to earn, and is given in the specific field that the student choose to study. For example, a student who chooses Biology as a major would earn the degree \"Bachelor of Science in Biology\". An Associates degree is a similar, but easier degree that only requires around 2 years worth of work. Most students take additional classes beyond their specialization or major, know as general education classes.\n\nAfter earning a Bachelor's degree, some students choose to continue on to graduate school. Grad school, as it is often called, is a program within a college or university that confers even higher degrees. There are Masters Degree programs that require around 2 to 4 additional years of work, and Doctorate Degree programs that require from 4 to 7 years of work. Many Masters degrees and all Doctorate degrees require the student to do research and writing as part of the program, in order to show that they can contribute some new ideas or knowledge to their field. A student who earns a Doctorate degree (often called a Ph.D. - Philosophy Doctorate) can use the title \"Doctor\", although this does not make them a medical doctor (that requires going to a med school and earning an M.D. - Medical Doctorate).", "[posted 1 month ago](_URL_0_)", "In a nutshell:\n\n'grade school' is defined as grade 1 (6 yr old average) to grade 12 (18 year old average). 'Kindergarten' and 'Reddiness' are for 5 year olds or 6 year olds who are not socially or mentally mature enought for 1st grade. 'Pre-K' is the year before that and any earlier than that is 'childcare' as a generic.\n\nElementry is (again averages) grades K (Kindergarten) through 5 or 6. Highschool is grades 8 or 9 through 12. Middle School (Jr. High) is what's between those two.\n\nA College teaches one or more 'post secondary' degree programs. A University is made up of a collection of one or more specialized colleges. A Community College is the collage down the road from your house and is usually less expensive.\n\nDegrees come in multiple flavors too:\nAssociates of < something > = two year degree\nBachelors of < something > = four year degree\nMasters of < something > = Bachelors + 1-2 years\nDoctor of < something > = Bachelors + 2 or more years or Masters + one or more years along with a Dissertation. Heavy enphsis on 'or more' there. I know very few even of the brightest in the world that pulled off their Doctorate in only a few years. My cousin is working on his and has been for more than 15 years now.\n\nCommonly known Doctorates are Dental (DD), Medical (MD), Law (JD), Philosophy (PhD) and Science (ScD). A vast majority are Medical, Law or Philosophy.\n\nA Dissertation is (supposed to be) a new addition of knowledge to your field. It takes years of research and often a defense against a group of Doctors in your field. It is a huge deal.\n\nAnything above Bachelors is called 'Graduate School' - I.E. Masters, and Doctorial programs.\n\nOnce you have a Doctorate you go into what's called 'Post-Doc' which is generally research and some light teaching or you go straight for teaching with a hope for tenure.\n\nI think that covers everything EdgeOfDreams didn't.\n\n", "Most children start school around 4 or 5 with kindergarten. This is the youngest level of school that the government says everyone must go to. Some parents put their children in preschool at an even younger age, but that's almost like day care and may not actually teach very much.\n\nAfter kindergarten is elementary school (they may both be part of the same actual school building). Elementary contains grades (or years) 1 through 6.\n\nAfter Elementary is Junior High (also called Middle School), which usually is grades 7 and 8, though it some areas it is 6 through 8, 7 through 9, or 6 through 9. Junior High is usually the first level at which students don't stay with one teacher for the whole day, but move from class to class. It's also the first time students may have some choice of what subjects they want to study.\n\nThe final level of school required by the U.S. government is High School, which usually is grades 9 through 12. These four years are often referred to as \"Freshman\", \"Sophmore\", \"Junior\", and \"Senior\" years, in that order. Highschool often gives students even more freedom that Junior High to choose what classes to take, but there are still some classes that all students are required to pass.\n\nAfter highschool, many kids feel they've had enough school and decide to go get jobs. Some, however, continue on to college. A college is a school for adults that offers specialized programs to study specific topics. Some colleges may only offer a few subjects, such as Science and Engineering, or various kinds of Art. Some, called Universities, are a group of colleges that all work together and teach a very broad range of subjects. Colleges are often very selective about who they accept, and only students who did well in highschool are likely to be allowed in. Community colleges are cheaper colleges that are often funded by local and state taxes, but allow students who might not qualify for more prestigious schools to still take classes and earn a degree.\n\nMost colleges confer degrees. A Bachelor's Degree usually takes around 4 years to earn, and is given in the specific field that the student choose to study. For example, a student who chooses Biology as a major would earn the degree \"Bachelor of Science in Biology\". An Associates degree is a similar, but easier degree that only requires around 2 years worth of work. Most students take additional classes beyond their specialization or major, know as general education classes.\n\nAfter earning a Bachelor's degree, some students choose to continue on to graduate school. Grad school, as it is often called, is a program within a college or university that confers even higher degrees. There are Masters Degree programs that require around 2 to 4 additional years of work, and Doctorate Degree programs that require from 4 to 7 years of work. Many Masters degrees and all Doctorate degrees require the student to do research and writing as part of the program, in order to show that they can contribute some new ideas or knowledge to their field. A student who earns a Doctorate degree (often called a Ph.D. - Philosophy Doctorate) can use the title \"Doctor\", although this does not make them a medical doctor (that requires going to a med school and earning an M.D. - Medical Doctorate).", "[posted 1 month ago](_URL_0_)", "In a nutshell:\n\n'grade school' is defined as grade 1 (6 yr old average) to grade 12 (18 year old average). 'Kindergarten' and 'Reddiness' are for 5 year olds or 6 year olds who are not socially or mentally mature enought for 1st grade. 'Pre-K' is the year before that and any earlier than that is 'childcare' as a generic.\n\nElementry is (again averages) grades K (Kindergarten) through 5 or 6. Highschool is grades 8 or 9 through 12. Middle School (Jr. High) is what's between those two.\n\nA College teaches one or more 'post secondary' degree programs. A University is made up of a collection of one or more specialized colleges. A Community College is the collage down the road from your house and is usually less expensive.\n\nDegrees come in multiple flavors too:\nAssociates of < something > = two year degree\nBachelors of < something > = four year degree\nMasters of < something > = Bachelors + 1-2 years\nDoctor of < something > = Bachelors + 2 or more years or Masters + one or more years along with a Dissertation. Heavy enphsis on 'or more' there. I know very few even of the brightest in the world that pulled off their Doctorate in only a few years. My cousin is working on his and has been for more than 15 years now.\n\nCommonly known Doctorates are Dental (DD), Medical (MD), Law (JD), Philosophy (PhD) and Science (ScD). A vast majority are Medical, Law or Philosophy.\n\nA Dissertation is (supposed to be) a new addition of knowledge to your field. It takes years of research and often a defense against a group of Doctors in your field. It is a huge deal.\n\nAnything above Bachelors is called 'Graduate School' - I.E. Masters, and Doctorial programs.\n\nOnce you have a Doctorate you go into what's called 'Post-Doc' which is generally research and some light teaching or you go straight for teaching with a hope for tenure.\n\nI think that covers everything EdgeOfDreams didn't.\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kpfv4/eli5_the_american_education_system/" ], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kpfv4/eli5_the_american_education_system/" ], [] ]
3agfpa
why do dark objects get hotter in the sun than lighter objects?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3agfpa/eli5_why_do_dark_objects_get_hotter_in_the_sun/
{ "a_id": [ "csce2bi" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Dark objects absorb light while light objects reflect it. The energy from the absorbed light becomes heat energy, which makes the darker object hotter. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
b50wgv
why does having a positive mind set help with sickness and pain?
[deleted]
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b50wgv/eli5_why_does_having_a_positive_mind_set_help/
{ "a_id": [ "ejaennb" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It doesn't. \n\nPraying does not help either.\n\nIt Just makes coping easier. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
3hz3jd
why can quicksilver and scarlet witch be used in marvel movies from two different intellectual property owners, such as x-men and the avengers?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hz3jd/eli5_why_can_quicksilver_and_scarlet_witch_be/
{ "a_id": [ "cubww23", "cuc4fkt" ], "score": [ 49, 5 ], "text": [ "Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch are mutants, but they have also been a part of The Avengers team pretty much since its beginning. Fox have the rights for the X-men, but Marvel has the rights for The Avengers, and Quicksilver and Scarlett kinda fall in the middle, which gives both companies the right to use them - as long as Fox doesn't mention The Avengers, and Marvel doesn't mention mutants. ", "The Marvel/Fox contract states that Fox can use any X-Men they want, which gives them the ability to use Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. However, both characters are recognised Avengers which means that Marvel can use them in The Avengers films. This puts them into a grey area that both companies can use, however, it would cause issues if Marvel attempted to put them in Thor, or Iron Man, or Ant-Man and so on. They'd be fine for Agents of SHIELD and the Netflix stuff because Fox's rights are for films only. \n\nThe one absolute thing Marvel can not do is call them Mutants. So long as the origins are different, all is sweet.\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
21h5ga
the difference between techno and house
Electronic music is a bit confusing to me.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21h5ga/eli5_the_difference_between_techno_and_house/
{ "a_id": [ "cgeatdo" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Start [here](_URL_0_). It's better than any ELI5 because it has audio examples. Although some of it is less factual and more a matter of opinion, it's fairly accurate overall." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/" ] ]
3szo2g
why is it socially acceptable to vilify scientology and other religious sects?
This is something that has been done a lot of times, virtually everywhere on the Internet. Here on reddit "f**k Scientology" is an universally accepted narrative and I've never in my life seen anything like that being censored or anyone speak in that religion's defense. Every single aspect of Scientology and other religious sects has been vilified, the people involved are being constantly humiliated, even if they are mere believers and are not anyhow involved into the things that higher-ups may or may not be doing. So, this has been bothering me a lot recently. It is currently a widely accepted narrative in context of another religion that you must not judge 100% of the its believers by the acts and beliefs of 30%, no matter what those acts and beliefs might be. Then why do the very same people feel free to judge 100% of Scientologists and other cultists by the acts of less than 1% of them? Why is it acceptable to ridicule one people's beliefs, but outright not acceptable to even question some other people's beliefs? I am obviously not an expert like all the smart people who are in charge of making those written and unwritten rules, so please, do explain it like I really am five.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3szo2g/eli5_why_is_it_socially_acceptable_to_vilify/
{ "a_id": [ "cx1tsjb", "cx1tuy1", "cx1u3eg", "cx1ynl2", "cx2gd1n" ], "score": [ 7, 4, 6, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The horrible things committed in Scientology come from the highest echelons of the organization, though, and no Scientologist that I know of has ever spoken out against crimes committed in the name of Scientology. They are all either complicit, ignorant, or coerced. It is a cult and a villainous organization through and through.", "The Church of Scientology is an organisation. That organisation has its own actions. All Scientologists are paying members of that organisation, and so share in responsibility for that organisation's actions. Those actions include abuses of human rights, government infiltrations, and sabotages of health care organisations, leading to the Church being considered a criminal organisation in many areas. Anyone who criticises these actions is declared SP and expelled from the Church, making them no longer Scientologists. There's no such thing as a Scientologist who opposes Church actions, so it's not and cannot be an \"only 30% are doing this!\" thing.\n\nBuddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism are not represented by a single organisation to which every single member belongs; even when Buddhists, Christians, Jews and Hindus are part of an organisation they do not *have* to pay to support it; and there are many Buddhists, Christians, Jews or Hindus who oppose some behaviours of their organisations.\n\n(Scientologists who continue professing their beliefs after being expelled are termed 'Squirrels'; there are an estimated 150-200 of them worldwide and there is a unit of the church, the Squirrel Busters, dedicated to keeping them under surveillance.)", "You're confusing the vilification of a belief with the vilification of an organization. It's generally not alright to vilify someone's beliefs. There are villainous beliefs, of course, like \"muahaha I believe tha I should torture puppies for no reason!\", but the basic tenets of Scientology aren't so prima facia villainous, and nobody deserves to be vilified for accepting them.\n\nOn the other hand, the Church of Scientology, as an organization, has something of a nasty record for dealing with its people. All sorts of stories have come out over the years, starting with what is effectively slave labor, then moving on to kidnapping, beatings, and of course financial ruin. Often the members of scientology are not seen as villains so much as victims, while the leadership itself is vilified.\n\nYour question compares this to Islam. The difference here is that Islam is no longer a Caliphate, and there is no single voice that speaks for the religion as a whole. I can't condemn a muslim as a bad person because some other person claiming to also be a muslim thinks that Islam means that he should do bad things. The first person hasn't done anything wrong and claims to have different beliefs than the second person.\n\nIf I were a Christian, and some other person screamed \"praise Jesus\" before blowing up a building somewhere, I wouldn't expect people to hate me for it, and I extend the same courtesy to others.", " A gaggle of nut jobs waiting for instuctions from their alien overlords is inherently funny, sad and troubling all at the same time. ", "There are three levels to this: individuals, religion, and organization.\n\nAt the level of individual, it is acceptable to recognize a person's religion (\"What religion are you a part of?\"), and to question them about the actions of an organization they are an active participant in.\n\nAt the level of religion, it is acceptable to question religious beliefs, the interpretation thereof, and to challenge those beliefs. Within certain limits, it is acceptable to parody or poke fun at beliefs.\n\nAt the level of organization, it is acceptable to question the actions of the organization, and the membership of the organization, especially when said actions are in service of the organization. And organizations are open to a much wider range of attacks, both in conversation, and in comedy.\n\nBasically, religion is most vulnerable to parody, organization most vulnerable to attack, and individuals protected to some extent from both\n\n\nThe problem is that in the case of the Church of Scientology, there is no clear line between the group of believers, the religion, and the organization.\n\nExamples: \n\n- Regarding Pedophile priests, it is not acceptable to question individual Christians (individual), nor other priests (religion), but it is acceptable to question the Church (organization)\n\n- Conversely, it's more acceptable to parody Christianity (religion) than any specific Church (organization). But parodying Christians for their belief is usually unacceptable, unless they are a member of an organization, or a public figure.\n\n- In almost all cases, individuals who merely attend religious ceremonies are insulated from the actions of both religion and organization.\n\n\nWith the Church of Scientology, there is a much less visible line between the religion of Scientology, the organization of the Church of Scientology, and the membership of the organization: partly because anyone who tries to practice Scientology outside of the Church is at risk of lawsuit. The Church of Scientology now is more like the Catholic Church in Europe before 1517 (when Martin Luther wrote his 95 Theses): there is no practical difference between the religion and the organization.\n\nA Christian today can exist separate from the Church, from all Churches even; and participation with one Church does not imply membership in that Church: I can attend a service any church in the city I live in without having any connection to that church. \n\nHowever, all Scientologists are both practitioners of the religion of Scientology and members of the Church of Scientology. Which means that individuals, group, and organization are all the same. And therefore are all subject to the full range of parody and questioning. Because the Church has done so much to maintain its control over the religion, and has required people who wish to attend services to join the organization, it has opened up itself and its membership to the full range of socially acceptable parody and criticism; which also allows both to be more pointed." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [] ]
2uoj7c
if i was to stop masturbating, eventually, would i simply stop producing semen or does my body dispose of the 'old' semen some other way?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uoj7c/eli5_if_i_was_to_stop_masturbating_eventually/
{ "a_id": [ "coa7t44", "coa7tqd" ], "score": [ 4, 4 ], "text": [ "The unused sperm cells eventually break down and are reabsorbed by the body.", "You always produce more semen, as the old sperm have a lifespan and will expire eventually (about 3 weeks in storage in the male body). If you don't get rid of them the body will either reabsorb them or purge them itself in a \"wet dream\"." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
1kql0f
how candlestick charts work and why they're useful
They're kind of confusing...
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kql0f/eli5_how_candlestick_charts_work_and_why_theyre/
{ "a_id": [ "cbrtjag" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "The \"bar\" of the chart shows you the opening/closing price for the day (often, modern charts will use a red color to show a loss for the day and green color to show a gain). The \"wick\" is showing you the highest/lowest price reached during the day.\n\nThis allow you to see, in one chart, what the overall gain/loss (lenght of the bar) was as well as what the overall volitility (variation of price over a day) was. These two pieces of information are equally important, as it give you greater insight into the riskiness of any given security. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
2g0yxk
why do we use water as a containment field for nuclear fuel rods, yet contaminated water is such a notable and talked about issue when a meltdown occurs?
Contaminated water is commonly talked about in a reactor meltdown (chernobyl, and fukishima) yet, most fuel rods are kept in a pool of water? Isn't that water then contaminated?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g0yxk/eli5_why_do_we_use_water_as_a_containment_field/
{ "a_id": [ "ckekz0i", "ckel1q1", "ckelh1i", "ckeq3lp" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ " > Isn't that water then contaminated?\n\nYeah, but it's not in the water supply. Water is good at cooling things. Just because we want most of our wanter to not be contaminated, doesn't mean we avoid using some of our water for cooling spent fuel rods.\n\nThere is plenty of water used in a nuclear plant that's expected to be contaminated. That's fine, the problem is when the ocean or lakes get contaminated. That's not the plan.", "Nuclear reactions give off tremendous heat. The heat must be absorbed somehow, and water is an excellent material for capturing/transferring thermal energy (heat), just like the water in your car's cooling system takes heat away from the engine block and is then cooled in the radiator to then go back and get heated again. Yes, the water is contaminated--but that's an inherent tradeoff of the overall system's design.", "If we used a substance other than water to cool fuel rods, then whatever that substance is would be a notable and talked about issue when a meltdown occurs.\n\n\"Contaminated liquid nitrogen is vaporizing into our atmosphere! Why weren't they more prepared!\"\n\nWater has the advantage of being cheap, abundant, good at cooling things, and easy to store. Yes, we end up with contaminated water, but this is a more-or-less manageable waste product when the plant is running safely.", "I'm not an expert but I think the issue is less the water itself and more that when the cooling is insufficient trace radioactive material breaks off of what is being cooled and can then be carried with the water in the event of a flash to steam explosion or if the water itself is flushed out.\n\nI think the other issue might be that some of these materials will combust at such high temperatures and then you get rain condensing from the radioactive ash produced when they burn." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
6dxloi
why are our names followed by our fathers' names and not our mothers'?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dxloi/eli5_why_are_our_names_followed_by_our_fathers/
{ "a_id": [ "di65446" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Because for the longest time, marriage wasn't seen as something two equals did - it was seen as the woman \"leaving\" her family and joining her husband's family. Children of that union were considered part of the father's family. So everyone took the father's name. The exact details vary depending on country and time period, but marriage being an \"equal partnership\" is a relatively new thing (by which I mean in various societies and time periods, women may have had immense freedom and independence and political/economic power and in other times and places they were treated as little more than investments or products to be sold/traded, hence dowries and/or bride prices). \n\nMany people still do it out of tradition or beliefs. Many women don't and either keep their last name or hyphenate (or keep their last name, but hyphenate the kids'. Or keep theirs, but give the kids the father's name, etc)." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
7pvpsb
why does running just after eating cause cramps?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7pvpsb/eli5_why_does_running_just_after_eating_cause/
{ "a_id": [ "dskdvg0", "dsl4bkc" ], "score": [ 11, 3 ], "text": [ "When you're digesting, a lot of your blood is directed to your stomach and intestines.\n\n\nWhich means you have less available for your legs.", "I used to get awful stomach (actually abdominal muscle) cramps often when we had to run laps in Gym class in elementary/middle school, and of course got no sympathy and was told to \"walk it off\". I don't remember if it was before or after eating though, I just always assumed I had shitty stomach muscles or something. Also, the joy of getting headaches almost every day because of side effects of allergy medications and getting ragged on by school mates (and teachers) whenever I complained about the pain." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
1rkdp4
how do moka coffee makers work
_URL_0_ These guys? I get that the water heats and expands, but how does all the water get up the top and how does all the air in the bottom get in?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rkdp4/eli5_how_do_moka_coffee_makers_work/
{ "a_id": [ "cdo4ysr" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The water in the boiler is heated and some of it becomes steam. This expansion of the water increases the pressure in the boiler. In the top of the pot the pressure is lower. This forces the water at the bottom to raise through the filter with the ground coffee." ] }
[]
[ "http://www.theculinarylife.com/images/moka-pot-4.jpg" ]
[ [] ]
aanblv
why can’t normal airplanes go to space?
I saw that our atmosphere is ~300 miles in depth. Normal airplanes can fly much farther than that so why can’t they just fly straight up for 300 miles at a slower speed than a space rocket? Or why not a supersonic jet? There’s something I’m not thinking about. Edit: Thanks for all the info everyone! I knew ELI5 would know the answer!
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aanblv/eli5_why_cant_normal_airplanes_go_to_space/
{ "a_id": [ "ectcd6r", "ectcgw4", "ectcj00", "ectdji7", "ectlqfo", "ectnuxa", "ectpde3", "ectue3p" ], "score": [ 2, 108, 19, 3, 2, 7, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Because the way airplanes work is that they take air in from the front of the engine and speed it up, shooting air out of the back.\n\nThe higher up you go, the thinner the air is, so at one point you won't get enough air going through the engine to keep the airplane flying.", "Consider, why can't a swimmer swim into the sky? Because there is no water in the sky, and the water is what supports the swimmer.\n\nAirplanes \"swim\" through the air. The air is what supports them. So they can't fly somewhere without air.", "Their engines rely on the oxygen in the air to let them burn fuel and their wings require air to generate lift. As they get higher and higher the air gets thinner and thinner which means their engines generate less thrust and their wings generate less lift until they reach a point where they can't make it any higher.\n\nAround 100km up a plane would have to be traveling at orbital velocities(thousands of meters per second) in order for their wings to generate enough lift to keep them airborne, but since most planes can't get much above 300 m/s they can't get close to that high.\n\nWe've made some rocket planes that can go up that high, but that's because they carry the oxygen their engine needs with them so the thin air poses less of an issue.", "Saying that the atmosphere is 300 miles deep is very misleading. Two third of the atmosphere is bellow the summit of Mount Everest. The higher you get the less atmosphere there is. It is a matter of definition where the atmosphere ends and empty space begin. It just gets thinner and thinner the higher you get. Aircrafts need atmosphere to fly and if they go too high the atmosphere becomes too thin and they will no longer be able to generate thrust from their engines and lift from their wings. Different aircraft can climb to different altitudes. The experimental X-15 were able to go over 100km but were unable to stay up there for more then a few minutes. Similar with the current SpaceShip Two aircraft. The SR-71 and Mig-21 aircrafts were reportidly able to sustain flight at 25km by flying several times faster then the speed of sound and using specially designed engines built with exotic materials.", "In order to escape the gravitational pull of the earth, a thing must travel at about 11.2 km per second. Travel less fast than that and you’ll stay on the earth, whether in a vehicle on the ground or in the air. So at minimum, your aircraft must travel that fast to go to space, and no airplanes do, even if we set aside the issue others have raised here of it being unable to fly at high altitudes due to lack of air. ", "The way jet engines works has been explained, but you also asked why they can't just go straight up.\n\nLet's imagine a rocket that goes straight up into space and runs out of fuel. Once it's there, what happens to it? Gravity from Earth still effects it, in fact, it's still very strong at a mere 300 miles up. So it just falls back down to Earth. How do things stay in space without crashing back down to Earth, or in other words, stay in orbit?\n\nWe not only need to go up, we also needs to go sideways to orbit the Earth. When an object is in orbit it is still effected by gravity. In fact, without gravity it would not be possible to orbit anything. Our rocket needs to go fast enough that as it falls it keeps missing the Earth. If you do this at the correct altitude and velocity you'll orbit the Earth instead of crashing into it.\n\nOrbiting is a lot harder than it sounds, it's also counter intuitive. You're in orbit in your rocket, and just a few kilometers ahead of you is a space station you want to dock at. You're going at the same velocity as it, so to catch up you turn your engines on...and now you're going away from it!?\n\nBut you're pointing right at the space station, why are you going away from it? Simple, by increasing your velocity in the direction you are traveling you go into a higher orbit, and as you go higher in your orbit it will take longer to orbit the Earth.\n\nTo catch up to the space station you actually need to point away from it and turn your engines on to lower your orbit. You'll orbit the Earth faster than the space station. You'll then need to pass it up before going back up so you can meet it.\n\nIf you want to find out more about orbital mechanics there's a game called Kerbal Space Program that will teach you everything you want to know.", "You need the atmosphere to generate lift and the atmosphere gets thinner the higher up you go. So eventually, you reach an altitude where the atmospheric density is inadequate.\n\nSpace rockets don't generate lift via aerodynamic interaction with the atmosphere so they aren't limited by a lack of it.", "As you go higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. Even at the orbital altitude of the International Space Station there’s enough atmosphere that the station has to be boosted up several kilometers every once in a while due to drag.\n\nIf you can fly straight ahead for 300km at an altitude of 10km, which is where most planes fly you can sustain flight and counteract gravity with only 25% of the atmosphere at ground level. \n\nIf you want to double your altitude from 10km your plane would have to be **4 times** more efficient, when most planes are barley able to stay in the air at 10km. To reach space you would need a plane that can sustain flight with **100 times** more efficiency than an airliner, and on top of that it would need to be 70 times better at producing thrust (as atmospheric oxygen makes up roughly 70% of your burning fuel’s mass) in addition to generating the required lift to counteract gravity 100 times better.\n\nSimply put for an airliner to make it to what we recognize as the boundary of space it would have to be **7000 times** better at flying than it is at normal cruising altitude per unit of mass. Which based on current airliner designs and performance envelopes would mean it would have to have a range at normal cruising altitude of about 80 million kilometers without refueling. This is way beyond what can be done." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
7qonxp
why can a company take an erroneous payment from your account in a second but it takes them weeks to give your money back?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7qonxp/eli5_why_can_a_company_take_an_erroneous_payment/
{ "a_id": [ "dsqq80r" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "My submission will most likely be dropped due to being too short, but...\n\nEach transaction costs money. When they take money from you, part of it goes to pay the transaction, so they can use faster forms of payment with higher fees.\n\nWhen they give money back, they lose your payment plus the transaction, so they choose the cheapest method, which takes time.\n\nAlso, companies don't want to make it easy to take money out, or everyone would be doing it. Some people just want to avoid the hassle, like mail in rebates." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
7c1j6o
how does hit detection work in first-person shooters?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7c1j6o/eli5_how_does_hit_detection_work_in_firstperson/
{ "a_id": [ "dpmfnjn", "dpmg9c9", "dpmgb33", "dpmhw7y" ], "score": [ 44, 5, 13, 2 ], "text": [ "[check out this video by Gameranx that talk about bullet physics in games](_URL_0_)\n\nthe player basicly have a lazer pinting straight ahead, if a enemy is touching the lazer when the player press the trigger, the enemy will get hit. some realistic games have a delay from the player pulling the trigger to the enemy getting hit to give an effect of bullet travel time or bullet drop.", "In terms of ping, hits are calculated on the server, not on the client, which is how come you might see rubber banding on your game but still get hit by someone.\n\nThe most basic games just simply draw a straight line from you to the target to see if you hit them. Some games take into account some physically effects. Star Citizen is the only game that I know of (though I'm sure there are others) that actually creates bullets as physical game objects and calculates physics on the bullets in that way. Pretty cool.", "There are many solutions to this, but usually there is one computer that acts as the server (if it's P2P then it's the hosting player, if it's dedicated servers then it's the actual server itself). \n\nThe server is the only computer that calculates hit detection and has a complete picture of the whole game. Everyone else just sends and receives updates from it. So if you shoot someone, you don't actually do any calculations on your computer. Hell, you probably just tell the server that you pulled the trigger and it will create the bullet for himself and do all the necessary calculations without asking you for anything. \n\nAnd then, when the bullet collides (or not), it will just tell you that it collided (or not) and then your computer would draw the blood splash, or ragdoll the dead target, or whatever.\n\n The way ping factors into all of this is that:\n\nA) If you lag then it will receive you input message late and will spawn the bullet late, thus possibly missing your target. Nothing can be done about that.\n\nB) If your target lags, then it will need to do some smoothing to somewhat predict where they would be realistically, if they didn't lag at this very moment. Technically that is not hit detection, but should be mentioned anyway.\n\n", "Send out a raycast in the direction the player is facing. Was there a collision? What's the Object type? Is there a function to handle that? Call it. \n\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI2mlnKEKTQ" ], [], [], [] ]
5vj4ql
the racehorses which always finish last - why do they still bother to compete if they know they'll always be the slowest?
The payout for them is also very high - if only because it's impossible for them to win. What's the theory behind entering the slowest horses? What's in it for the jockey's team?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vj4ql/eli5_the_racehorses_which_always_finish_last_why/
{ "a_id": [ "de2fpcq", "de2g1db", "de2grkk", "de2i5ac", "de2ip2b", "de2otkx", "de2tx4p", "de2ymvv", "de38r32" ], "score": [ 7, 28, 3, 3, 6, 5, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Even just entering some of these races will help out. Being in the Kentucky derby (even finishing last) is worth quite a bit to the horse owner. A large portion of their income is not from race winnings but from breeding rights. By having an official entry in a big race you've proved that your horse is within the top ten or so of the country, which is no small feat. Granted winning first place is worth more.\n\nPlus having your jockey and horse still 'practice' in these big races always helps and just keeping your name out there is good too. Also also who doesn't love a good race day in the owners' box?", "I wouldn't say it's impossible. The \"long shot\" horses usually aren't really *that* off pace. You're unlikely to see a horse that's a legit 500:1 or 1000:1 odds, usually they're more like 30:1. These are still specially bred race horses, not some random mule.\n\nSo why are they there? It may be an inexperienced horse or jockey getting some real race practice in. It may be a breeder advertising that the horse can keep pace even if it's unlikely to win. It may just be a horse with little race history so bettors default to the \"dark horse\" odds.\n\nThe 30:1 horses still do win occasionally. The favorites get sick or run way off pace, horses stumble or get spooked, jockeys make mistakes. It's a highly random sport.\n", "For some jump races there is always the chance that most of the other horses fail to complete the course. See Foinavon in the Aintree Grand National. That race has had two 100/1 winners in the past 50 years.", " > What's the theory behind entering the slowest horses? \n\nFirst, there are different distances and track types. If your horse came in last going sprint distances on dirt, you try mile races on dirt. Still comes in last, you go classic distances on dirt. Still comes in last, you go long distances on dirt. If all those fail, you try the same distances on grass/turf. \n\nThere are different levels in horse racing, too. If the horse is always coming in last, they'll enter it in progressively lower and lower quality races. \n\nIf they still come in last, they'll get sold to someone and hope their training is more suited to the style/temperament of the horse, then they try all of the above. \n\nSo a horse can lose an awful lot of races and it's still valuable to see if they can win some other type of race. \n\nJockeys make a fee based on the purse money that is won, so they're obviously going to try to get on winning horses. But only the most elite jockeys have that much of a choice in which horses they ride. Even if they're pretty sure the horse will lose, they'll try their best hoping to get paid. \n\nTop level jockeys will also ride \"bad horses\" because they have relationships with certain owners or trainers and they want to keep that relationship a happy one.", "Breeding rights man. The fastest horse in the world may be a boy, but to make a faster one it will need to bang the fastest lady horse. \n\nWhat better way to advertise the breeding of your horse than in a publicly recorded, heavily monitored official race. To post that last place time, the horse had to pass a physical, drug test, and have a verifiable pedigree. It establishes a history of the horse not just on a good day, but race day, showing it can put up that time on command. \n\nAlso, Sanchez has been working really hard with this horse and says it has a real chance today. The bookies are giving it 500:1 odds and we're totally gonna get rich when it breaks a personal record. ", "First of all it's rare that a horse \"always loses.\" Most race horses, have a record of occasionally winning, or at least doing well enough to take home some prize money. \n\nEven horses that are sold off the track as riding horses specifically for being too slow usually have some starts and winnings. \n\nIt's generally thought that any horse has some chance of winning. The losingest horse in racing history, Zippy Chippy, was banned, not for losing, but because he wouldn't break from the gate. When the other horses would run, he would just stand there. The Jockey Club eventually felt it was misrepresentation to allow people to bet on him. He became an outrider pony for the track, and later retired to be a spokeshorse for a thoroughbred retirement group. \n\nBecause he was a bit of a fan favorite for his indomitable will not to run, he did some exhibitions after his ban. In a famous instance of slowness, Zippy lost a footrace with a minor league baseball player. \n\nEven with 100 starts and no wins, Zippy earned $30,000 in his racing career. 8 2nd place finishes, and 12 3rds. ", "In horse racing, you need a field. There might be three or four favorites who are mostly likely going to win, but you need more horses than that for a proper race. \n\nSome of them are just filler. Local horses and jockeys who know they are unlikely to win, but are competent enough to run a good race. They get paid an appearance fee to do their thing, and sometimes if thing go just right, they might even finish in the money.", "Depends on the number of races the horse has run. In the beginning it's not too bad, but if it loses too many then it's a trip to the glue factory.", "it is like asking why the Cleveland Browns still play football. I mean the team is still composed of some of the best players in the world. Just not quite at the top. \n\nAlso some horses legitimately run better on some types of track, certain length of races etc. So they can be in the money for some races and trailing in others." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
2pg78c
(not trolling) how is canada not just a better version of the us? it seems like all the problems we have aren't issues over there. am i missing something?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pg78c/eli5_not_trolling_how_is_canada_not_just_a_better/
{ "a_id": [ "cmwduoy" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I wouldn't exactly say that we don't have our issues up here. We've got growing concerns over CSIS (our approximate equivalent of the CIA/NSA), immigration and refugee issues have sprung up from time to time, particularly refugee health benefits in the past year or so. While not as immense a problem as the US', neglect over Veteran's Affairs have been front and center recently. I think it was just last week there was a new sweep of calls of Members of Parliament demanding for the resignation of our Minister of Veteran's Affairs due to major cuts in services and spending, not to mention the minister's overall indifference to veterans (he skipped out on a meeting with WWII vets, then got angry at them when the vets complained).\n\nWhat else is there? Rising food costs for our northern territories, which caught a lot of media attention after some documentary footage showed people in the northern territories scrounging for food at a land fill. The minister responsible for affairs involving our northern territories was seen a few weeks ago reading a newspaper during a session of Parliament while other members were openly discussing and questioning the issue.\n\nAnd here's a fun one--our government has been pushing forward to create a massive 'Memorial to the Victims of Communism' which would be built right across the road from the Supreme Court of Canada - an area that had been slated for the construction of a new court building (which would have been named after former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, whose son is also the current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and biggest threat in the next election)." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
8makk7
why does our brain find patterns in random events?
[deleted]
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8makk7/eli5_why_does_our_brain_find_patterns_in_random/
{ "a_id": [ "dzm2e2c", "dzm50rx", "dzm8a7u", "dzmas64", "dzmb3gm", "dzmdyj8", "dzmpwon" ], "score": [ 20, 353, 6, 17, 76, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Afaik, it's evolutionary. Helps us to survive by linking events when interpreting our environment.", "Suppose someone eats a berry, dies. Another person eats a berry, dies. The man who sees that there is a pattern here does not eat berry for fear of death. The person who does not see a pattern eats a berry and might die. So the pattern-finders survive and we keep this trait.\n\nIf the man was wrong, worst case scenario is we don't eat the berry until we're about to die anyway, so being wrong doesn't really punish people nearly as much, which is why you can overanalyze things sometimes", "Every time your brain gets input from senses it compares to what you've experienced before so that you can understand what's going on. If you're experiencing something you've never experienced before your brain might try to link that new experience to something you've experienced before despite it being unrelated.", "This question has a flawed sort of conception.\n\nOur brains find patterns. Patterns sometimes *emerge* in random events.\n\nFor instance, if I take a coin and I flip it and it comes up heads 10 times in a row, my brain would notice the pattern and say: \"Hey, I bet that coin is weighted.\" Since there was only a 0.1% chance of that occurring.\n\nBut it is fully possible that it was a normal coin and you just got a statistically unlikely sequence of coincidences that produced a pattern that seems non-random.\n\nThere's literally no way to tell which is the case - you can guess at the likelihood, but until you do some external measure, like weighing the coin itself, you will never know.\n\nHowever, were you to repeatably flip the coin, your certainty of the truth is likely to improve. 10 heads (or tails) in a row is a 1 in 1000 chance with a fair coin. 20 in a row is a 1 in a million chance. 30 in a row is one in a billion.\n\nIf you flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, you can be *pretty* certain it's a weighted coin. If you get 20 or 30 heads in a row... yeah, you're pretty much guaranteed that it's weighted.\n\nThe outcome of random events will *tend towards* the random distribution after many occurances. But especially when you only take a few samples, it is quite possible for patterns to appear. Coincidental Patterns indistinguishable from true patterns. And since our brain picks out patterns - we notice them.\n\nNow, one related flaw with humans is that we might get a few samples of a process, determine a pattern that is more coincidence than underlying distribution, and then *fixate* on that pattern. If I got 10 heads in a row, but then the next 20 flips were a fairly even assortment of heads and tails... it is likely that the coin is a typical coin with little or no tampering. But if I anchored myself and said unequivocally: *\"No! This coin came up heads ten times in a row once! It's Definitely weighted!\"* I would probably be in error. I'd be privileging the results of my first impression, my initial trials, over the total results across all trials.\n\nWhich in and of itself also isn't the worst instinct. A departure from one behavior to a completely different behavior (seemingly weighted to seemingly fair) is itself a change worth noting. Maybe someone swapped out your weighted coin for a fair one while you weren't looking, to try and pretend the coin was fair all along? I mean, this concept is what a lot of magic tricks rely on. There's really no way to be certain. Just varying probabilities and expectations of those probabilities, based on models built from incomplete data.\n\nSo how do we balance it? How to we ride the line between appropriate skepticism indicating true changes, and coincidences that grab our attention but ultimately are worth discarding as notable? It's difficult, if not impossible to say. Humans do a *decent* job of balancing the two, all things considered. But nothing is perfect. ", "Here’s an example I read once:\n\nYou know about pareidolia- seeing faces in random patterns? \n\nWhat would would be worse for our ancestors in the bush, seeing a face where there isn’t one, or *not* seeing a face when there *is* one? The second would be worse- it could be an enemy. It’s better to be safe than sorry, so pareidolia has remained a part of the human condition and wiring of the brain ", "In addition to the evolutionary perspective: Our brain notices patterns to create schemas (short cuts). It is very labour intensive for our brain to have to work everything out from scratch all the time so we notice things and group them together. Say for example we know that a table has four legs, and a flat surface and is used to put things on. Rather than our brain having to take in all of these details individually every single time, we notice that pattern (that everything that looks like this gets used for this purpose) and creates a shortcut. You can then use this short cut to build upon for more complex variations (ie. a one legged table). ", "Noam Chomsky was asked \"How do you deal with somebody, coming to you and talking about astrology?\" in the animated conversation/documentary Is the Man Who is Tall Happy. He had an interesting response-\n\n\"Astrology? I don't dismiss the person's interest in it. I mean, people have all sorts of irrational beliefs -- me too, you know. I may think they're irrational, but to them, they're meaningful. And, after all, some pretty smart people were interested in astrology, like Isaac Newton, for example. So, it's not -- it's not imbecility. I mean, humans have a -- kind of like an automatic -- in this case, instinctive -- drive to find causal relations, to explain things that are happening in terms of causes. When you can't see the causes, you postulate hidden causes -- I mean, infants do this. You can -- you do experiments with infants in which, you know, something is moving along and then something starts moving this way. They'll make up in their minds that there's some hidden contact there that you can't see, you know. And we just do this instinctively. I mean, if things are happening around us, we try to find some agent behind it... ...Often an agent, you know, like an active intelligence that's doing it, sometimes something mechanical. So it pretty naturally leads to beliefs like astrology, especially because you find -- I mean, life is full of coincidences. So you try to make a connection between the coincidences, and you find a pattern in the stars, or it's a full moon, so this is going to happen, and so on and so forth.\"\n\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
1yug5h
why do huge corporations have such a long interview process (i mean ... months and months)?
I'm a senior programmer, I applied for a job on a big tech company website -- if you listed the 5 biggest tech companies you can think of, it's one of those. Had a phone interview in two weeks, three weeks later, interviewed with a local manager, three weeks later interviewed with a senior manager remotely, it's been a week again -- still waiting, wondering whats next A friend who works for a different huge tech company told me for him from application to job offer took four months. Why does this take so bloody long?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yug5h/eli5_why_do_huge_corporations_have_such_a_long/
{ "a_id": [ "cfnuyts" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "they are investing a huge amount of money and faith in you that they are very cautious over who they are going to invest in. Don't be surprised if you pass the senior manager you may be interviewed by the group before possibly being hired. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
wlonu
how china transfers power from one leader to another
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wlonu/eli5_how_china_transfers_power_from_one_leader_to/
{ "a_id": [ "c5egsc5" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Consensus among Politburo Standing Committee Members. Publicly, at the end of each Party Congress, the new lineup of PSCM suddenly appears on TV in a big showy event. \n\nIn reality, there is a lot of horsetrading going on among the Politburo members, making sure that someone from their own faction gets a seat or blocking the ascension of someone they dislike. So, essentially, the Politburo is a self-perpetuating elite group - they just pick their own successors.\n\nThe President, the Premier, the NPC Chairman (kind of like speaker of parliament) are limited to two 5-year terms. So there's that institutional framework which guarantees a new lineup of leaders every 5 or 10 years. The no. 1, 2, 3, positions in the party correspond to those state posts, respectively. The Party now prefers that state leadership correspond to party hierarchy. And there is an informal agreement among leaders to prepare to retire once they enter their 70s. \n\nBut beyond that, no one REALLY knows what goes on during Politburo meetings because it's all secret. \n\nOK, this makes more sense with some historical background: The current power transfer system was in reaction to the cult of personality and totalitarian excesses of Mao Zedong (r. 1949-1976) and the rather clever vision of Deng Xiaoping. Under Mao, succession was a mess. His first successor, Liu Shaoqui (the president of China) was unceremoniously deposed during the Cultural Revolution and then cruelly persecuted by the Red Guards until he died in prison. His second successor, Defense Minister Lin Biao, died in a plane crash in Mongolia, fleeing after plotting a failed coup d'etat against Mao. His third successor, Hua Guofeng, did end up assuming control after Mao's death, but he was a weak and uninspiring leader and within two years he was outmaneuvered and shoved aside by Deng Xiaoping. \n\nDeng Xiaoping (ruled c. 1978-1993 or 1997) is most famous for introducing free-market capitalist reforms which spearheaded China's remarkable economic growth that turned it into what it is today. But what is less remembered is that Deng was also the architect of a new political order and a new way to transfer power in China. He was surrounded by ancient party elders (people in their 80s or older), many hostile to economic reforms. He wanted them out of the way but he didn't want to go back to the violent intra-party struggles and purges under Mao. So instead he created the Central Advisory Commission and coaxed party elders to retire but still retain some prestige and influence through the CAC. Thus, Deng created a way for party leaders to leave office without fear of persecution or complete loss of power. Even today, Jiang Zemin and Li Peng (old retired leaders) still retain some influence on the Politburo and elsewhere.\n\nIn 1983, a new constitution was created which outlined the new rules for political office holding and such. Deng also was careful in picking future leaders that represented different party factions in order to force people to cooperate. So Jiang Zemin, his successor as party leader, was from the Shanghai faction but Jiang could not choose his own successor as Deng also made sure that a young guy named Hu Jintao was chosen as vice-president and then as the next leader. There is a rumor that Hu Jintao's successor, Xi Jingping, was not Hu's preference but the rest of the Politburo insisted on Xi's accession to prevent one faction from dominating the rest.\n\nThis is important to consider because the power transfer system in China is still a work in progress. The current transfer going on now is the first one not planned out by Deng and it already had a few hiccups (like the Bo Xilai scandal). Going back earlier, in 2003-2004, during the last transfer, there was another hiccup. Jiang Zemin was reluctant to relinquish all power - especially to Hu Jintao, a guy not chosen by him, from a rival faction. To the surprise of many, Jiang retained his final leadership post of Chairman of the Central Military Commission (I should explain - China's top leader since 1993 has always held 3 posts - President, Party General Secretary, and Central Military Commission Chairman. Jiang relinquished control of the presidency and the party but not the CMC). There was a mini-uproar among China's elites that Jiang is messing up the orderly succession plan laid out by Deng and a group of generals even published some sarcastic, nasty editorial articles criticizing the act. Eventually, Jiang did resign from his CMC chairmanship in favor of Hu Jintao. But it set a new precedent where the outgoing leader could hold onto the CMC a bit longer as Hu Jintao will do when he retires this year. \n\nThis makes more sense when we remember that under Deng Xiaoping, the military became much more important and autonomous as a political force. And direct control of the military is through the Central Military Commission. So in many ways, controlling the CMC was the key to real power in China. Even Deng Xiaoping, who famously never held any important post (except for a brief stint as Vice-Premier), always held onto his chairmanship of the CMC. \n\nSo, in conclusion, the new system of power transfer is to prevent a recurrence of another Mao-like dictator, ensure rotation of leaders, and presumably, stable political governance. \n\nIncidentally, not all Marxist countries are like this. In Vietnam, for example, they actually hold real elections within the Party to elect the top party leadership and there's all kind of politicking and campaigning. This is different from the \"elections\" held in China's Party Congress, which just ratify decisions made beforehand by the Politburo. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
9kq4f4
why do people buy sports video games every year despite them roughly being the same game as the previous year?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9kq4f4/eli5_why_do_people_buy_sports_video_games_every/
{ "a_id": [ "e70wf7q", "e70wlrt", "e70wmcv", "e70wwlu" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "First of all the team lineup changes and so do the player stats. Second they put in enough new features for it to be worth the $60 they are asking. Third because people usually want the newest and best stuff, if they released a newer version of a game you enjoy and play a lot, odds are you will buy it even if it’s been only a year since you bought the last one. Fourth, it’s like saying why watch football? It’s basically the same game every time, well it basically is because the rules are standard and the plays themselves aren’t extraordinary from one game to another, but there are lots of reasons to watch a game even though you’ve seen 1000 football games, it’s not like if you have seen one you have seen them all.", "Well, except for slightly better graphics and physics, you get updates for players, clubs, stadiums and other staff. You can look at this as a subscription for the current information. Expensive subscription, but you want to have latest info, right? \n\nBy the way, I always find it interesting to play the previous year FIFA, because I can buy a player who suddenly becomes a star in this year. ", "You and all of your five year old mates like to play chase at playtime. Next year, you will grow up to unlock another playground, where all of the best chasers will go and play a new, slightly improved version of the same game, with the latest chase players and chase team kits. There will also be competitions and leagues happening that every chase player wants to partake in.\n\nAll of your friends will move up, and so can you, if you’re willing to fork out your lunch money for the privilege, otherwise you’re stuck playing in a playground with less games of chase.\n\nIt’s pretty much so that you can stay relevant, if you buy the latest sports games it’s highly likely you’re an avid sports fan and half the fun is playing as your favourite teams and players in their current state, that match the teams you watch in real life. ", "**Roughly** the same is the important word.\n\nAnnual iterations in sports games usually do things like reflect player careers, transfers, a team's position in league or world rankings. There are minor refinements to the game mechanics and iterations on the graphics, too.\n\nBut it's the accurate representation of the actual players and personalities that are the real draw for sports fans.\n\nFor example: I like cricket. If I played a cricket video game, it'd be a bit incongruous to me if it had Andrew Flintoff and Graeme Swann on the England cricket team, Chris Gale playing for the West Indies, and commentary by Henry Blofeld because all those men are retired.\n\nFor soccer games you might have one team's star player who's now transferred to a completely different team. If you're playing the 2008 version of an NHL game then the Stanley Cup champions would be the Anaheim Ducks, but at the time of writing the most recent holders of that championship are the Pittsburgh Penguins.\n\nThat may not sound like a big deal if you're not interested in the game, but to the fans it makes a difference. \n\nTo translate it into more general gaming culture...\n\nImagine if you were playing an Elder Scrolls game set sometime after Skyrim, and suddenly the Nerevarine showed up.\n\nOr a Fallout game set in 2277, when suddenly you're visited by the vault dweller from Vault 13, the protagonist of Fallout 1, which was set in 2167.\n\nOr you're playing the latest Dragon Age and then King Cailan walks in the room fully alive and healthy. \n\nOr maybe you're playing Spider-Man swinging around New York when out of the blue a Green Lantern drops in and tells you that you've inherited Captain Picard's lightsaber, which you need to fix the TARDIS so the spice can flow.\n\nTL;DR - Think of it as updates to avoid clashing with the lore." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
3rvezy
why is there a difference in voltage between america and pretty much the rest of the world (240v vs 120v i believe) and what are the impacts of this in terms of energy transport/conservation and usage.
⚡⚡⚡ Wow, that's a lot of electric knowledge being passed around here. I'm buzzed! ⚡⚡⚡ ITT: Mostly discussions about water kettles. For some really cool maps, click this link. ~~[Link](_URL_1_)~~ **Please don't click the [Link](_URL_0_) anymore, I'm afraid we are reddit-hugging the world's power grid to death. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)**
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rvezy/eli5_why_is_there_a_difference_in_voltage_between/
{ "a_id": [ "cwro6jk", "cwrolke", "cwrony4", "cwrow44", "cwroyna", "cwrp0ec", "cwrp0np", "cwrpaa4", "cwrqec1", "cwrqim8", "cwrqotd", "cwrr2jv", "cwrrcq4", "cwrrpw2", "cwrs9ns", "cwrtbfg", "cwrtg8y", "cwrug22", "cwruiby", "cwrukvf", "cwrv5nz", "cwrvrsi", "cwrw82z", "cwrwira", "cwrxa5u", "cwrzrov", "cws08pm", "cws0uwm", "cws1dh2", "cws3oj7", "cws40h4", "cws54bt", "cws5xhd", "cws63zi", "cws68di", "cws9bw7", "cwsc65o", "cwscjyl", "cwse79f", "cwsgj2n", "cwugbs6" ], "score": [ 2347, 3, 2, 25, 114, 37, 479, 13, 19, 8, 35, 13, 2, 2, 68, 2, 437, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 2, 2, 2, 3, 16, 3, 3, 5, 7, 4, 2, 6, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Every country developed their basic infrastructures independently with different scientists and during an era that communication between countries took days at best, weeks on average, and sometimes months if conditions were bad. As time progressed infrastructures and communications were improved and those countries that lived next to each other often started to share standards and even interconnect their infrastructures. The US being mostly geographically isolated kept its own standard. Our neighbors match our standards. ", "120/240 V is the residential voltage standard, used over short local distances. It doesn't say anything about the voltages used for power transmission over longer distances. So, if you're looking for some kind of general conclusion about overall energy efficiency, you're not going to find one, I think. ", "This is the main reason transformers have dual primary windings, so they can produce the same output for both 120v and 240v.", "Bonus: Different rail way voltages through-out Pan-Europe.\n\n\"Likewise, electrification of lines varies between countries. 15 kV AC has been used in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden since 1912, while the Netherlands uses 1500 V DC, France uses 1500 V DC and 25 kV AC, and so on. All this makes the construction of truly pan-European vehicles a challenging task and, until recent developments in locomotive construction, was mostly ruled out as being impractical and too expensive.\"", "The US were the first to build a large-scale power grid. At that point, ~110V was the maximum lightbulbs etc. could handle without burning out. As you want as high voltages as possible to keep losses, cable strengths, etc. down, this was chosen (instead of something arbitrarily lower).\n\nBy the time Europe electrified (around 1900, **not** post-WW2!), light bulbs could handle 220 volts. Or 230. Or 240. All three were in use in various European countries until the EU equalized everything to 230 volts.\n\n220+ volts has advantages. Why not switch?\n\n* Because it's expensive. The EU harmonization took *13 years*, and it was a minimal change for all countries involved (10V difference each). Converting from 110V to 230V is flat out impossible.\n* Because it, ultimately, doesn't really matter. 110/230 Volts is mainly used inside buildings, everything long-distance is running at several thousand (or tens of thousands) of volts. And even inside buildings you have three-phase sockets with 400V, if necessary.", "the biggest impact I see for local low voltage wiring in the US (110V) compared to other countries (230V). To maintain equipment operating conditions, larger copper cross sectional area cables are required in the 110V system as the currents are (comparably) higher and therefore suffer more voltage drop. ", "It's because of light bulb technology. The early bulbs could only operate at lower voltages (Edison settled on 110V) but later bulbs with metal filaments could operate at 220V. This meant that power could be transmitted at higher voltage, which is more efficient. The change was pushed by a German power company. [Per wikipedia:](_URL_0_)\n\n > In 1899, the Berliner Elektrizitäts-Werke (BEW), a Berlin electrical utility, decided to greatly increase its distribution capacity by switching to 220 volt nominal distribution, taking advantage of the higher voltage capability of metal filament lamps. **The company was able to offset the cost of converting the customer's equipment by the resulting saving in distribution conductors cost.** This became the model for electrical distribution in Germany and the rest of Europe and the 220-volt system became common. North American practice remained with voltages near 110 volts for lamps", "So wait... American here, slightly confused. (Go figure) So when the rest of the world plugs in a toaster, you're plugging to 240v? What about plugging in a clothes dryer? Here in the USA we have \"split service\". 120/240vac. 2 legs come into the house from the same phase at 120 v leg to ground. Leg to leg however is 240v. We plug our toaster into 120v but our clothes dryer (and other things) into 240v. As to why, the other examples given make sense... lightbulb, tesla, and such. But I will say with 120v being less pressure, while higher gauge wire is required in the home it is nicer to be shocked by 120v instead of 240v. Not to mention our wire sizes for home are 14, 12, 10, and I forget for the clothes dryer but I think that's like 2. As far as the grid goes, that's usually 2 aut, 3 strand from the transformer to the house. Before the transformer depending on how old the part of the grid is you either have 4kv or 13kv. 13 is the more common one these days but you will find 4kv in some places still.", "208-240v is what us run to almost every house in the states. All it is is two legs of 120v. And your 120v circuit is just one hot (120v) and a neutral wire which carries no voltage. \n\nThe main difference is the hertz rating they are generated at. The United states does 60 hz, most other places do 50 hz. \n\nThere are voltage differeces as well, high voltage commercial equipment in the states is 460-480v three phase. High voltage in Canada is 600v I believe. I'm not sure what their low voltage three phase is though, ours is 240v.", "Some FYI\n\nJapan also uses ~~110V~~ 100V as their standard. I haven't researched the reason but will guess it's something to do with US influence after WWII.\n\nEDIT\n\nThanks to the responses. \n\nu/Sakuromp corrected me in that Japan uses 100V; not 110V.\n\nu/cmfg provided [a link](_URL_0_) which explains the history behind the 50 Hz and 60Hz difference within the country.\n\nu/AppleGel also explains that \"the electricity grids in Tokyo and Osaka are both old, it's the same reason as the U.S. Also Tokyo land area uses 50Hz whereas Osaka land area use 60Hz because they bought different systems in the beginning assuming grids would never need to be connected.\"", "Most of Europe now uses 400V phase-to-phase, and 230V phase-to-neutral. Earlier 230V Isolated Terra (IT) 3-leader power system was the norm, but they are now using a 400V Terra Neutral (TN, with variances TN-C/TN-S/TN-CS) 5-leader power system where you have 3 phases and a terra leader split into protected earth (PE) and a neutral (N), which gives you 400V between phases and 230V between phase and neutral. Although it's true that you deliver high voltage to the transformer on each street and step it down there, you still have 100's of meters with low voltage cabling to reach each house, and this is enough to save power by going to 400V instead of 110V or 230V. Copper, which most low power cables are made of, is very expensive and so any incentive to reduce the thickness and amount of copper needed, is money saved. Alu-cables are used too, because they are much cheaper, but they don't conduct as good as copper so you have to increase their size and thicker cables are a nightmare to work with. There are several other advantages with this system too, like the size of earth fault currents, but I'll need more space and time to explain that.", "Now all this is confusing me. When I wire a house we use 15 amp breakers on all plugs and lights except for kitchen and those are 20 amps (aside from big appliances) we run 120v (14/2) and 240 (14/3). It's neither 110 or 230.... I am only in my first year for my apprenticeship so I don't have much knowledge.", "In Brazil, the voltage is different depending on where you are in the country. I'm 220v where I live but Rio and Sao Paulo are 110v, so you need to be careful when you buy electrical goods on the internet. A lot of the time you're just grateful to have any electricity as blackouts are pretty regular. ", "Why does the uk and Ireland have different shaped plugs to the rest of Europe? \n\nFrance is so close to the UK but went for two round prongs instead of the UKs three square prongs. ", "On a mildly related note, while researching this I found a cool map that shows the [US power grid frequency in real time.](_URL_1_)\n\nEdit: There's also one for the [whole world too.](_URL_0_)", "The scanner I bought in America cannot be used when I am back in China even though I have bought three AC adapters! I have been frustrated.", "First off, America uses a range of voltages for consumption. 120V is the most common for residential, though most houses also have 240V for larger appliances. 208V and 277V are the norm for commercial, and 480V and above can be found in industrial settings. So the US isn't homogeneously 120V everywhere. I'll return to this in a bit.\n\nSecondly, it's all irrelevant (mostly) for transport costs. This is because the end-user voltage (120 or 240) is only present for like the last 0.5% of the journey from the power station. Prior to that, the electrical power is transmitted at much higher voltages - up to hundreds of kV.\n\nBack to end-user voltages now. For residential (where there exists this US-global disparity), there really isn't a major difference in terms of conservation. The lower voltage requires higher current to drive similar devices, basically double in this case (but it's the same wattage regardless, so energy use is roughly equal). It's the reason commercial users typically need 208 or 277V service, because they have far more wattage on any given circuit (think of the lighting in a typical store compared to a house), so to reduce the current/heat/wire size they want higher voltage. Running larger wires over the longer distances in a store would be very expensive.\n\nHowever, in a house there isn't much distance from breaker panel to end outlet, and many electricians will just use larger-than-necessary wire sizes (#12 instead of #14 where applicable) to avoid nuisance tripping since the added cost isn't huge for such a small installation. And that's really it: for the small amounts of wire being used on any given house, the added cost of thicker wire isn't significant enough to be a huge issue. If we switched to 240V-all residential service, and shifted wire sizes down one step across the board, you'd be saving like $400/house.\n\nOn the other hand, those higher voltages (240V) are a lot more dangerous than 120V. While in a commercial setting you can be fairly sure some dumb kid isn't going to lick a receptacle or an idiot homeowner isn't going to try rewiring everything live, you can't be sure of that in residential. Going with the slightly more expensive but safer 120V makes sense.\n\nAlthough as others have pointed out, it started as a historical accident, the code could've been changed at any time, as it is almost yearly, yet we've stuck with 120V for residential all the same.", "Besides the historical difference as others have mentioned, and how costly it would be to retrofit to different standards, 220v is intrinsically more efficient due to heat losses.\n\nFor given wattage, say a 1100W microwave oven, since Power = Current * Voltage (P=IV), for 110V @10A and 220v @5A.\n\nVoltage is Current*Resistance (V=IR).\n\nIf you manipulate the equations, P=I^2 R. [This equation solves the power lost as heat due to Joule Heating.](_URL_0_)\nTherefore, for given Current and conductor resistance, power lost as heat is HUGE as current increases.\n\nPower Received = Power Generated - Power Lost during transmission. \nTherefore if the sending voltage is low, the current will have to be high make up for low voltage, but it'll all get lost in the form of heat and not much will get to the end point. That's also the reason why it make sense for main power lines have extremely high voltage. ", "Also worth mentioning that higher voltage can be carried through smaller wire, greatly reducing the cost of wiring. ", "ELI5: Is one system superior to the other? I'm Canadian, but once had met a Kiwi electrician at a bar and through a drunken ramble he explained how our system was inferior but I didn't really understand his logic. ", "I live in Toronto, Canada.\n\nIn the early 1950's our house and many others in the eastern part of the city had 25 cycle (Hertz) 120 Volt electrical power. Visitors coming from other parts of the city would comment on how our lights seemed to flicker.\n\nOne day a crew from the power company came and changed as many frequency sensitive devices as they could so that they would operate on 60 Hz. record players, clocks etc.\n\nWe didn't have a television at the time and I don't know how they remedied these devices. It would be interesting to hear from anyone else who also experienced this transition.", "The 230V and 110V just matter for the end user since the ac voltage can be transformed up and down. Outside in the distribution network it doesnt matter overall. Benefits on both standards: 230V can deliver much more power on the same cable stength and so also can be used over greater distances. 110V ist less likely to kill you. \nAnother difference in the ac frequency. It can only be converted into another with expensive equipment, especially at high power like in the distribution net. Benefits: At 60Hz the voltage can be transformed more efficently. 50Hz has less transport loss in the distribution network, caused by the skin effect. \nSo both has it up and downs...", "Just 16 miles off the coast of Canada, there are households with 220V outlets. I wonder how many Canadians know where that is and why? It was my rebuttal to some Canadians who were making fun of typical American knowledge of geography. Thank god for Google Maps.", "There are pros and cons to both systems, as described in the linked article. Some of it is technical, but it should enlighten.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n", "The higher the voltage, the smaller the wire needs to be to perform the same work. Watts are what is required to perform work. Wire size determines the Ampres that it can carry.\n\nWatts = Voltage * Ampres\n\nSo as Voltage goes up, Ampres goes down.\n\nIf your George Foreman Grill requires 1500 Watts, at 120 volts, that draws 12.5 Ampres. At 240 volts, that drops to 6.25 Ampres.\n\n(Yeah, I know P=E*I, but this is ELI5)", "I'd be curious whether there's going to be a problem once low voltage LED lightning systems start getting integrated into new homes. Whether the larger step down at the house creates any extra inefficiencies.\n", "How dangerous is it to run equipment on different loads than they're supposed to be? I was at a hotel working with electronics and their circuits were 126-129 volts...", "European voltage makes my laptop conduct electricity and my headset hum when plugged in. Probbably bad but meh, no problems so far.", "I live in Brazil..and it's weird. The voltages seem to be random.. sometimes 110, 127 or 220v.. Also the outlets are sometimes fitted like European style, sometimes American. Everyone carries around adapters.. This doesn't help explain anything. ", "America : greater transmission losses(they can afford that though) and household appliances are safer. However greater risk of electrical building fires\n\nRest or world: lower transmission losses, greater risk of appliance fire but lower risk of building fire. \n\nHope you enjoyed the ELI5...", "By the way, Canada, USA, an Mexico all three have 120volts, and in the US and Canada, equipment that uses more energy usually uses 240 volts. Things like clothes dryers, electric ovens, large air conditioners, and a lot of garage equipment like welders and large air compressors. Most mexicans dont even have 240 volt circuits.", "A friend of mine who worked on power systems at one point in her career told me: \"the difference between 120 and 240 is about ten feet.\"\n\n(As in, how far you're thrown if you touch it.)", "England developed their power lines to use a higher voltage specifically so their electric kettles would heat their water faster for afternoon tea. Kidding. \n\nBut actually, during popular televised events like football, power stations in the UK have to activate more turbines during commercial breaks because everyone gets up and makes tea at the same time.", "120v is safer. That is why the US uses it. 120v provides enough power for small appliances at reasonablr currebt levels and is far less likely to electrocute someone. For large appliances we can simply use two 120v line 180 degrees out of sync and still get 240v.", "I'm buzzed too. But that's from the day drinking. \n\nAnyway, great question. And thanks for the thoughtful discussion, all. ", "Haven't seen anyone talk about the frequency differences yet, so I'll chime in. The US uses 60hz because it divides nicely into seconds:minutes:hours. In fact, many older clocks and pieces of industrial equipment used to take their timing directly off grid frequency, no timing circuit required.\n\nEverywhere else uses 50hz because it's a nice round number that makes doing higher order power calculations easier. Just like the metric system vs imperial system, easier math for the former, more relatable shorthand for the latter.", "can I also add a question? whats the point of a neutral? can you get shocked by a neutral? I recently had to adapt a four pronged plug to a 3 pronged plug in 240 and I was told to just use the ground as the neutral as they were pretty much the same.", "Something important to note about transporting electricity is that higher voltages transport energy more efficiently than lower voltages. In the Navy we generate power at very high Voltages to transport it around the ship, then step it down to lower voltages for major pieces of equipment (RADARS, AC plants, Ovens, etc), and step it down even further to the 120 you know and love to plug in your laptop or run a lightbulb.\n\nPractically this saves weight and money because metal is heavy and expensive. Think of how much electricity runs through power lines every day and how small those cables are. If you were to run a lower voltage the same distances you would need a MUCH bigger line which is heavier and more expensive to transport the same amount of power due to loss.", "Not sure why everyone is giving you false information. Wattage is Amps*Volts, so at 240V the amperage for the same power usage is actually a little less than half of what it would need to be at 110V. There's a reason data centers frequently use 240v instead of the standard 110, and that's because it's more efficient, not less. No idea why America is so far behind the curve (likely fear, since 240V would be more of an immediate danger to someone being stupid around an outlet), sorry, but it was painful to read the blither of nonsense people are suggesting about 110V actually being the efficient solution. Do you really think the only country in the world that refuses to use international scientific notation is ahead of the curve in electrical infrastructure?", "Just as a point of perspective, you shouldn't consider it America vs *all the other countries*. In broad terms, you should really only consider it North America vs Europe, which is about 400 million vs 500 million people, and 52 European-country-sized jurisdictions vs 20 some European countries.\n\nIt's not some sort of hold-out or anomaly, it's just two different standards with comparable utilization.", "The higher the voltage, the thinner gauge wire that can be used due to less resistance. Higher voltages are more dangerous, but cheaper to implement. In very poor countries, 440V is sometimes used (\"illegally\") to reduce the cost of the wiring even further.\n\nAlso, Japan is also on 110V." ] }
[]
[ "http://powerit.utk.edu/worldmap/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rvezy/eli5_why_is_there_a_difference_in_voltage_between/cwrs9ns" ]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mains_electricity#History_of_voltage_and_frequency" ], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Japan#Transmission" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://powerit.utk.edu/worldmap/", "http://fnetpublic.utk.edu/gradientmap.html" ], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/north-american-versus-european-distribution-systems" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
k53mk
what does the pancreas do exactly?
Just like the title says. I am trying to explain it to an 8 year old.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k53mk/eli5_what_does_the_pancreas_do_exactly/
{ "a_id": [ "c2hkspu", "c2hkymd", "c2hkspu", "c2hkymd" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "It helps digest food and also regulates the concentration of key molecules in the body - for example, blood glucose. That's why when the pancreas stops working properly, you can get diseases like diabetes.", "Here's hoping the kid knows that hormones are... If not, just call them \"substances\" i guess. I'll use \"substances for the sake of simplicity. The pancreas is responsible for: \n\n1. storing energy (\"fuel\") in your body \n\n2. releasing stored fuel in your body \n\n3. or stopping the absorption of fuel when you're body has more important things to worry about. \n\nThe pancreas uses three different substances to do this. Substance 1 (insulin) takes the energy from your food and stores it in your body so you can use it later if you need energy but don't have food. Substance 2 (glucagon) takes that energy back out of storage when your body needs fuel but hasn't eaten recently. Substance 3 (somatostatin) kicks in when we're either have to fight or run for our lives. Basically, this substance tells your body \"we have bigger things to worry about than digesting food right now\" and stops digestion. The fight or flight response will also cause the release of Substance 2 (glucagon) to make sure that your body has plenty of fuel to either fight off the threat or run away from it.", "It helps digest food and also regulates the concentration of key molecules in the body - for example, blood glucose. That's why when the pancreas stops working properly, you can get diseases like diabetes.", "Here's hoping the kid knows that hormones are... If not, just call them \"substances\" i guess. I'll use \"substances for the sake of simplicity. The pancreas is responsible for: \n\n1. storing energy (\"fuel\") in your body \n\n2. releasing stored fuel in your body \n\n3. or stopping the absorption of fuel when you're body has more important things to worry about. \n\nThe pancreas uses three different substances to do this. Substance 1 (insulin) takes the energy from your food and stores it in your body so you can use it later if you need energy but don't have food. Substance 2 (glucagon) takes that energy back out of storage when your body needs fuel but hasn't eaten recently. Substance 3 (somatostatin) kicks in when we're either have to fight or run for our lives. Basically, this substance tells your body \"we have bigger things to worry about than digesting food right now\" and stops digestion. The fight or flight response will also cause the release of Substance 2 (glucagon) to make sure that your body has plenty of fuel to either fight off the threat or run away from it." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
3nf735
why do carnivores seem to prey mostly on herbivores and omnivores, and not on other carnivores?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nf735/eli5_why_do_carnivores_seem_to_prey_mostly_on/
{ "a_id": [ "cvnhykx", "cvnhyrl" ], "score": [ 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Safety plays a major concern. Prey typically has a flight instinct and predators typically have a fight instinct. If you attack a Gazelle, it may kick you, but then it's going to run. If you attack a Lion, it's turning around to kill you. Obviously not always the case, but it's the majority.\n\nThe type of offense each brings is also important. Most prey animals kick, headbutt, blunt force things. The predator may get a broken bone, but that's relatively safer than scratched/ bit with infection ridden claws/ teeth. Then wandering around with an open wound for a few weeks.", "Other carnivores tend to have things like sharp teeth and claws which may injure the attacker. They would rather go after targets which have a less chance to attack back." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
5zyd6i
why do we feel nauseous when dehydrated
I don't understand why we feel nauseous and sometimes vomit when we are severely dehydrated. If we vomit, we are losing even more water and fluids. Why do we feel nauseous then?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zyd6i/eli5_why_do_we_feel_nauseous_when_dehydrated/
{ "a_id": [ "df20b2a" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I am no physiologist, but I would hazard a guess that it has something to do with the ion concentration raising up and causing problems in the head, blood, and GI tract. Water also helps calm the stomach down while you are sick. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
3dpnmr
why is the gap in pay between genders a prominent political issue, when the gap in life expectancy between genders is not?
Obviously there are biological factors that contribute to the different life expectancy, but there are also undoubtedly biological factors (e.g. men being more aggressive negotiators) that contribute to the pay disparity - why are we willing to accept one but not the other?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dpnmr/eli5_why_is_the_gap_in_pay_between_genders_a/
{ "a_id": [ "ct7gkua", "ct7gtdr", "ct7gzct", "ct7pime" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 4, 5 ], "text": [ "At the end of the day we may be able to influence our mortality, but some people live longer and some live shorter and that's life. No person or groups of people are actively making women live longer. On the other hand, wages are something that is 100% in the control of us as a population. It's something that is regulated and legislated, so if there is a bias against one gender (and I'm not saying there is), then it's because of people, and as such we have a ethical responsibility as a population to fix it. You can't really legislate life expectancy.", "In my opinion the main reason a lot of men live shorter lives is because those men are less worried about their health.", "The wage gap is constantly bought up because it fits into the 'women are always victims' political narrative. It's very profitable for people to make a big deal about it. Nobody makes money or gains political power from complaining about a gap in life expectancy between sexes.\n\nAlso, the wage gap is essentially a myth. Here's a good video to watch regarding the facts: \n\n_URL_0_", "Women strongly object to being paid less than men, so they fight against pay disparity.\n\nMen don't seem to object as strongly to doing violent or foolhardy things - they would fight hard FOR their right to participate in extreme sports, to drink to excess, and to avoid medical treatment for their illnesses, and those are just a few examples of things that cause more deaths in men than in women and drive up the averages. They're also the ones most likely to be in favor of the next war. Men fight FOR their right to die younger.\n\nIf men want to fight for their right to live longer, I'll be very curious about whether they do that by trying to change the laws, or the culture. I think the latter would work better, but take longer." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM" ], [] ]
dafenw
how are about 1000 books the #1 best selling in new york?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dafenw/eli5_how_are_about_1000_books_the_1_best_selling/
{ "a_id": [ "f1p8yjn", "f1p9jkm", "f1pb2ki", "f1pcpsl", "f1pd2ie", "f1pdaek", "f1peu5m", "f1pfxu4", "f1pgm9b", "f1pgqey", "f1ph5o6", "f1phka6" ], "score": [ 2206, 72, 272, 25, 11, 3, 70, 4, 5, 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I assume you are referring to the New York Times bestseller list. Those are for everywhere, not just New York.\n\nThe list goes out every week, so if a book is #1 for even a single week, it can call itself a #1 bestseller. So technically there could be 52 #1 bestsellers a year in each category (fiction, nonfiction, hardcover, paperback). Realistically there will not be that many, as books tend to stay on top for several weeks.\n\nAnother reason it might seem like every book is #1 is that the bestselling books are the ones you hear the most about... because they are bestsellers.", "Slight tangent: those charts can be gamed. Meaning the title of bestselling author does not actually mean much. \nsource: Darknet Diaries, ep 27: Chartbreakers", "The publishers know these lists exist and how many are roughly needed to be sold to get to the top of the list. When a book debuts, they might \"buy\" a few hundred or thousand copies for the book tour to get that moniker on the second run of books in a few weeks.", "The simple answer is that there are like two dozen lists with 15-20 books each (e.g., bestselling children's e-books for grades 6-8), meaning at any given time there might be 400 \"New York Times Bestsellers\", with a significant number able to claim #1.\n\nThe more complicated answer involves the fact that people game the system to get their book on there for a week to earn that title, and the following fascinating quote from the Wikipedia article about it:\n\n > The Times countered that the list was not mathematically objective but rather was editorial content and thus protected under the Constitution as free speech.", "Regarding people buying their own books, whenever a new L. Ron Hubbard book came out (while he was still alive, obviously) Scientologists would buy thousands of copies then ship them back to the publisher so they could be sold again.", "The NYT bestseller list is not a list of books that sell a lot of copies, it’s an editor’s choice list.", "Fun fact about the New York Times bestseller list: the reason there is a children's book list is because all the \"serious, adult\" authors got mad that the Harry Potter books were crowding out the top slots for weeks and weeks at a time (well, over a year, really!).", "[Because the list doesn’t necessarily refer to actual sales but has a high degree of ‘editorial content.’](_URL_0_) \n\nSo some books may be on the list solely because the editors may find them significant, not because they sold better. And there are other ways to manipulate the list. Read the criticism and controversy sections of the wiki. I don’t pay attention to that list anymore.", "So does anyone know of a list of good books to follow? Besides the NYT which, after reading some comments here, may be misleading?", "In addition to what has been said, you often see **New York Times Bestseller** on a book, which sneakily implies that it was #1, without actually stating it. But what it actually means is that it simply made the bestseller list, or more accurately one of the many bestseller lists. \nSo an author or publisher could buy a relatively low amount to get it on the list and then blast New York Times Bestseller on the cover.", "There are categories as well, not just the top 10 list. So it can be the #1 bestselling \\[children's\\] book or the #1 bestselling \\[thriller\\] book. Categories matter with those things. Oftentimes, the books are only claiming to \\*A\\* bestselling book, not the #1. So it could be #99 in the top 100 for one week and call itself a bestseller.", "My favorite version of this is “award winning pizza”\n\nWhat award, where’s this pizza contest? Best cup of coffee? According to who?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Best_Seller_list" ], [], [], [], [] ]
7g3qyd
how does being out in the cold increase your chance of catching a cold? if it doesn't, where does this misconception come from?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7g3qyd/eli5_how_does_being_out_in_the_cold_increase_your/
{ "a_id": [ "dqg9zy8" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Not fully the answer, but when you're cold you tend to touch your hands to your face/mouth/nose more often, introducing more germs into your body." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
2b83zd
does it matter what time i brush my teeth?
I've always heard that we should brush our teeth twice a day. Once in the morning and once at night. But does it matter if we brush in the morning before we eat or after we eat? If we don't have breakfast in the morning should we wait until after we eat to clean off anything sticking to the teeth after the meal or brush before so the teeth are protected in the first place? Both? Or will brushing your teeth too much wear away enamel?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b83zd/eli5_does_it_matter_what_time_i_brush_my_teeth/
{ "a_id": [ "cj2p424", "cj2r47o" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Brushing is about killing bacteria, hardening enamel and reducing plaque. You should concentrate on massaging gums though.\n\nYou shouldn't brush after eating, because acidity of your mouth is high, which makes it easier to damage enamel.", "The most important time to brush IS before bed. Besides gook sitting there all night, you also salivate less at night worsening any bad effects. You can damage your teeth by brushing too much. A friend's daughter had OCD and had begun destroying her enamel brushing too much." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
avomef
why when we look to a thing or a photo long enough we see the negative version of it after stop looking it or after closing eyes?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/avomef/eli5_why_when_we_look_to_a_thing_or_a_photo_long/
{ "a_id": [ "ehgnw1q" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Because the rods and cones and photoreceptors in your eyes have become over stimulated and desensitized to the image.\n\nBasically the specific receptors, out of the many in your eyes, that are used to process the colors and shapes of the image get over worked and shut down. Their being “off” causes an after image in the shape of the receptors and the information they receive, for around 30 seconds or so until the brain can click them back on and put them to work.\nThe brighter the light or more complex the image, the shorter time it takes to cause an “after image”" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
9z7ql2
how does strong duct tape and other adhesives bind easily and permanently with almost anything, but easily detached from it's roll/container?
[deleted]
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9z7ql2/eli5_how_does_strong_duct_tape_and_other/
{ "a_id": [ "ea6yjz7" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Most rolled tape has what's known as Release Coating on the top layer (the non-adhesive side) that prevents it from being adhered to easily.\n\nDouble-sided tapes have a liner that will need to be removed, as well." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
6s6p9w
is it technically possible for countries to 'build' a nuclear bomb, even if not given the technology by another nuclear country?
I was wondering whether North Korea, or any other country to that regard, even if not giving the 'technology' by another nuclear country would have been able to obtain nuclear power.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6s6p9w/eli5_is_it_technically_possible_for_countries_to/
{ "a_id": [ "dlafqxx", "dlaj12w" ], "score": [ 7, 2 ], "text": [ "All the theory is well known, you can search it online right now. Nations are usually limited by the availability of weapons grade fissile material for the bomb itself and the elaborate detonators required, which are much harder to obtain or construct.\n\nTo make the bomb useful they also need a delivery system, which requires advanced ballistic missile technology that again is hard to build.\n\nSo the basic science is public knowledge, but managing to build your own nuclear detonation device with your own weapons grade uranium mounted on your own ICBM is a more difficult and costly.", "The first country built it without being given the technology by another nuclear country; ergo, yes." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
avmhit
how do pharmaceuticals decide which of their medications will be available as a generic? what percentage do they make off them?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/avmhit/eli5_how_do_pharmaceuticals_decide_which_of_their/
{ "a_id": [ "ehg8s61", "ehg93p1", "ehg93zf", "ehg9502", "ehg96km", "ehggg87" ], "score": [ 11, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "A drug patent lasts about 20 years. After that anyone can snag the ingredient list and make a generic. The only money the original patent holder makes after that is if doctors still prescribe the brand name and pharmacists actually fill it instead of the generic. ", "so the government has made a rule where companies that actually make the drug only have so much time from the moment they discover the molecule where the molecule is actually theirs. after that amount of time has passed, the molecule becomes available to everyone. kind of like public domain. so even though for the majority of this time the pharmaceutical company isnt actually making money off the molecule because theyre still putting money into research, development, and marketing. once the new drug is ready to be sold, they only have a few years to make that money back PLUS profit from it (which is why name brand drugs tend to be so expensive). once that time runs out, they go generic and anybody can make the drug as long as it is close to the original. a lot of the time the same companies that make the original drug have smaller companies that are a part of them that only make generic versions of their drugs and drugs that used to belong to other companies so they can still make some money off of them. the name brand version still gets made, however it is less profitable because once it goes generic there is competition with other companies who make it much cheaper. other companies are able to sell it for less because they dont have to worry about making up for the cost of all the research that went into developing it. \n\nedit: made it more readable and added a little bit of info. ", "Drug companies spend many years and millions of dollars in research and trials to develop a new drug, once it's deemed acceptable and proven to do what it's supposed to do they have the right to sell it under a patent, that patent expires after 7-10 years and now everyone else can take that formula and mass produce it to sell to the public, so it's the exact same thing but cheaper, the original is sold for a much higher amount because they're trying to make their money back and a whole lot of profit. All that being said, I have 2 cousins that are doctors and they both told me to always go for the generic drug, it's exactly the same but cheaper", "It has to do with the patents. Basically drug manufacturers will fund research for new drugs, and once it’s developed and proven and approved etc. The company that developed it has a patent on that drug and can essentially charge as much as they want for it. Prices depend on various things such as the potential pool of users (specialised drugs for rare diseases are more expensive because less users) and the amount spent developing the drug, etc. \n\nUntil the patent on a particular drug expires, no other manufacturer can produce it. \n\nAfter the patent expires, the formulation for the drug is fair game for anyone who wants to produce it. \n\nThis system is essentially in place because it’s very expensive to produce new drugs and pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t be willing to do invest any money into research and development if they couldn’t make any money off their drugs. \n\nA generic being available usually means the drug’s patent has expired, so there’s competition between companies for the same product and the price drops. Most insurance companies will only pay for a generic if there’s one available and there’s no medical reason why they should cover the cost of the brand name. ", "If a drug company invents a new drug and gets a patent on it, only they can produce it for a certain number of years. Once the patent expires, other companies can use the recipe for the drug to make generic versions of the same thing. The original company still continues to sell the product under the name brand. ", "Drug patents last 20 years in the US. Afterwards, the brand name drug is often still sold, but it's far less profitable.\n\nThere's two nuances to the 20 year rule:\n\n* First, it can take 8 years to get FDA approval so you only get 12 years of patent protection. \n\n* Second, there are ways to extend patents such as slightly reformulating the drug (worth 3 extra years), using a special extension designed to account for part of the FDA's approval time (worth 5 extra years), or trying to exploit the occasional legal loophole (these rarely work.)\n\nPharamaceutical companies try to keep their patents alive for as long as possible because 80% of their revenue comes from them. Generics either put brand name drugs out of business, or at least dramatically reduce their profitability. \n\nDoctors try to avoid prescribing brand name drugs and insurance companies try to avoid paying for them. Sometimes brand name prices come down, but other times, they use the AOL method where some elderly people are still paying for America Online dial-up internet because they forgot about it or are used to it. People often get used to the brand name drug and don't bother to switch to the generic. This is less common nowadays because insurance companies keep an eye out for it since they are the people who actually have to pay.\n\nThere are ocassionally some small benefits to brand name drugs. The actual drug is the same, but the other parts of the drug are different. So the brand name drug might use a capsule that is less irritating to your stomach or something. But it's also possible that it goes the other way where the generic drug is better for you. Doctors almost always suggest going with the generic drug if there's one available. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
6oinh8
chip sealing of roads- taking a layer of asphalt covered in lose gravel that uses traffic to finishing smoothing out the gravel? why?
Why is this used? Is it harmful to cars? Outside of expense, what are the benefits long term to the road. I see on the wikipedia page, it is used for low traffic... but here it is used on all roads in our area outside of highway. (Milwaukee)
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6oinh8/eli5_chip_sealing_of_roads_taking_a_layer_of/
{ "a_id": [ "dkhp6jf" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "A few reasons dealing with traction and the underlying soils. Some roads need more traction than asphalt for various reasons, some are laid on ground that moves with the weather, so asphalt is prone to cracking or potholes. Also, in the right conditions, a hot day can heat up the tar mix, allowing material to flow, and repair cracks in the surface. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
70z1aa
apparently glass never fully breaks down? if this is the case, then why aren't most deserts just filled with lightning glass, instead of sand?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70z1aa/eli5_apparently_glass_never_fully_breaks_down_if/
{ "a_id": [ "dn6wqus", "dn892w5" ], "score": [ 16, 2 ], "text": [ "Sand is glass... Its primarily silicate. Glass never fully breaks down but it does break, and gets smoothed, and gets smaller and smaller. So deserts are filled with tiny broken pieces of lightning glass, which is sand.", "There's a lot of ground to cover here.\n\nThe defining property of glass is that it lacks any well defined crystal structure. \n\nIf you look at most sands under a microscope, they're definitely crystalline. Sands are most commonly quartz crystals but they can be formed from almost any minerals. For example, the white gypsum sands in New Mexico, or black basalt sands in Hawaii. Many beaches are made of crushed up coral and shells, limestone in other words.\n\nGlass isn't technically stable. Glasses will over time, absorb water and transform into hydrated silicate minerals such as clays. These typically have a very fine crystalline structure, but it's visible under a high power microscope. This hydration process takes a long damn time however. Hundreds of millions of years. Note that in some cases you can measure the process of hydration in obsidian (volcanic glass) to give a rough estimate of it's age.\n\nMoreover silica becomes moderately soluble in water at very high temperature and pressures underground This explains the formation of *Geodes* that are lined with quartz crystals. This also explains the formation of Quartzite rock, which is formed when sandstone is exposed to heat and pressure.\n\nMoreover, the composition of fulgurites (fused soil from lightning) varies greatly based on the soil composition. If it's formed from mostly silica sand, then what you have is slightly melted sand grains mixed with fused silica. Fused silica is not technically glass since it's still composed of very tiny quartz crystals which can be seen with a microscope. This isn't the case with glass. \n\nGlass is difficult to form without prolonged heating and mixing. In fulgurites, you would not expect to find much truly glassy material. Rather they tend to be heterogeneous like a ceramic, being only slightly melted.\n\nFulgurites tend to be quite delicate and break easily, so they're just as prone to mechanical erosion processes and breakage like any normal rock." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
l3tkf
how i can tell if someone is black simply by just hearing their voice no matter how proper they speak?
Any time anyone is on the radio and they're black I can always tell. Even people like Bryant Gumbke that act "white." or whatever people say about him. This is not a joke post, I just don't know how to put it any other way.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l3tkf/eli5_how_i_can_tell_if_someone_is_black_simply_by/
{ "a_id": [ "c2pjcyg", "c2pjgh1", "c2pjkf8", "c2pjcyg", "c2pjgh1", "c2pjkf8" ], "score": [ 8, 3, 6, 8, 3, 6 ], "text": [ "Think about it, different races look different. This goes beyond skin colour, facial features (and by extension the features of the vocal tract) are also race-influenced. One race may tend to have larger noses and nasal cavities than another, or a bigger mouth. These things affect the acoustics and articulations of a person's speech and many of these characteristics can be prevalent throughout a whole race. ", " > no matter how proper they speak?\n\nSo, black people don't speak properly normally?", " > This is not a joke post, I just don't know how to put it any other way.\n\nAs a linguistics student--and my whole discipline would probably agree with me--most people are horribly under-educated when it comes to things related to linguistics and language, and this is probably for the worse.\n\nThat being said, you're doing better than most by at least asking. Keep it up.\n\n > How I can tell if someone is black simply by just hearing their voice no matter how proper they speak?\n\nFirst off, everyone speaks some dialect of a given language. Even if you \"don't have an accent,\" you most certainly do. If you \"don't have an accent,\" chances are you speak the prestige or standard dialect of a given area.\n\nFor example, I speak a relatively standard version of American English, the Midlands dialect. Many people would say that I don't have an accent. However, if I go to London, Ontario, it becomes obvious that I do have an accent. It is different then the one on TV, and people will likely be able to pick me out as an American. If I go to London, England, this becomes even more obvious.\n\nDialects that don't conform to the prestige or standard dialect end up having our biases towards other races, towards other cultures and subcultures, towards urban dwellers and rural dwellers, etc. applied onto them. The dialects in and of themselves have none of these traits; we apply them.\n\nAfrican Americans, then, do not speak \"broken\" or \"improper\" English any more so than you speak \"correct\" or \"proper\" English. Many African Americans speak [African American Vernacular English](_URL_1_) (hereafter AAVE), a fairly divergent dialect of English, related to the other dialects found in North America.\n\nThe grammar of AAVE is very different than the standard dialect in the USA, Midlands North American English (hereafter SAE), and any other North American English dialect. AAVE has a much richer system of expressing tense--the relative position in time from now when an action took, takes, or will take place. For example, you can distinguish between these two sentences:\n\n* I been bought her clothes.\n* I been buyin' her clothes.\n\nIn standard American English, these are ungrammatical. You might switch \"been\" to \"had\" in the first sentence to try and make it correct, and add a \"have\" in the second sentence to try and make it correct, but this would not be what these sentences really *mean* in AAVE. Here's a \"translation:\"\n\n* I bought her clothes a long time ago.\n* I've been buying her clothes for a long time.\n\nThere is really no way to express these meanings without a long phrase tacked on in SAE, but in AAVE, this is simply part of the regular patterning of how verbs work.\n\n > Any time anyone is on the radio and they're black I can always tell.\n\nThis is almost certainly confirmation bias at work. I would guarantee that at some point you have mis-categorized someone's race by the sound of their voice alone, and most likely, [you'd have categorized them as your own race](_URL_0_).\n\nThat being said, there are definite differences, some baseline physical differences, some more linguistic- or culturally-bound. On the whole, these have not been well investigated for any *a priori* distinction we'd think to look at--race (people seem to do okay with this from initial studies), gender (people seem to do well with this from initial studies), sexual orientation (people do quite badly at this from initial studies), etc.", "Think about it, different races look different. This goes beyond skin colour, facial features (and by extension the features of the vocal tract) are also race-influenced. One race may tend to have larger noses and nasal cavities than another, or a bigger mouth. These things affect the acoustics and articulations of a person's speech and many of these characteristics can be prevalent throughout a whole race. ", " > no matter how proper they speak?\n\nSo, black people don't speak properly normally?", " > This is not a joke post, I just don't know how to put it any other way.\n\nAs a linguistics student--and my whole discipline would probably agree with me--most people are horribly under-educated when it comes to things related to linguistics and language, and this is probably for the worse.\n\nThat being said, you're doing better than most by at least asking. Keep it up.\n\n > How I can tell if someone is black simply by just hearing their voice no matter how proper they speak?\n\nFirst off, everyone speaks some dialect of a given language. Even if you \"don't have an accent,\" you most certainly do. If you \"don't have an accent,\" chances are you speak the prestige or standard dialect of a given area.\n\nFor example, I speak a relatively standard version of American English, the Midlands dialect. Many people would say that I don't have an accent. However, if I go to London, Ontario, it becomes obvious that I do have an accent. It is different then the one on TV, and people will likely be able to pick me out as an American. If I go to London, England, this becomes even more obvious.\n\nDialects that don't conform to the prestige or standard dialect end up having our biases towards other races, towards other cultures and subcultures, towards urban dwellers and rural dwellers, etc. applied onto them. The dialects in and of themselves have none of these traits; we apply them.\n\nAfrican Americans, then, do not speak \"broken\" or \"improper\" English any more so than you speak \"correct\" or \"proper\" English. Many African Americans speak [African American Vernacular English](_URL_1_) (hereafter AAVE), a fairly divergent dialect of English, related to the other dialects found in North America.\n\nThe grammar of AAVE is very different than the standard dialect in the USA, Midlands North American English (hereafter SAE), and any other North American English dialect. AAVE has a much richer system of expressing tense--the relative position in time from now when an action took, takes, or will take place. For example, you can distinguish between these two sentences:\n\n* I been bought her clothes.\n* I been buyin' her clothes.\n\nIn standard American English, these are ungrammatical. You might switch \"been\" to \"had\" in the first sentence to try and make it correct, and add a \"have\" in the second sentence to try and make it correct, but this would not be what these sentences really *mean* in AAVE. Here's a \"translation:\"\n\n* I bought her clothes a long time ago.\n* I've been buying her clothes for a long time.\n\nThere is really no way to express these meanings without a long phrase tacked on in SAE, but in AAVE, this is simply part of the regular patterning of how verbs work.\n\n > Any time anyone is on the radio and they're black I can always tell.\n\nThis is almost certainly confirmation bias at work. I would guarantee that at some point you have mis-categorized someone's race by the sound of their voice alone, and most likely, [you'd have categorized them as your own race](_URL_0_).\n\nThat being said, there are definite differences, some baseline physical differences, some more linguistic- or culturally-bound. On the whole, these have not been well investigated for any *a priori* distinction we'd think to look at--race (people seem to do okay with this from initial studies), gender (people seem to do well with this from initial studies), sexual orientation (people do quite badly at this from initial studies), etc." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "http://web.mit.edu/tkp/www/Perrachione_Chiao_Wong_ASA2008_Poster.pdf", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English" ], [], [], [ "http://web.mit.edu/tkp/www/Perrachione_Chiao_Wong_ASA2008_Poster.pdf", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English" ] ]
a9iyt6
why do american schools favor a 9 month school system that inhibits age-appropriate sleep over a more conducive full year schedule?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9iyt6/eli5_why_do_american_schools_favor_a_9_month/
{ "a_id": [ "ecjq5ev", "ecjqtxq", "ecjqxdz", "ecjsgyk", "ecjt9ir", "ecju6i7", "ecjuly7" ], "score": [ 35, 16, 4, 4, 12, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The duration of the school year has no bearing on the duration of the school day and therefore no bearing on sleep. The school day is chosen based on the work day. It is structured such that parents can drop their kids off before work and then pick them up after their after school extra curricular.", "historically its for harvest, same reason as most of the world. the kids get off school at the time historically when they would have been needed to help with the harvest. It adds the benefit of segmenting it into distinct years and giving a long break for the kids to partake in social and formative activities. \n\n\nIn what way do you feel it impacts or inhibits sleep?", "It’s an outdated system. Originally people needed their kids to help with farming in the summer months. And schools weren’t climate controlled. Obviously neither of those things is true any longer. It makes much more sense to go year-round, but have breaks more often.", "How does a 9-month school year inhibit age-appropriate sleep exactly?", "Judging from OP's tone and responses, sounds like you have a serious chip on your shoulder and aren't just asking out of genuine interest.\n\nThe original reason had to do with farming families, which needed help in the summer. But actually the reasons go far deeper than just the help. Basically in America, the responsibility for a child's education rests primarily on the parents. A year-round school is just a step further than a very large majority of American parents are willing to take. The 3 months represents a time for parents to take their kids on vacations, send them to church functions, etc. So whatever reasons that it started, it's an ingrained part of most Americans' culture now, and is unlikely to change.", "US teacher here.\n\nThe school day start times are an atrocious slap in the face to developmental science. Unfortunately, schedules are ruled by two things; athletics/activities and transportation. Sports are king in many parts of the US, and if the school day ends around 3pm, that leaves roughly 2-4 hours for practice before it starts getting dark out and families have dinner. If we moved the school day back so that the day ended at 5pm, kids would regularly get home after 8 or 9 and parents would flip out. Unfortunately it serves the needs of the few over the needs of the many.\n\nTransportation for mid-large districts requires that buses be available for 2-3 separate “rounds” of bus routes before and after school every. single. day. This means that start times are stretched out to facilitate those trips and get the most bang for your taxpayer buck with as few buses and drivers as possible. Public transit just isn’t common in the vast majority of the US, and most cities aren’t built condensed enough for all kids to walk/bike to school (or at least not reliably). We have legislation requiring buses be provided to kids living X distance from school, even if it means that someone’s entire part-time job is to drive one kid to and from school every day (which, yea, does happen).\n\nThe year-round thing is a whole different monster. I recommend watching the Adam Ruins Everything episode on it.", "The reason American kids aren't getting enough sleep isn't because they \"only\" have 9 months of school a year. It's because the American education system is an inefficient piece of shit. Finland uses the same 9 month system but it still has the best education in the world and kids still have plenty of time to sleep. Source: I am Finnish." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
d3xbvs
in the olden days before gyms were a thing how did people gain large amounts of muscle mass?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d3xbvs/eli5_in_the_olden_days_before_gyms_were_a_thing/
{ "a_id": [ "f05qqyq", "f05qsal", "f05qujg", "f05qwsh", "f05rl2c", "f05rzlm" ], "score": [ 16, 2, 8, 5, 304, 43 ], "text": [ "In general, they probably didn’t attain the amount of muscle mass you see on super “ripped” people today, but when you have to use your body to do heavy manual labor over long periods of time, especially repetitive tasks that work most of the body in some way, you get fit and muscular.", "Working/Training with barrels, stones, ropes. Anything can approximate weights or other exercise equipment.\n\nBonus go watch Rocky 4! Beats the high-tech trained Russian by working out on a farm.", "Unfortunately very simple answer. By working manual jobs. Look at the old old days, any kind of trade like lumberjack blacksmith etc. They'll be swoll asf.", "Among other thing, physical labor from a tender age due to either an industrial or agrarian job from the tender age of 12 because of lax labor laws and few safety restrictions. You'd be surprised the kind of gains a 13 year old boy can expect stacking square bales of hay by hand for 10 hours a day.", "Ever wonder where the term \"Dumbbell\" comes from? People noticed that bell-ringers were pretty ripped, an unusual thing back in the day. Lots of people were strong from manual labor, but the muscles would hardly be bulging. Bell ringers though, were *yoked*. \n\nSomeone realized that yanking on ropes connected to a few tons of bell was a pretty sweet workout, but you know... kind of impractical for most people. Even if you had the money, pissing people off by ringing a bell all of the time wouldn't work. So... someone figured out that you could use a system of pulleys, ropes, and counterweights to imitate the workout, but without the sound; this would be a silent (dumb) bell. \n\nOver time the workout gear changed, and \"dumbbell\" came to refer to the weights we're familiar with today.", "Gigantic muscles, like we see in some of today's bodybuilders, weren't really a desired thing in the past. Muscles were certainly admired in some cultures, as well as strength, but typically people admired muscles that were strengthened in order to DO something, whereas today sometimes bodybuilders simply get big for the sake of being big. \n\n\nIn ancient Rome, soldiers and athletes of all kinds (including Gladiators) would practice a wide range of exercises designed to improve strength, speed, flexibility, fighting skills, etc. The types of exercises depended on the goals of the person, what sort of sport or fighting style they used. Some of the wealthier men also liked to go to local gyms, or train with slaves or employees, in order to keep fit and strong and stay up on their fighting skills. \n\n\nIn ancient Greece they had gymnasiums called xystos, where competitors in the Olympic games would get training for their specific sports like running, wrestling, etc. Wrestling is actually still a very popular sport and training exercise in cultures around the world. \n\n\nWe also have evidence of special \"athletic\" diets from certain points in history. Archaeologists working in what is now Ephesus, Turkey, found a grave containing the bones of 67 Gladiators dating back 2000 years. After careful analysis they discovered that these men were eating very little meat and high amounts of legumes, grains, and non-meat foods high in carbs and calcium." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
b2g8fq
do fat people have more skin or is it just stretched?
What I mean by this is does their skin just stretch to acomodate the extra fat or does their body produce more skin cells?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b2g8fq/eli5_do_fat_people_have_more_skin_or_is_it_just/
{ "a_id": [ "eisgpvr", "eish2ss", "eisyltz" ], "score": [ 8, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Both. Where the skin stretches, more skin will grow to alleviate the stress on the skin. \n\nThink in the same way as when we grow from a kid to an adult. \n", "Follow up question: do they grow more hair follicles or do they spread further apart?", "They should offer to remove excess skin for free then store it for skin grafts for burn victims or something.\nSeems a waste\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
2lh249
u.s. what does this switch in power in the senate mean for america, what can we expect to see in the next two years?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lh249/eli5_us_what_does_this_switch_in_power_in_the/
{ "a_id": [ "cluoczq" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The Democrats retain filibuster and veto power, so it's not like the Republicans can just ram things through.\n\nI just find it really disheartening that the republicans have been rewarded by a strategy of hateful attacks, political brinkmanship, and fear mongering from the latest news (how absurd is it that republicans got points for Ebola?).\n\nMore than anything, I expect a lot of business as usual and positioning for '16. It's not clear to me if the republicans will continue their attacks on Obama, or will try to pass enough meaningful legislation / compromises and find some charismatic leadership to take credit for the Obama recovery in '16.\n\nThe Clinton - Gingrich combo was productive after some spats, and before they amped up the Clinton witch hunt right before the election." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
4ccb9l
why does salsa get more spicy/hot when heated?
I usually add salsa when making cheese toasties (Bread, salsa + ham/cabanossi and cheese) why does it get more spicy when in the toaster, or oven.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ccb9l/eli5_why_does_salsa_get_more_spicyhot_when_heated/
{ "a_id": [ "d1gw7ly" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "So Capsaicin activates certain receptors that are sensitive to heat and therefore creates a 'burning' sensation in your mouth. Since these receptors are already activated when you're eating spicy foods, you become extra sensitive to temperature increases, which is the receptor's primary purpose. Your brain has been tricked, in a way, into a false positive inflammatory sensation, so an actual potential inflammatory source (the heat of the salsa) triggers overdrive for receptors that were already activated." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
6a3cjl
why do you need to intake more carbs and fats to burn off the fat you already have?
I've recently started bearing down on my weight lifting, but now I'm also hitting the elliptical to burn off my fat. I hear its very hard to gain muscle while shedding fat since you could also lose muscle. So I've started taking in more protein for the muscle growth/retention, but so many physical trainers say you also need to take in more carbs and fats, which makes no sense to me since that's exactly what I'm trying to burn off. Can someone explain to me how this works?? Thank you.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6a3cjl/eli5_why_do_you_need_to_intake_more_carbs_and/
{ "a_id": [ "dhbgidm", "dhbrj1l" ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text": [ "I worked as a physical trainer for a couple years after I got out of the military.\n\nCan you build muscle while losing fat? Outside of anabolic steroid use the answer is pretty much a no (you can but on a smaller scale, it's much more efficient to work on losing weight while retaining muscle than to work on losing fat while gaining muscle).\n\nTo do that you just need to keep your protein high. My personal thoughts are 1.5 grams per pound of body weight while eating an overall caloric deficit will get you great results.\n\nSpread it between 6-7 meals\n\nDrink 1 gallon of water a day, more if you're a big dude (220+). At my biggest and leanest I was 255 pounds at 6'3 and ~12% body fat, not super lean but I had visible abs. I was drinking over 1.5 gallons of water a day and eating ~6,000 calories.\n\nI have no idea why they are telling you that you should eat more carbs and fats while trying to lose weight. Eating some is good...I personally run a macro split of ~50% protein ~35% carbs and ~15% fat + fish oil.\n\nThe standard is 40/40/20.\n\nGood luck to you mate. Keep running and keep lifting. ", "It takes nothing to burn fat. Your trainer was likely just advising you to try and maintain a balanced diet, or to up your calorie intake to make up for increased physical activity. Speaking strictly about burning fat, and nothing else, there is nothing extra you need to consume." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
1dr1dn
why is medical knowledge not part of the standard educational curriculum?
Health seems like the most important factor in human wellbeing. Whatever else you have going for you, if you don't have your health, you're finished. So why isn't healthcare part of the standard educational curriculum? Not just as disease treatment, but disease prevention, and just teaching people to be in such a way that they tend not to get sick, seems like the first thing we should teach people after reading and writing. Particularly nowadays, since it's easy to spread knowledge and educational videos to everyone, why not add medical stuff to the curriculum so we have a healthy, knowledgeable society?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dr1dn/eli5_why_is_medical_knowledge_not_part_of_the/
{ "a_id": [ "c9t0i8k", "c9t0sls", "c9t11pf", "c9t13ef" ], "score": [ 2, 5, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "It was part of the curriculum for me. Health class was a requirement. ", "Next you will want to teach them about budgets, savings, diets, exercise and sex. It is hard enough to get them to learn the basics like greek gods, cursive and algebra I am not sure we can squeeze in your pet projects. Sorry.", "You mean health class? ", "What, you mean slip in something that's actually useful. Good God bee_hawk, how dare you having future generations have a better idea about how to take care of themselves." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
1ow855
if lightbulbs flicker from on to off very quickly, half the time on and half the time off, how come we humans see the light as on and not off?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ow855/eli5if_lightbulbs_flicker_from_on_to_off_very/
{ "a_id": [ "ccw91mf", "ccw92qw", "ccwa0eb", "ccwaupc", "ccwc87b" ], "score": [ 6, 9, 2, 16, 3 ], "text": [ "The human brain tends to blur fast action. Sort of like how a video is actually 30 individual frames per second, but we interpret it as a smooth motion. Plus, lightbulbs tend to stay hot/lit for that fraction of a second before cooling off/going dark. Sometimes I can see LED lights \"flicker\" because their ON/OFF action is so abrupt.", "The light bulb need time to stop glowing. But before it goes ot there already is electricity again heating it up.", "If you turn your head quickly you see everything in blur, it's the same thing with refresh rates and such", "Persistance of vision because your eyes sense light not the lack of it.", "It's not half. For incandescent lights, the filaments are literally white-hot. The zero voltage time is very short, and they don't have time to cool off. CFL and LED would be similar, except electronics, etc. would keep the bulb on. Even if it *were* off 60 times per second, the slow response time of human vision would average it out to a dimmer light. Old TV sets had a 'raster scan' at about 30 times per second, and one seldom noticed the flicker. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [] ]
51xzl6
why do travel sites allow you to search their competitors when performing a search?
A great number seem to do it. What's the incentive to showing you a lower rate from a competitor you may not have even known existed? There has to be a good reason.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51xzl6/eli5_why_do_travel_sites_allow_you_to_search/
{ "a_id": [ "d7fqt3i", "d7framy" ], "score": [ 5, 3 ], "text": [ "A majority of the travel sites are owned by a few large companies. When these sites show their \"competitors\" they're often showing deals from sister sites, so the money still goes to them in the long run. \n\n", "They figure you're going to shop around anyway. If you order from the competitor *but referred by this site* then this site can get a referral fee, instead of nothing." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
5tvbxu
why do websites push there mobile version when its usually inferior in functionality and usability ?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tvbxu/eli5_why_do_websites_push_there_mobile_version/
{ "a_id": [ "ddpa7hh", "ddpbhu4", "ddpbjsr", "ddpc1aa", "ddpdj4v", "ddpdw0p", "ddpe0i7", "ddpgwlz", "ddpj7h6", "ddpjc5z", "ddpw15y", "ddpwamo", "ddpwj92", "ddpwnbu", "ddpxqdq", "ddpy5qy", "ddpymrm" ], "score": [ 2, 333, 39, 6, 19, 6, 6, 127, 4, 2, 17, 3, 10, 13, 4, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Because it is superior in accessibility and more likely to be shared since people usually tweet or facebook update or whatever while they're on the go, and not while they're just at homing sitting on their computers doing nothing.", "Load times, cleaner design and the perception is that if you're browsing on a mobile device, you want quick, easy access to the most common parts to that website. Not a complete experience, otherwise you would be on a desktop browser. Whether that is right or wrong varies from person to person but essentially, the website creator / business is just trying to be helpful by scaling back on what they deem unnecessary clutter for mobile browsing. ", "To add onto points already made: because you pay for data and a well made mobile site uses less of it.", "Because they allow the website to notify you when there are new updates to the content. This will keep you coming back for more content, and allow them to collect more ad revenue. It also allows for better tracking of what you are doing. It's much easier to track precisely what the use is doing on a native app rather than via the web browser. Also, some apps collect other information from the phone such as a contact list or a list of associated accounts for other apps like Facebook or Twitter.", "It also encourages brand/site loyalty. For instance, it is easier and faster to use the amazon app than to open a web browser and go to the site. This also means if I want to buy something, but don't care where, I'm more likely to use the amazon app than, say, open the web browser and shop around on walmart or target's website. The same with news sites, etc. It's easier to open a specific app, so people are less likely to stray.\n", "Because on average 65% of visitors to a website are on mobile, so the mobile version, despite sometimes having less functionality, is much more useable for the majority of visitors. ", "Because they control the advertising that's pushed out to you through their app, where Google (or whoever is contracted) controls the ads on their websites.", "Web Dev here. Devs are always trying to make the UX (User Experience) as best as it can be. Sometimes deadlines have to be met and for the most part, mobile traffic has traditionally not been as important. \n\nThis is all changing now as mobile traffic dominates the web. \n\nTL; DR traditionally lack of focus in the mobile area, but this is changing", "Also websites that are considered mobile friendly or provide a mobile style sheet gain bonus points when it comes to website ranking in the Search Engine ranking process and are therefore more likely to rank higher in the SERP (Search Engine Results Page). So if a website has a half arsed mobile layout it could be either being improved or being used to help them gain a competitive edge in the ranking process in regards to their competitors. \n\nWhen you google a website you see (Mobile friendly) next to some results!\n\n(Along with the other reasons suggested)!", "Usually, because the people behind the desktop site didn't care enough about making a good mobile site and then suddenly everyone was spending more time on their phones and the companies were caught offguard.\n\nSame reason so many desktop sites look so bad. The companies behind them don't care or don't think anyone else cares.", "welcome to r/conspiracies \n its because they want you to download the App! Most people have no inclination to download an App when they can view it on their phone browser. companies push the mobile versions(and engineer them to suck) so that you'll eventually give up and get the app. Cause it so much better. Ever hear people talk about that BaconReader app? Same shit.\n\n also, I know this isn't conspiracies....sorry. but I actually do believe this. Maybe not for everyone but definitely Facebook. Their stupid App needs access to everything on your phone...and I refuse to use it. /endrant. woah sorry didn't mean to rant", "Also wtf are you stopping pinch to zoom, it's the nicest thing about a small screen and we have to put up with stupid websites disabling it.", "Over 60% (or more) of web traffic comes from mobile visitors. It's important for SEO to reduce bounce rates and increase time-on site. By not having a convenient mobile site will damage overall visibility (even on social pages) because people will leave. If a site \"pushes\" a mobile version then it's an old site and probably limited in great modern features. What people want is a \"responsive web\" structure that fluidly collapses across all browsers, and doesn't require a 2nd mobile design file which is expensive and outdated. ", "Lot of great answers here and they all point out important aspects of it, but the main reason native apps are pushed is User Engagement. I don't know the whys of it, I suspect it's a psychological thing where you feel like you \"have\" something and so you're more prone to using it, but the data backs it up; if you can get your users to install your app they're more likely to keep coming back and using your product or service which equals more ad revenue or more purchases or more brand recognition or whatever they're going for.\n\nYeah, sometimes a certain product works better as a mobile app (games, super-rich UIs) but the main reason is engagement. There's something about the application showing up in that list that causes people to use it more and this is why companies push for it. It makes them money. They ultimately don't give a flying leap about the user's experience so long as they keep forking over (the two are usually related but not always). I'm not sure why this is since users were more than happy to jump ship years ago and get applications out of their Start Menu and into webapps like email, docs, spreadsheets, and even a lot of games, but that's how it is.", "I haven't seen this listed yet, so I'll jump in late:\n\nBecause it's a mobile device, which likely means:\n\nA) A smaller screen\nB) A much less precise instrument for pressing links (a.k.a., your fat-ass finger)\n\nThese two things complicate each other. It's obvious that having a smaller screen means less being on a screen at a time (such as menus, links, or the information people actually want to see). Meanwhile, using a finger to press links means most people are less accurate, therefore links need to be bigger...taking up more of that precious screen space. (For instance, all the tiny links at the top of the Reddit Desktop Site, of your favorite subs. For some, such as WTF, my finger covers that, as well as parts of the links to the left or right.)\n\nTo compensate, mobile sites will reduce the number of links available, more out of necessity than anything. Less options = inferior functionality, or in the best instance, harder to find functionality.\n\nTo further complicate the issue...with HTML, there are simply less things someone can do than with their own programing. Such as having the now-familiar set of navigation buttons ever-present on the bottom of the screen that apps can do. Also, with a mobile web-browser, even with disappearing controls, precious screen space is taken up by controls that have nothing to do with the site.\n\nAnd, also, some of the aspects of HTML that designers often use are directed a cursor-control, as opposed to finger control The most obvious of these is what's known as \"Rollover\". When your cursor goes over something, it may highlight, change, or pop something up to tell you your cursor is on it, or to give you more information. There is no equivalent to doing this with a finger...a tap = a click, and even if something highlights when your finger touches it, you aren't going to know because your finger is over it!\n\nA mobile app, while at times less functional and certainly less familiar, will allow developers to create an experience designed for everything mobile has to do, rather than try to force of cursor-based world onto your finger.\n\nThis is one big reason why, pre-2007, you did not see a lot of popular touch-screen computing platforms. It's not like there weren't touch screens available...there were modification systems to turn Macs and Windows machines into touchscreens. But the major reason they did not catch on was that shoehorning a User Interface based on a cursor into a finger is not easy. The most common complaint I heard was that the buttons on Microsoft Word or Adobe Photoshop were too damn tiny. It took one company to say \"F it, we'll build an entire new OS around touch interface\" to help the world open up to the popularity of it.\n\nThis is still a longstanding UI issue, and one that is still being debated today. Microsoft Windows has spent years to create a unified OS that can do both, and particularly the first attempt was panned profusely. Apple continues to maintain separate OS's (Now 4 versions, including TvOS and WatchOS), but has faced difficulty in getting users to learn using all of them. Neither approach is failing, but both have faced significant challenges.\n\nThat last part will be my final point, I promise: The mobile UI experience is constantly changing. First there were no styluses, now there are. Pressure-sensitive screens have given new ways for users to interface with apps, but not all phones have them. Not to mention the controls for voice-interface that are all over the place. There are yearly changes to the mobile environment to try and improve user experience...but that means developers have to be on a fast learning curve to learn how to implement them...and then hope they aren't abandoned and changed. And that's before talking about how to implement the voice control abilities on iOS are different than doing it on Android (not to mention Samsung's separate stuff), doubling or tripling to workload before you even talk about Microsoft's.\n\nIt's a complicated, extraordinarily fast-moving world in Mobile, even for the already quick-changing tech world. Developers are playing catch up constantly, and that means the users are far behind... And there's no easy solution, other than to hope that the UI world finds its groove in the next few years...\n\nOh, rumors say the home button's going away on phones??? Oh boy...guess you're going to have to tighten your grip on the reins of this Mobile OS life for a few more years.\n\nEDIT: Yes, obviously cost was another reason why touchscreens were rare pre-2007, but popularity would drive that...the more you can mass produce, the lower production costs can become. And the demand just wasn't there...and while I can't produce scholastic proof, my experience of being in tech since the 1990's will tell you the lack of satisfaction of touchscreen interfaces helped limit that demand.", "Don't think I saw anyone mention that in an app they can request more permissions and information from your mobile device, making it easier to identify and track you in order to serve you ads, and for marketing intelligence & research. You may notice apps often ask for way more information than is necessary to do simple things.", "So pushing a mobile version of a website is different than pushing a mobile app... and that's why the answers are all over the place.\n\nWebsites push a mobile version because the desktop version usually sucks on mobile. A mobile version fits better on smaller screens and doesn't take as long to load. You shouldn't be asked to view the mobile version on your phone, it should just happen when you visit a website.\n\nApps on the other hand are pushed because they have more power. You may forget about a new website you visit, but if you install an app, you'll see it every time you swipe through your homescreen. Other than being on the home-screen, they can send push notifications, they can collect more data, get your location, have in-app purchases, connect to your social media, etc. So apps are more addictive and habit-forming, which means they make more money for companies. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
4ju1kc
why do mma fighters peak at an older age than sports like american football, baseball, and hockey?
[deleted]
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ju1kc/eli5_why_do_mma_fighters_peak_at_an_older_age/
{ "a_id": [ "d39l4n9", "d39n2s6", "d39odz4", "d39ty0j", "d39v1kg" ], "score": [ 14, 26, 5, 3, 4 ], "text": [ "Note: I'm not an mma expert, just a fan\n\nFrom my observations, experience is very important in mma and any combat sports for that matter. Once you've seen anything that your opponent can throw at you, it becomes easier to react to. If you think about it, mma is simply reacting to what the other fighter is doing. \n\nAnother reason could be that they figure out the most effective training techniques and find the best coaches for themselves. \n\nAlso, don't forget, many UFC fighters only fight about 3 times per year, while players in other sports take heavy hits almost daily, or in baseball, play nearly every single day. ", "Number of games. An NHL player comes in between 18 and 21 and plays 82 games a season, not counting post season. MLB is 162 games a season. Football is 16/season but is a high impact/high explosiveness sport and doesn't account for different positions. RBs are typically on the downhill by 30. Where multiple QBs have been dominant into their late 30s. Randy Couture had 30 fights. Chuck Liddell 29. It's a measure of attrition. ", "You should rethink your comparison first. Why compare average pro age to champions age? Compare average mlb /nhl/NFL/nba age to average ufc fighter age. \n\nNot positive as I don't follow ufc but I think your original comparison is flawed. Maybe compare MVP's of those leagues to the UFC champs. Barry bonds won MLB MVP at the age of 40. ", "I am surprised no one has pointed out how relatively new UFC is. It takes a while to rise through the ranks, and at least with wrestlers many go for the olympics first before going UFC, which could have them start older than other pro sports.", "Not too many people have been training MMA since they were 6 like the other major sports. That's a lot of hours of training. \n\nYou either have it or you don't by the time you are 18-21. On the flip side, most MMA fighters don't even pick the sport up until they are that age.\n\nThere is also an infinite amount of techniques to learn in MMA. Simply put, no one has mastered all of the techniques. You cannot be an Olympic wrestler, professional boxer/kickboxer, Muay Thai, BJJ, ect. There is simply not enough hours in your life to become that good at everything. Most other sports, you have the vast majority of your technical knowledge by the time you hit the major leagues.\n\nNHL defensemen and goalies, NFL quarterbacks and offensive linemen. Those are some examples in other sports where players need the extra experience since there is just so much to learn. As a result they are in their primes in their early 30's. Running backs, wide receivers, NHL forwards. While of course they are always learning, that knowledge doesn't make up for lost athleticism." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [] ]
1nt8gg
why was the european union created?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nt8gg/eli5_why_was_the_european_union_created/
{ "a_id": [ "cclubkj", "cclvgrr", "cclwtt5" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "ostensibly to prevent another war", "Also, food-security. During the world wars food would be a scarce resource. The EU subsidizes farmers in the EU so they can compete with cheap food from outside the EU which was made with a lower wage for the workers.", "This could probably be more accurately answered on [/r/askhistorians](_URL_0_)" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/askhistorians" ] ]
abps76
augmented reality/virtual reality
How does Augmented Reality (or AR) work? Is it any different from how Virtual Reality (VR) works? What are the main differences? & #x200B; NOTE: I (vaguely) know WHAT AR and VR are, I just don' know how they operate or what separates the two.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/abps76/eli5_augmented_realityvirtual_reality/
{ "a_id": [ "ed28295" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Virtual reality is looking into a computer generated world you interact with your digital avatar. So technologies like oculus rift, vive, samsung gearVR, Haptic gloves, Omni VR treadmill, etc.\nAugmented reality is basically adding digital objects to our current real world. This can be superimposed onto physical objects in our world. For example, you have a floor then we can spawn virtual objects on it like a chair. Another example is using the Hololens to play minecraft on a table and seeing the whole minecraft world. \nThe challenges of augmented reality is it has to work in various environments and settings. So usually it needs a point of reference to get to started" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]