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
2f38kg
how come when the internet is really slow it makes websites look like they're from 1997?
Sometimes when my internet is taking a really long time to load, websites (like Netflix for example) don't load any images and instead just load some words on a white background? It looks like the internet went back in time.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2f38kg/eli5_how_come_when_the_internet_is_really_slow_it/
{ "a_id": [ "ck5hc7t", "ck5j3a7" ], "score": [ 5, 2 ], "text": [ "this happens because the style sheet for that page hasn't loaded, yet. the style sheet contains all the information on a web page's look and layout. if your browser hasn't downloaded the style sheet yet, it doesn't know what the background color should be, or the text color, or how to position text and images on the page, and so everything you see is basically how the browser renders a page by default, when there's no style information.", "It's not like a 1997 website.\n\nWebsites are composed by two things, html which is the body of the page and the style sheet aka css which is the style of the Web page then the website can have scripts to make it interactive with the user.\n\nWhen the page \"looks like a 1997 website\" the css is not loaded.\n\nYou can see the html and css by pressing ctrl + u if you are on chrome." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
6nh0ug
why are insects so annoyingly good at avoiding my swat attempts?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nh0ug/eli5_why_are_insects_so_annoyingly_good_at/
{ "a_id": [ "dk9dots", "dk9ed63", "dk9gsg9" ], "score": [ 16, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The species & offspring whose nervous systems didn't emphasize maneuverability and fast reflexes were swatted into extinction long ago.", "Flys for example perceive time slower than humans because of their visual system. They also escape backwards when swatted.", "They actually aren't. What they're good at is escaping as you hit them. The impact doesnt hurt at all if they're in the air, and then they just fly out of the way.\n\nYou can test this yourself easily. Just get your hand wet and try to grab an insect out of the air.You'll be surprised how often you succeed." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
4ig21k
why do doors close much easier if the window in the same room is open?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ig21k/eli5_why_do_doors_close_much_easier_if_the_window/
{ "a_id": [ "d2xr9st", "d2xrekv" ], "score": [ 53, 3 ], "text": [ "Because the room is full of air. If the windows are all closed, you're pushing against the air, and a subsequent increase in pressure. If the windows are open, the air has room to flow. \n\nImagine the room was full of pudding instead. What's easier, to pack all the pudding tighter, or to push some of the pudding out the opposite wall?", "Ah yeah that makes perfect sense! Love the pudding model haha thanks!\n\nHowever what explains the feeling of the door *forcefully* pulling away from me like it *wants* to be closed?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
b98vbi
- i just read the titan, one of saturn's moons literally has massive quantities of hydrocarbons (methane, ethane) so wouldn't that help prove the theory of abiogenic petroleum origins or confirm that life does or once existed on titan of the origins of its hydrocarbons are "fossil fuels"?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b98vbi/eli5_i_just_read_the_titan_one_of_saturns_moons/
{ "a_id": [ "ek30hc7", "ek31i3s" ], "score": [ 3, 10 ], "text": [ "* I meant to say \"that life does or once existed on Titan and are the sources of its\" fossil fuels\"? ", "No. Just because something is made in a biological process on Earth doesn't mean that's the only way for it to exist. Life is just series of complex chemical reactions. These same reactions can take place without life. Petroleum on Earth is a huge and varied mixture of both simple and complex hydrocarbons and organic material. Extraterrestrial hydrocarbons are relatively simple and have no organic material. A methane molecule is just a carbon atom with 4 hydrogen atoms attached. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and carbon is the 6th most abundant. There's nothing special about 2 extremely common elements forming simple molecules.\n\nThere's very little (and I'm being generous here) evidence for the abiogenic oil hypothesis, and quite a lot of evidence against it. As for life on Titan. the presence of extraterrestrial hydrocarbons is intriguing, but we have to take into account the specific hydrocarbons we're talking about and where they're found. In the case of Titan, the presence of large amounts of simple hydrocarbons doesn't suggests life based on everything else we know about Titan (although we can't rule it out for sure either). " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
3yhwkr
why do fingerprints not get ruined at crime scenes by outside sources?
Just watched a crime movie and this question came to me; Why is it that when detectives wear rubber gloves at a crime scene (around the fingerprints of the perpetrator) that the fingerprints are never ruined by the interaction? What things make prints unusable? How can simply wiping down a surface erase all evidence of prints in the first place?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yhwkr/eli5_why_do_fingerprints_not_get_ruined_at_crime/
{ "a_id": [ "cydlxvu", "cydmlx0", "cydtasj" ], "score": [ 7, 3, 5 ], "text": [ "I took a biotech class where we learned how to fingerprint. The print is ussually the residue from oil on your skin. When you wipe it, it smears the oil smudge which makes the tiny ridges unrecognizable or it just cleans it off entirely. To find them, you use dust that sticks to the oil, and then you can capture the print with tape or any kind of adhesive. In movies the prints are often found and taken way more easily than they actually would be. And you need to be careful with them, because they can easy to ruin.\n\nThe gloves keep the investigators prints from getting on the crime scene.", "u/aldy127 gave a good answer, but the essence of the answer is that that fingerprints are easily ruined, even if you are wearing gloves. Gloves, if you're being careful, help to reduce the possibility of damage and also prevent contamination with foreign DNA, BBQ sauce that may be traced to a specific eatery, etc., etc.\n\nIf you want an example of how wiping down a surface can ruin prints try this. Eat some potato chips, then put your fingers on your phone screen. You'll see oily prints on the screen, and if you tilt it this way and that you'll find that in some angles the prints are really clear. Now take a paper towel, a bit of toilet paper, your sleeve, or even the side of your hand, wipe the surface, and look again. You'll see that the prints are either completely gone, or so smeared that they are pretty much unrecognizable.\n\nThink of prints as an oil painting that hasn't dried yet. It doesn't take much to ruin the painting, just as it doesn't take much to ruin the prints.", "Police officer here. Can attest that fingerprints are quite often difficult to obtain on a crime scene. I have, in the past, obtained prints that led to persons of interest that later led to arrests and convictions. That number of convictions is CONSIDERABLY lower than the number of times I've dusted for prints. The most frequent problem I run into ( followed closely by partial prints, smudges, and prints on porous surfaces which basically absorbs the oil in a fingerprint ), is that the surfaces a suspect touch is usually a surface that the homeowner or other persons touch regularly. I may dust a large jar used as a change drawer and I get 80 partial prints, a bunch of lap over prints and a few solitary prints. I can't send 100 prints to the lab, so I have to pick the best 3-5 prints and collect them and hope they aren't the homeowners. Quite often it comes back from the lab as \" no match \" or \" print submitted was of too poor quality to process \" or more rarely it comes back to the victim or homeowner. Objects that suspects touch also are object the homeowner or victim touch everyday such as door handles, drawer handles, change jars, a vehicles gear shift or door handle, etc etc. \n\nI know of an officer collecting prints on scene who sent one to the lab. It came back as him. Lol. He accidentally touched something bare handed, later dusted and seen a perfect print, collected it and sent it off only to come to him. We still give him crap to this day. \n\nIn closing, prints are more often than not unrecoverable. Rarely they are perfect and come back to a suspect. \n\nIf your using shows like NCIS, law and order or such to learn more about fingerprints please look elsewhere. Those shows have been a nightmare for me to work with. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
6gldk0
how do they remove large dead animals at zoos and aquariums?
Recently at SeaWorld one of their orcas died, and I was wondering how do they remove the dead animal and what do they do with the body
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gldk0/eli5_how_do_they_remove_large_dead_animals_at/
{ "a_id": [ "dir78m0", "dir7rol", "dira5l7", "dirai04", "diratyv", "dirblco", "dircj6i", "dircpda", "dird9i7", "dirhu1q", "dirqdfh", "dirrf50", "dis42lc", "disekg7" ], "score": [ 111, 92, 157, 690, 13, 27, 41, 16, 10, 13, 3, 11, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Can't speak for seaworld, but Marineland in Niagara Falls used to bury their animals, including orcas and belugas in mass pit graves. They were ordered by the government to stop a few years ago though\n\n[source](_URL_0_) ", "They ~~autopsy~~ necropsy it, save samples for research or education, then cremation. They don't blow them up and let the homeless steal the meat, like some other idiot posted.", "I've worked at a couple of zoos now where larger mammals (rhino, elephant) have died. In both situations a necropsy was performed first - they're almost always performed for any zoo animal. Afterwards, chainsaws and a whole lot of manpower are used to cut up the animal into movable pieces and transport them for disposal. Depending on the kind of enclosure, cranes or other kinds of moving equipment may also be used. \nFor smaller (but still large) animals, like alpaca or kangaroo, they're usually hauled onto a tarp, carried by a team and loaded onto a van. These are typically cremated or properly disposed of depending on city ordinance. ", "I work for a Marine Science Centre, so I can't speak for Zoos, but whenever a large marine mammal passes away we either haul them out using fork lifts or cranes. Usually we'll notice a deterioration in their physical health months or even up to a year beforehand, and so would move them to a separate \"quarantine\" pool to give them proper treatment or end-of-life care, and this pool can facilitate their removal when/if they pass.\n\nOnce removed they're taken to a local animal sciences facility (any of a few local universities) where they undergo a necropsy (autopsy for animals). Samples are taken and tested to determine cause of death (whenever possible) and usually these samples are also preserved for further/future scientific study. \n\nDepending on the animal and the permits aquired, certain samples like skin and bones can even be re-used for educational, public programs to teach folks about the life in our oceans! Surprisingly few public actually realize or are knowledgeable of the diversity of life beyond our beaches and ports.\n\nEdit: formatting/spelling \n\nEdit 2: I appear to have recieved gold on one of my comments here. Just wanted to say if you, dear Redditor, so wish to gild, please instead consider donating to a local (or favorite) AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) or CAZA (same as AZA but Canadian) accredited Marine Centre or Zoo.\n\nNot all of us are evil and for profit or entertainment. Sometimes (as per the federal government) an animal is unfortunately deemed unreleasable and without facilities to house them they would otherwise be euthanized.\n\nAnd they can help further scientific research into their species and hopefully continue to preserve their species in the wild. Thanks!", "Depends on the zoo or aquarium. They almost always do a necropsy on the animal. Depending on the size, they'll offer the body to local zoological lab/museums or natural history museums for their collections and research if they have a way to prep it(I worked in a museum prep lab). Otherwise they'll either bury it or incinerate it.", "An uncle of mine was illiterate from birth complications. In the 80's and 90's he worked for the city as a heavy equipment operator and when an exotic animal died at the zoo, they told him to take a backhoe and make it disappear. There are quite a few exotic animals buried somewhere on city land.... but that's probably not protocol anymore.", "We had a zoo vet in our zoo and aquarium science class in college talk about a press conference he did early in his career after a giraffe died. The word chainsaw was used and he no longer talks to the press. ", "Have you ever been to BBQ night at the zoo?", "My ex-gf worked as an animal keeper at Disney's Animal Kingdom for a few years. When that orca passed away at seaworld I asked her that exact same question. And we went in depth about what would happen if another large animal like a giraffe passed away as well.\n\nI cannot say that this information is fact, but I would assume that she had absolutely no reason to lie to me.\n\nBasically what she said was, they will chop the animal up into manageable pieces and haul it out. I believe this is usually done in the dead of night behind closed doors.\n\nIn this day in age, with helicopters, drones, and high levels of activism, an orca would be very tough to do that with. In a very interesting coincidence, \"construction\" was planned and begun slightly prior to the orca's passing. Which meant that tarps, etc were put up to keep the general public (or helicopters and drones) from seeing what would have been done in and around that tank.\n\nAnother redditor commented that an animal would be sent out for testing/autopsy. In places like Disney or seaworld, these animals already undergo routine medical exams, so that wouldn't be necessary. They already know the health and issues that an animal might be experiencing.", "Sometimes they will allow their predators to eat animals who have died of natural causes. I saw a deer placed in a cougar exhibit once with a sign explaining this. Not exactly a large animal, but a clever idea if done safely.\n\nI wanna see a dead beluga in the polar bear exhibit!", "I do contract work in an animal biofuel facility and we sometimes get giraffes and other large animals from the bigger city zoos. Mostly it's just cows and livestock but there have been zebras and giraffes too. ", "I remember a number of years ago (probably like 20) there was a story where a zoo fed one of the dead Giraffes to their lions. I remember because stupid people got all upset about it. ", "I saw a video just below this post of someone detonating c4 in a video game and thought it was related to this topic for a good ten seconds. Beached whale style baby. Lol", "Have you ever had a hot dog at the zoo?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2013/01/14/marineland_ordered_to_stop_burying_animals_onsite.html" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
2cyvbk
if the usa strongly believes in the right to bear arms as well as strongly disbelieving in socialism, why do you bother with a publicly-funded police force and not a system based on vigilantism?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cyvbk/eli5_if_the_usa_strongly_believes_in_the_right_to/
{ "a_id": [ "cjke1qk", "cjke4qk", "cjkejf3" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "Because people are not perfect/always abide by law.\n\nWhat will people do to gangs?\n\nIt just won't work.", "A police force does not automatically mean socialism.\n\nMany people in the US believe the job of the state is to prevent others from being able to take away your rights, and that that is the only legitimate function of the state. In fact, I'm not sure anyone aside from the most crazy people think there should be no police force at all.", "I'm an American citizen and I hope I can answer your question.\n\nWhen the US drafted its Declaration of Independence in 1776, it claimed that all men are entitled to certain inalienable rights, and that among these are *life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.*\n\nLater, as the constitution was being drafted, the founding fathers of the US government often clashed with each other on how best to preserve these rights while still creating a government that could uphold order and the rule of law. One group of people (called *Federalists*) were more for the idea of a strong federal government. An opposing group (called *anti-Federalists*) were against a strong federal government, and wanted power and liberties reserved for the individual or state.\n\nIn the end, these two sides made a compromise that resulted in the birth of the US Constitution. While it is a federal system of government (with a national government as well as state governments), anti-Federalists were able to have 10 amendments added to the constitution which are known as the *Bill of Rights.* These amendments say there are certain individual freedoms that are not to be infringed upon by the government, such as freedom of speech, religion, right to due process, etc. One of these amendments, the 2nd, reserves the right of a citizen to bear arms.\n\nAs the country developed and rose to power over the next 2 centuries, we see an aversion to socialism when compared to many other industrialized nations, meaning that the government was more hands-off with the economy. Still, the rule of law was and is greatly respected in the U.S. Violent crime in particular is taken very seriously because it is one of the easiest ways to infringe upon other citizens' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Remember this? These are the liberties the founding fathers declared are unalienable!\n\nTo summarize my response and give a direct answer, **TL;DR vigilantism is not a functioning system of criminal justice, and will lead to chaos unless men are angels, *which they are not.* Americans have the right to bear arms, not to hunt down criminals, but as a means to protect themselves and their liberties. As the Federalists and indeed many anti-Federalists believed, taxes are needed to fund government authority whose purpose is to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, which in turn protects citizens' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.**\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
4fvgiy
why do medical people check for pupil dialation?
especially after an accident or the person was knocked out/injured from an accident?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fvgiy/eli5_why_do_medical_people_check_for_pupil/
{ "a_id": [ "d2cazd8", "d2cb0mx", "d2cdxop" ], "score": [ 10, 2, 3 ], "text": [ " A lack of pupil dilation is one of the potential symptoms of a bad concussion, and it's one of the easiest and quickest checks that can be done in the field.\n\nThere's a lot more symptoms, but it not happening tends to be a bad sign.", "Dilation can be a sign of being under the effects of various potent drugs such as marijuana and opiates; this is important to know because it affects how they treat you. \n\nUnresponsive eyes is also an indicator of concussion, so they're often checking for that. ", "I work for an ophthalmologist as a technician so I get asked this quite often. In general medical settings (ER, urgent care, etc.) checking for pupil dilation is part of the most basic evaluation for neurological (i.e. brain) health. Dilated pupils can indicate several things, most of which need emergent attention (concussion, hemorrhage, stroke, etc.) to prevent brain damage. This is especially helpful when patients are unconscious and cannot describe their symptoms. Dilated pupils can also indicate activated sympathetic nervous system (the patient is in \"fight or flight\" mode) which can potentially explain increased heart rate or indicate drug use. Another aspect of pupils that we look for is how quickly they adjust to light sources. If a pupil is slow to shrink when exposed to light or even \nfixed/unchanging, that can also be a concern. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
1qfp5d
why does reddit have 85,901,746 active users (last months stats) but the most upvoted thread only has 21k upvotes?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qfp5d/eli5_why_does_reddit_have_85901746_active_users/
{ "a_id": [ "cdccb3c", "cdcd4qa" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Simplest explanation? Not everyone participates in up or down voting. Also downvotes offset the upvote counter.\n\nI may read or see like 10 threads before I upvote one", "There are a few reasons:\n\n(1) Active users probably means independent IP addresses that accessed the site, which is going to be a lot more than the number of people who actually vote. The default subs with the most users like /r/pics and /r/funny still have less than 5,000,000 subscribers, so it's safe to assume there are 5-6 million *registered* users (i.e., the ones who are capable of voting), but still a large portion of those are throwaways. Even among those that are primary accounts for users who actively use reddit (say 1-2 million), the vast majority still aren't going to see most threads out there (even highly ranked ones), and even if they do they aren't going to vote on most threads they see.\n\n(2) Downvotes offset upvotes, and it's hard to get everyone to agree on something.\n\n(3) Reddit automatically downvotes top posts after awhile to move them back down the list so that others can see the front page." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
3k552c
if half of all usd in the world suddenly vanished evenly, would the usd then be valued at double its current value? why or why not?
Edit: Sorry, I should have clarified. I was wondering about this as a hypothetical scenario. It would include all electronic money and all paper money. I would also like to assume that we would not just "reset" things to the original value. Assume a permament halving of the amount of USD in circulation, and a halving of the amount of USD printed by the US Treasury in a given year. All things with a dollar value would still be set to the same numbers (at least, as of the time of the halving). E.g. If the minimum wage is $8/hour, it would initially remain at $8/hour, and so on and so forth. To put it more broadly, if there was suddenly less USD in circulation, then without Government Interference, would the value of the USD raise by an amount corresponding to the difference in quantity of the USD? Or any other currency for that matter.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k552c/eli5_if_half_of_all_usd_in_the_world_suddenly/
{ "a_id": [ "cuuvlsp" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Well, when you say that, what do you mean? Do you mean that half the *paper* money in the world vanished? Or is *everything* that has a dollar price attached it (real estate, stock, bonds, a, suddenly revalued to 50% its original cost? Which definition of the ['money supply'](_URL_0_) are we using here when we say half of all dollars are gone? " ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States" ] ]
2i0d1q
why do we find it easier to climb stairs than walk on an angle? surely we didn't evolve for stairs.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i0d1q/eli5_why_do_we_find_it_easier_to_climb_stairs/
{ "a_id": [ "ckxmodx", "ckxpj7o" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "When you walk at an angle, your ankles have to do a lot of work. With stairs, you are still walking \"flat\" but lifting your legs higher. Ask Honda Robot engineers, it takes a lot of muscles just to walk at all, and you activate more while on an incline than \"flat\" ", "We didnt evolve to fit stairs, we made stairs to fit us best. Just like how we made beds, eating utensils, chairs, etc. to fit us. We couldnt evolve to something in a matter of a few hundred/thousand years." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
2xsd1c
why is braille not just bumped out letters of the alphabet?
I'm pretty sure it's just because it would take up too much space, but am not sure.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xsd1c/eli5_why_is_braille_not_just_bumped_out_letters/
{ "a_id": [ "cp2wuum", "cp2xa0b", "cp2xqeq", "cp2xunq", "cp2z0zh", "cp2z1cq", "cp2zblx", "cp2zfsz", "cp2zqf5", "cp30ynk", "cp319i5", "cp31sko", "cp322hr", "cp333iy", "cp333li", "cp34efd", "cp34f4s", "cp34k2m", "cp34n26", "cp360qw", "cp36n4o", "cp36p03", "cp36rar", "cp36xo6", "cp37bmj", "cp38b9y", "cp395k4", "cp396tn", "cp39ebr", "cp39fu8", "cp39ml3", "cp39wz8", "cp3a9jf", "cp3br03", "cp3bs91", "cp3ccxl", "cp3d0fj", "cp3dyor", "cp3e85r", "cp3en1d", "cp3eomj", "cp3fj5z", "cp3fmmn", "cp3fnhg", "cp3h8fq", "cp3ignv", "cp3j2us", "cp3jieh", "cp3lbr6", "cp3nrzk", "cp3ob32", "cp3p0e4", "cp3q71d", "cp3tovn", "cp3v661", "cp3wjfd", "cp3xf09", "cp3yfke", "cp3yys8", "cp427pf", "cqn0pcx" ], "score": [ 398, 43, 4198, 13, 282, 1007, 5, 4, 12, 6, 29, 2, 21, 2, 19, 8, 3, 4, 36, 2, 3, 21, 3, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 68, 12, 13, 8, 5, 7, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 6, 8, 2, 3, 7, 3, 3, 3, 2, 26, 3, 3, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It would be hard to tell between some letters. \n\nI and l for example. \n\nO and Q\n\nj and i \n\n\n\n", "Raised letters would have to be much larger than a fingertip. In addition, embossed dots are easier to recognize than the lines and curves of roman characters.\n\n_URL_0_", "That was the old system, before braille. \n\nBraille was specifically designed because the old system was near impossible to read for blind people. The similarities between letters like G Q O C were a massive annoyance, and placed a limit on how fast you could actually read. \n\nIn contrast, the easily distinguished individual dots were a huge improvement. ", "I would assume braiile is easier to read for someone who's never seen letters before. It's probably because a lot of words in the english language (and others) are not phonetic. Also like others have said, some letters would be hard to distinguish from each other C Q O for example.", "How do blind people know where braille is? Some signs on walls seem like they're placed to comply with a regulation, not because a blind person would ever be able to find them.", "Because most of them would feel the same. In my Neuroanatomy class we were shown this [diagramm.](_URL_0_)´\n\nA test person was asked to feel a bumped out letter size 1cm x 1cm and guess which letter it was. Stuff like B and D or Q and O feel almost the same.", "Does anybody know the logic/system behind Braille?", "Try reading this sentence by visually tracing every line, across the top of the T, down the length of the T, then the entirety of every. other. line. of every. single. letter.\n\nAdd to that you also have to check the empty space because it may have lines as well. \n\nReading would take forever.", "Originally that was the case, but it was a shitty system that was difficult to read (couldn't just scan letters with a single finger) and books were impossibly big and expensive. Because the inventor Louis Braille was blind he came up with a system that worked for him.", "Related, [this is a very good book](_URL_0_) about computing that happens to cover the history of the braille system in some detail. If you click on the \"look inside\" preview bit, and go to Chapter 3, most of the information relevant to your question is covered in these preview pages.", "Because the only ones that makes it easier for are people who aren't blind. What does an A mean to someone who has never seen it? Half our letters would feel almost the same. There is no reason our alphabet should be a basis for that one. Simplicity in the reading is the only important thing. ", "Maybe it wasn't so much \"readability\" or \"feelability\" but that the machinery required to produce uniform bumps on a page would be a lot simpler than one that produced raised letters.", "Braille used an already existing method of \"blind communication\", which was used during times of war to silently pass messages around. For example soldiers being held capture in a dark room. They would use paper to \"imprint\" codes into the paper and pass it to their comrades. That way they were able to communicate in the dark.\n\nSauce: \"The Code\" (its a book about the origin of computers and how other forms of codes, other than program codes, have already existed years before... just like the Braille code or the Morse code)\n\nOh btw. contrary to what most people think: Braille was not born blind, he got blind through an accident while playing with rusty tools from his dad.\n\nAlso here is the wikipedia to the \"night writing\" code that was used in the military: _URL_0_", "Remember that Braille was not only designed for reading but also writing.", "There is another system called 'Moon'. I only became aware of this since I started working at a special school for disabled children which includes visually impaired. Moon is used in the signage around the school. It is derived from latin alphabet and is meant to be way easier to learn. Here is the wiki page: _URL_0_", "So this is how you all talk to five-year olds, just chastise them for something you think is obvious, when they haven't be exposed to the world like you have? \"Why are you so stupid? Why would you think that's how it works when it's not?\" Just explain like he's five.", "Here's my question: Why is there Braille on the fold-down change table in the men's room at my local movie theatre? Are there a lot of blind fathers going to movies by themselves with their infants?", "It's much easier to feel the bumps underneath your fingers than the actual letter. It was originally but people were having trouble \"reading\" it with their fingers.", "Hi. I'm almost completely blind and can read braille. The main reason is because of subtle letter differences, like L and I or q and g.", "I'm just sitting here reading all the Braille comments with my Pokémon Emerald Braille Chart :)", "If you can read braille and then run your hand along a rough surface like a brick wall... does it come out in your brain as jibberish?", "Why is there Braille on Drive up ATM's?", "It's too time consuming and expensive to produce. Modern creole is a much simpler system which is 1. easier to read and 2. cheaper to produce so both sides win. I bet the readers couldn't see that coming. ", "Didn't see someone else mention this but I remember it from a documentary we watched on Louis Braille in elementary school. In addition to the length of time spent tracing out all the letters when reading, Braille made it so that making books for the blind was a lot cheaper and faster. The old system for writing books in involved fastening metal bumps to the pages, and the result of this was that a book that was maybe 100 pages in plain text would end up being hundreds of pages in 'old braille'. There were very few books available for blind people as a result. The Braille system Louis developed allowed books to be condensed and as a result were cheaper to produce in addition to being quicker to read.", "Related: How do blind people know there's braille in public places like bathroom signs, exits, etc.? Do they just feel around until they \"read\" something?", "I wonder how many people that can see are able to read braille just by looking at it and or touching it. ", "I've always seriously wondered why the have Braille on drive up ATMs.", "Basically tactile lettering had to be ridiculously huge for readability. With braille, the letters don't have to be as big, allowing for braille printed novels", "My question about Braille is how the fuck do blind people find the sign that has tiny little bumps on the wall?", "Touch is a much lower resolution input than normal sight. It would be impossible to read the average book-size print outset like braille. So sticking to the sighted alphabet you'd be forced to make each letter very large. The braille alphabet is designed to be compact, easily distinguished by touch, and read by swiping the finger left to right.", "Blind person here. When a letter is \"bumped out\" on a page, you need to trace your finger around the letter in order to determine what it is.\n\nBraille is designed to be felt, and each character can be read in a swipe.\n\nFurthermore, Braille has contractions. These are combinations of letters like \"er\" and \"ion\". These make reading much faster, and obviously aren't present in visually-read alphabets.", "Super simple visual version? Get a sheet of paper and write 0, O, Q how easily do you think your fingertips could detect the differences?\n\nNow write a \"p\" and turn the paper upside down. That \"p\" is now a \"d\". Similarly the same issues pop up with a good chunk of letters/numbers. ", "Why don't we make our current alphabet just look like the braille equivalent? ", "Question: how do blind people find the brail on walls in public buildings and places", "Can you imagine having to distinguish between: i,I,l,1", "I've always wondered why the Braille alphabet wasn't the same as the Morse Code alphabet.", "Try spotting the differences with your eyes between the capital \"I\" and the lower-cased \"l\".\n\nNow try it blindfolded. ", "At the time it was invented, raised print books had to be made entirely by hand, which made them very expensive. Braille could be made on a press very easily, so the books were cheap and plentiful.", "I do not read Braille although I have tried. In my own strange mind I feel as if the dots are strategically placed to mock the shape of the letter. I know it sounds crazy but this is my opinion.\n\nOn another similar note many people who are born blind and grow up learning Braille do not know the shape of letters, unless they have been exposed to those shapes. With advances in technology; typewriters, computers, keyboards and now tablets and smartphones; some do not know how to write.", "Also- why is there Braille on drive-up ATM machines? ", "A...R...I...l....O...Q...U...V...B...D...N...M... to name but a few.", "Because I3 and B are a bitch to tell apart. I've tried the old system when we had an class where we were all blind folded for the day and had to learn what difficulties being blind entails. H, K, and R were damn near impossible to tell apart.", "These letters used to exist in older books, but they were expensive and often times it was difficult to distinguish between letters. So somebody named Louis Braille created a simpler, and more distinguishable alphabet for the blind, now known as braille. \n\nTo specifically answer your question, its because it was hard to dell the difference between, lets say, Q, O, and D, so they made braille.", "Forget that. My question is, why doesn't the order of the letters make sense? The dots should correlate binary or other number system.", "It takes way to much space, harder to remember sentences/word that you just red, certain letter look to much alike.", "Braille is its own language, for the blind and hard-of-seeing, just as sign language is not \"interpreted\" English, or any other language. Sign language is its own language, with its own cultural idioms, jokes, colloquialisms, contractions, grammar and nuance--just as braille is as well. I think the common confusion is thinking of these languages as translations, instead of their own independent communication system (no different than, say, Russian or French, or Swahili, etc...)", "The story of the guy who invented Braille, Louis Braille, is really interesting. ", "Embossed letters would be just like raised lined drawings (still used today for very simple images/diagrams) but following each outline in order to read a sentence takes way too long to be practical. Plus we took advantage of the spatial resolution of skin (two point touch discrimination) to make Braille efficient space-wise on paper.", "Yes, numbers are similar to touch. What's missing is the other reason: it's easier to print. Trying to get letters to bulge out of a piece of paper for a book is far more difficult than poking holes in it.", "Because the sense of touch works very differently from the sense of sight.\n\nMaking bumps in the shapes of standard letters *was* tried, in many different approaches, and it just didn't work very well. People had trouble telling the difference between similar letters, and 'reading' this sort of text was very slow. The brilliance of the braille system was precisely the realization that text for blind people *didn't* need to look like standard letters, and that its shape should be optimized for touch rather than sight.\n\nEDIT: Sight, not smell. Dunno why I typed that.", "Braille user here, lets see how much I can answer without being too techincal.\n\nBasically, /u/SamMcgeesAshes/ they tried it once. it was cost-prohibitative to translate books (the blind school Braille himself went to had only three books done that way) and it took too long to read, because each letter had to be traced.\n\nBraille, as we know it now, is a 6-dot (2x3) system, however a 9-dot (3x3) was proposed by some General whose name I forgot who wanted to communicate with his soldiers in the dark, but 9 dots are hard to read with just one finger. The basic principle of Braille is that every character should be read with one touch, which also rules out the \"actual letter\" approach even with modern laser-cutting, 3D-printing technology, because to be legible to fast touch (when you're reading Braille, it is already slower than sighted people, speed matters) the letter itself would have to be twice the size of a Braille cell, and then you'd need to pan over it with your fingers.\n\n(explanation: b and p, 6 and 9, a & e, u & n, sometimes v & y; they blend together if written too small.)\n\nAlso, 6 dots are a lot eaiser to produce by hand. Back before Braille \"typewriters\" were around, people used a special frame and stylus to hand-poke dots in paper (I tried it, it takes long!) Carving out lettters...too much time.\n\nTL;DR: They tried it, it didn't work -- dots are more effecient to produce and to read.\n\nHope that helps, but do tell me if I skpped anything!\n\nADDENDUM: I also thought it prudent to mention that Braille pretty-much thrives on contractions; we have contractions from the ridiculous like shorthand for 'ea' and 'be', to things like 'able' (though that's phased out recently). 'also' is abbreviated \"al', and 'understand' can be done shorted to the shorthand for \"under\" + \"st\" + \"and\". \n\nHowever, Braille is fairly awful for all other things, and we can't use things like a11y as the syntax is too hard. \nAt least its \"something\" \n", "Is braille its own language, as in, it stands apart from any other existing language like mandarin, french or english.\n\nOr is it a pure translation of english.\n\nso, e.g. Say a native english speaking blind person, went to france.\n\nWould the braille for say. \"bonjour\" read the letters, B.O.N.J.O.U.R. or would it read the meaning of \"good afternoon\" in braille?", "What would comic sans look like in braille?", "Related, and please explain if there is a real reason: why is it that toll booths on roads (at least the ones in New Jersey) also have the toll instructions in Braille? Is a blind person going to drive up?", "Bumped out letters???? EMBOSSED BRO!!!!", "Letters are awesome if your eyeballs are on.. \nWith a glance we can blow through a whole sentence based on common recognizable pattern configurations (letter- > word- > sentence- > **message**)\n\n & nbsp;\n\nIf you're blind, what the hell is the point of a *visual* cue such as a letter?\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\nBlind or sighted, every reader only desires to receive the **- > message**..\n\nThe abc alphabet was designed for fast *visual* output. Braille said 'yea, fuck this' and brilliantly rewrote the alphabet for fast *tactile* output.. \n\n & nbsp;\n\nLouis Braille hacked reading so it worked better for him..\n----\n___\n\n`technical details`\n\nOnce braille is learned, **64** letters/characters can be communicated in only 6 dots (arranged in a vertical 2x3 pattern I'm only guessing was designed to match the dimensions of the input (finger, nose, we'll stop there)) Braille has been developed so efficiently that all 64 patterns have meaning.. There's a pattern indicating a new sentence, a pattern indicating the next character is capitalized.. punctuation etc.. No emojis tho as far as I'm aware.\n\n\nAdditionally, similar to morse code, the most common letters (vowels and the letters worth the least amount of point in scrabble) are given a much simpler pattern for faster input.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\\**Credit on the technical section to a really cool book called 'Code' by Petzold*", "What I want to know is why in hell is there Braille at my local bank drive-thru ATM?", "the dots are a lot more unique and distinguished than letters are.\n\nAlso braille is standardised, unlike fonts which may be different for each publisher.", "There was something many years ago referred to as the War of the Dots. Braille didn't just become braille very quickly. There were other systems, including bumped out letters. There was also New York Point, Boston Line Type, Moon, and Braille. Basically it made it very difficult for public libraries and other institutions to make braille available to people who needed it because it was expensive and time consuming to produce, let alone produce multiple different codes for the same book. People fought over what system was best. Braille eventually won out at the code agreed upon to use, but up until recently, it still varied from country to country. A few years ago the United States FINALLY adopted the UEB, the Unified English Braille Code, (many other English speaking countries had already adopted this code). This makes it so that books and documents can be shared between most English speaking countries without decoding errors resulting from differences in how we write braille. ", "There exists an alternative to Braille, [Moon type](_URL_0_), which is easier to learn for people who lose their sight in adulthood. Its embossed characters are based on simplified letters of the alphabet.", "Funnily enough this was also recently answered in Daredevil on Netflix!" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "http://www.nationalbraille.org" ], [], [], [], [ "http://imgur.com/duJXtFc" ], [], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Hardware-Software/dp/0735611319" ], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_writing" ], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_type" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_type" ], [] ]
29ckx2
why is 'good night' strictly used as a closing statement, as opposed to an opening?
And in addition, why isn't it normal to end a morning/afternoon conversation with good morning/afternoon?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29ckx2/eli5_why_is_good_night_strictly_used_as_a_closing/
{ "a_id": [ "cijlsxh" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "because people go to bed at night" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
37qldm
if people look back on prohibition as a mistake, why is drug criminalisation still seen as the way forward for many?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37qldm/eli5if_people_look_back_on_prohibition_as_a/
{ "a_id": [ "croz210", "crozrap" ], "score": [ 5, 3 ], "text": [ "hate. at this point these numbers are exaggerated severely by the shit voter turn out for young people and liberals", "People in people see drugs as a bad thing. No politician wants to come out saying they want more of a bad thing. The knee jerk reaction to a bad thing is to try and ban it, regardless of the big picture." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
c2lhuy
how do plants grow from a tiny seed using just water and sunlight?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c2lhuy/eli5_how_do_plants_grow_from_a_tiny_seed_using/
{ "a_id": [ "erkwjtd", "erkyxk8" ], "score": [ 5, 5 ], "text": [ "Almost no plants work that way. It's water + sunlight + nutrients from the soil. The water is a solvent, making it easier to move chemicals around, the sunlight provides energy to drive reactions against their chemistry, but the soil provides the chemicals.", "Usually, the seed provides enough nutrients for the (baby) plant to develop a small root system and the first couple leaves.\n\nOnce that's accomplished, the main mechanism for growth is [photosynthesis](_URL_0_). 6 water molecules + 6 carbon dioxide molecules - > 1 sugar molecule + 6 Oxygen (released).\n\nThe sugar is then assembled into chains to form [cellulose](_URL_1_), which is the main \"fiber\" / body of the plant as it grows." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose" ] ]
2vsrdg
what would happen if every animal and human being on earth pissed into the ocean at the same time?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vsrdg/eli5_what_would_happen_if_every_animal_and_human/
{ "a_id": [ "cokl9xb" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "There would be urine in the ocean.\n\nWhat kind of information are you looking to have explained?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
bveqj5
the difference between the conservative and labour parties. (for people well versed in uk politics)
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bveqj5/eli5_the_difference_between_the_conservative_and/
{ "a_id": [ "epot37l" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "More or less the same as any centre left and centre right party in mainstream politics around the developed world.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe Conservatives are relatively more pro big business, lower tax rates and corporation taxes, less regulations on the economy, resist expansion of the welfare state and social provisions + pro austerity measures, want less nationalisation of the economy (eg. oppose nationalising the railways, have privatised certain components of the NHS), etc. Socially they are slightly more traditional ie. take harder stances on things like drug laws and opposed gay marriage moreso than Labour. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nLabour are essentially the reverse of everything mentioned." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
5h3wqu
what exactly is copyright?
Don't get me wrong, school systems told me what it is, and Youtube has copyright up the rectum. But I feel like i never truly learned what copyright is, as far as my knowledge goes, Copyright is when you say you didn't make it and if you don't make money off of it.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h3wqu/eli5what_exactly_is_copyright/
{ "a_id": [ "dax825p", "daxkl0h" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Copyright the the right for the original creator to control copies of their work. A work can be a movie, book, art, video game or any other creative work. \n\nLets take a book such as Harry Potter. If you want a copy of that book, you can get one by buying a printed copy of that work, the author has made it available to purchase in that manor. With that copy, you can do almost anything you want with it. Read it, burn it, level your couch. What you can't do with it is make copies of that book. It doesn't matter if you just wanted to sell them or give them to your family for free. You don't have the right to copy. \n\nAnother example is Disney. They own several creations which are movies, several of which you can't buy. They call it \"Putting it in the Disney Vault\" They also have the right to not sell you a copy of their work. Even if you find a legal copy, you can buy that unit, but you still can't make copies of that movie, to sell or give away. You don't have that copy right, Disney does. \n\nThere are exceptions, it's called fair use. It's when you can use someone elses work for the purpose of criticism, review or education. Parody also falls under fair use. ", "The government wants people to make stuff. \n\nThey even want people to make stuff which isn't really stuff, but more like ideas like a collection of words or a series of sounds. Like books and music. But really it's any idea or expression. \n\nSo they proclaimed that everyone was barred from copying anyone else's ideas for a set period of time unless they had permission, a license that gave them **the right to copy**. Which they sell. \n\nNow, this applies to **EVERYTHING**. Any expression, saying, written text, spoken sound, everything. THIS POST is protected by copyright. YOUR question is protected by copyright. BUT! When I signed up to Reddit, they made me agree to license them and whoever to copy it. As did you. Literally everything on Youtube is copyrighted. By default. \n\nWhen someone DOESN'T have the right to copy your work, but they do it anyway, then that's copyright **infringement**. And you can get sued for that. If you copied more than $10K worth of goods (which is real easy with P2P torrents), then it's a felony in the USA because our copyright system is ancient and archaic and a blight on society. \n\nNow, the only people who can really enforce copyright laws on anyone else are the big name publishers who wheel and deal this stuff as part of their business. So while your post is copyrighted, even if reddit violated whatever agreement you made with them, good luck trying to get the law on your side. In general, this is how most laws work. If you can't afford a lawyer, the laws doesn't work for you.\n\n > Copyright [infringement] is when you say you didn't make it and if you don't make money off of it.\n\nHAHA, no! Whether or not you make any money off of it doesn't change the infringement. But the vast bulk of infringement is so low-key that nobody really bothers to try and enforce the law everywhere and a ton of people get away with it without anyone noticing. Once you start making money off someone else's work though, well... it's more likely they'll notice and want to get paid. In general is is also how most laws work. If you don't have any money to take, the (civil) law can't really hurt you.\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
490vau
how was the concept of money started? and how does one country have money worth more than the other (ex. the euro and the dollar)
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/490vau/eli5_how_was_the_concept_of_money_started_and_how/
{ "a_id": [ "d0o6xdu", "d0o7u2k" ], "score": [ 12, 2 ], "text": [ " > How was the concept of money started?\n\nWell, it's not a thing we have a definitive answer to, but [there are some good theories out there](_URL_0_). \n\nThe argument that anthropologist makes is basically that, when we all lived in small villages, societies functioned on an informal debt based system which was policed by the community. Basically, I lend you some tools so you can harvest the crops on your farm on the understanding that I can call in the favor at some later time. People who cheated on this \"debt\" would be known for it and people wouldn't lend them shit. Given how you really needed help from others when everyone lived in small villages, this threat of being ostracized created a strong incentive to pay back your debt.\n\nMoney didn't really come around until there were somewhat centralized governments that needed to tax its people and pay its armies. For a government, using currency to facilitate these things made a lot of sense and made the whole process a lot easier. Gradually, over many centuries, more and more transactions were conducted with currency (or at least trades were considered in terms of the value of the goods in currency).\n\n > How does one country have money worth more than the other?\n\nWell, it's just supply and demand. If I want to buy things from Europe, I need to get some euros. I find somebody with euros who's willing to trade for some of my dollars and we work out a rate of exchange. The aggregate action of all these people trading dollars for euros and vice versa leads to the exchange rate settling around a certain point, much the same way the price of any other good or service is reached.", "I'm not really an expert and the top answer is really informative, but if you're interested there was a neat [this American life](_URL_0_) episode about it" ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years" ], [ "http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/423/the-invention-of-money" ] ]
40ivci
what is the difference between a mayor and a city manager in the us?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40ivci/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_mayor_and_a/
{ "a_id": [ "cyuha4q" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "A mayor is an elected position, and a city manager is an appointed one.\n\nIn a city manager type setup, the day to day activities are run by the city manager, while the mayor is more ceremonial in nature, presiding over city council sessions, and the like.\n\nIn smaller cities, you're much more likely to find a city manager setup, because mayors *have* to be from the city. If it's a smaller city, there may not be many people who have the experience to run a town. Hiring a city manager means they can hire a qualified person from anywhere and move them to the town." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
8vfqs6
how can scotus get rid of roe v wade?
[deleted]
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8vfqs6/eli5_how_can_scotus_get_rid_of_roe_v_wade/
{ "a_id": [ "e1n1vzb", "e1n2qxg", "e1n5zhx", "e1ndn1y" ], "score": [ 12, 6, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "Even Supreme Court rulings are not permanent for all time, another Supreme Court ruling can overturn them and change the legal precedent. Someone could appeal such an issue up to SCOTUS and they could issue another ruling, in theory.", "The Supreme Court's rulings are generally applications of the Constitution. That is, they get the final say over what the Constitution means. Of course, if they later conclude that they or their predecessors were mistaken in their decision, they can overturn a ruling. They can't just do it for no reason though, a case has to be brought before them in which the relevant Constitutional principle is applicable. In the case of *Roe*, the court decided that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, which extends to the right to terminate one's pregnancy without interference. If a future Supreme Court had enough justices who had made it known that they desire the overturning of *Roe v. Wade*, a state might pass a law outlawing abortions, which would be challenged in the courts, and when it got to the Supreme Court, the court could declare that the right to privacy either doesn't exist (it's sort of implied in the 4th and 9th amendments, but nothing is explicit) or that it doesn't apply to ending one's pregnancy, as a fetus should be considered a separate person under the law, and the prevention of homicide is a compelling enough reason to outweigh privacy concerns.", "The most likely change would be when a case presents itself with updates in technology that were not available when the case was first heard.\n\nIf the reduction in services comes about via the Supreme Court, my money says it will be a church/denominational hospital that refuses to provide the service and is taken to court by the woman/couple. \n\n * The hospital will state that they met the spirit of the law in asking the woman to deliver the baby prematurely, and then keeping it alive in a neonatal unit until it was more fully developed. \n\n * The woman/couple will argue that the law is \"clear\" in that abortion is legal prior to the time in which a fetus is viable as a pre-term baby without exceptional measures [only allowing what naturally happens, with resources that do not depend on technological advancement].\n\n * The court will rule that advances in medical abilities should be used to reduce the number of abortions performed, and that a fetus should be delivered rather than the pregnancy aborted if the clinic or a related hospital could reasonably expect to keep the fetus alive.\n\n\nWhile it is not a sure thing that this WILL happen, my tea leaves say that IF it happens this is the approximate route the change will follow.\n\nThe more likely outcome in the near future will be that the question is punted to the individual states, and that we will see a seismic shift in medical-tourism within the United States as each state tries to tackle the question on their own; and how to best handle insurance/care to out-of-state patients. This will bring on its own mess and may well be the final catalyst that pushes us into either universal or single-payer; or it will bring about mutual-agreement markets so patients can receive care outside of their normal network-approved providers for those care items that are unavailable in their area.\n\nedit: Congress has the power to change the law, but that is very unlikely to happen in the present atmosphere. The Court decides a ruling based on what the law is at the time the incident occurred, not based on what future changes to the law might encompass.", "A SCOTUS judgment on one case is final, yes. They cannot go back to Roe v. Wade and rule on it again. What might happen is that a new case might get escalated to SCOTUS that challenges a state's restrictions on abortion, and SCOTUS could write a ruling that is the opposite of the Roe v. Wade ruling - \"overruling\" the earlier ruling.\n\nIt doesn't happen very often. [Here's the Wikipedia list](_URL_1_) of SCOTUS cases that were later overruled by other SCOTUS cases. You'll notice most of those links are red links as of this writing, meaning essentially that they are boring cases.\n\nThe reason it's uncommon, and there isn't a rush to overrule all previous cases each time there's a new SCOTUS justice, is a thing in the US and UK called [stare decisis](_URL_0_), where judges are supposed to rule in the way that previous similar cases have been ruled, so that similar facts will end up in similar rulings. After SCOTUS rules on a case, it will decline all future cases that are similar. Until it doesn't. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions" ] ]
9y2onp
what exactly is the rationale behind taking pain killers for pain? the body is telling you something is wrong right? so by numbing that sense and to keep on using something like a fucked up back or joint pain-free wouldn't it be detrimental?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9y2onp/eli5_what_exactly_is_the_rationale_behind_taking/
{ "a_id": [ "e9xodjs", "e9xof5t", "e9xomkb", "e9xomnb", "e9xow4v", "e9xp2qi" ], "score": [ 28, 7, 4, 3, 3, 6 ], "text": [ "Sometimes the body sends pain signals when there isn't anything that can be done to fix something. And sometimes it does it for no reason at all. And taking pain killers to be more comfortable doesn't mean someone is going to ignore the damage. As someone living with chronic pain, sometimes you just need to get through the day. And not be puking in pain every 30 minutes.", "When I had my teeth removed I took pain pills. At least there I know my body is messed up but the pain won't help me heal faster. At least with the pain pills it made the process better. \nWith certain it can also help you heal faster though I can't tell you the specifics there. ", "Sometimes pain is a signal from the body that something is wrong and needs to be addressed. Sometimes the pain itself is a malfunction -- migraines, for example, or certain conditions like neuralgia or fibromyalgia, which are conditions in which a nerve or group of nerves send pain signals to the brain for no good reason. In those cases, pain-management is an entirely reasonable and suitable way to address the issue. \n\nIn some cases, like pain associated with an injury, then yes, you're right that painkillers can help exacerbate an issue by encouraging people to use their bodies in ways that might prevent proper healing because they can't feel the pain that would tell them something is wrong. But it doesn't follow that all people who experience chronic, debilitating pain should have to put up with it because it's \"natural.\"", "Not everyone has the luxury of sitting back in a life of leisure. Most have to work for a living. NSAIDs and other pain reducers can allow life to continue. \n\nAlso, not every pain requires inactivity to heal. Simply reducing the intensity of activity, made tolerable with a pain reducer, is often sufficient. ", "When my arm got crushed I had to have pain killers to even function. The pain was so intense I couldn't focus on anything. By numbing the pain, I was able to do the exercises my arm required to heal properly. Fortunately, I had a great doctor who made sure I didn't get addicted.", "The rationale is that we have the medical knowledge to treat pain so why would we ever keep people in pain if we can stop it. Yes, pain tells you that something is wrong, but pain isn't a precision sensation. It's a blunt instrument. If you break your arm and it hurts, you go to the doctor to get a cast put on. Your body doesn't \"know\" that you remedied the situation and that the pain can be \"turned off\". It doesn't \"know\" that we have the medical knowledge to treat things or to manage conditions that cause chronic pain. If someone has chronic pain from arthritis, we can diagnosis it and manage it. Your body doesn't know that." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
c4gfb1
how do we know that the middle of the earth is super hot
This isn’t a shitpost I swear. I just don’t get it.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c4gfb1/eli5_how_do_we_know_that_the_middle_of_the_earth/
{ "a_id": [ "erwdzj0", "erws15d", "erxe8um" ], "score": [ 11, 13, 2 ], "text": [ "Pressure creates heat. When you make a snowball, the centre is slightly warmer than the outside because it’s under pressure from the weight of all the snow around it.\n\nNow imagine the same effect but thousands of times greater, because the earth is thousands of times bigger and heavier.", "We know that the center is super hot by several ways. \n\n1. The earths magnetosphere has a unique shape that changes slightly; which is due to the liquid iron in the earth’s core. Iron is only a liquid at extremely high temps.\n\n2. We have dug very deep. The Kola Superdeep Borehole is about 40,000 feet deep and one of the biggest challenges with digging deeper is that it starts to get so hot that the “drill bits” they use start to melt. \n\n3. At the depths of the ocean there are thermal vents which release immensely hot liquids. Clearly the only place the heat can come from is down since the ocean above is literally freezing. \n\n4. Volcanoes. We know that volcanoes store lava deep in the earth and obviously lava is very hot.", "In addition to the other points made here (apart from pressure which does not come into play), the Earth having a hot interior makes sense in other ways:\n\n• Planetary formation processes necessitate a body growing as large as Earth would be hot, partly from all the collisions to form a planet and partly from the separation of the accreted mass into separate layers of core/mantle/crust, a process which releases heat in itself. \n\n• We know that the Earth contains many radioactive nuclides which decay and produce heat as they do so. This is most important for the mantle and crust where they have been concentrated, they did not form part of the core. Important ones for heat generation today are specific isotopes of potassium, uranium and thorium, though there were other shorter lived ones producing heat in the early Earth too. \n\n• We see evidence for a plate tectonic system on Earth, which would not be possible without the heat engine of the Earth’s interior to drive convection in the mantle. \n\n• We can measure the temperature at various points and depths in the Earth’s crust, and notice that on average temperature increases by about 30° C every km of depth. \n\nIn reality, this last point only holds true for the crust, and if we were to extrapolate the same rate of temperature increase all the way down to the core, it would be many times hotter than the surface of the sun. In fact, it is only about the same temperature as the sun’s surface (which may still sound surprising, but there’s a lot of insulating solid rock between us and the core!). \n\nLimits are placed on the actual temperature at various depths by the known physical state of the Earth as deduced by geophysics (mainly seismology). Seismology shows the mantle to be solid so it must be below it’s melting point; we know what the mantle is made of and so we can perform high pressure experiments on this material and deduce it’s melting point at the appropriate pressure within the Earth. A similar story for the Earth’s core. We can then use thermodynamics to model likely temperatures for these parts of the Earth and get further clues from analysis of occasional [mantle rock brought up by volcanoes](_URL_0_) and analysis of meteorites - many of which represent the cores of planetesimals which have since been smashed apart and found their way to Earth." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/11/12/xenoliths-from-the-mantle-little-green-rocks-from-deep-inside-the-earth/" ] ]
8nrecu
why do our eyelids not feel the movement of our eyeballs underneath when our eyes are closed?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8nrecu/eli5_eli5_why_do_our_eyelids_not_feel_the/
{ "a_id": [ "dzxpk95", "dzxpxcy" ], "score": [ 5, 3 ], "text": [ "The primary reason the sensation is reduced is that lubrication of the eyeball reduces noticeable friction between the two surfaces, which is why you also don’t feel your knee moving around inside your leg. However, the feeling is definitely still there albeit maybe quite muted for some.", "My eyelids feel my eyes. Maybe your sense of touch is dulled? Or maybe mine is heightened?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
1bsxbo
polarizing filters for cameras and sunglasses
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bsxbo/eli5_polarizing_filters_for_cameras_and_sunglasses/
{ "a_id": [ "c99rfzw", "c99srvw" ], "score": [ 2, 5 ], "text": [ "I'm not 100% on the specifics but it does something along the lines of filter all but a certain orientation of light.\n\nFor example if the light is like this: |\n\nAnd the polarising filter has a slot like this: --\n\nIt wont let the light through. They have to be orientated the same way (and physically rotating the filter will have the effect of allowing light though one way and then not the other).\n\n... As far as how they actualy make the filter and how light can have an \"orientation\", to me it's basically witchcraft.", "Light can be thought of as a wave. Imagine each tiny bit of light as a little sine wave squiggling through the air. Each one will have a direction, perpendicular to the direction it is traveling, which the wave is wiggling in. For example, you can wave up and down, or left and right (or any mixture of these directions).\n\nPolarization is filtering light according to the direction of this wiggle. A polarizing filter only lets light through that is waving in one direction, say up and down for this example. Without getting into the physics, think of the light wave as your hand, palm open, and the polarizer as jail bars. Your hand has to line up to slip through the slot.\n\nBits of light waving left and right will be totally stopped by this filter. Bits at a 45 degree angle are half up and down plus half left and right; only the up and down part will pass through. This effect has nothing to do with color of the light.\n\nEach photon of typical light is waving in a completely random direction. If you do the math, this means that a single polarizing filter will let half of the total light through (a 50% neutral filter). The light leaving the filter is now 100% waving in the up and down direction. If you were to put a second polarizing filter, rotated 90 degrees, it would block *all* of the light; not simply another 50% like a grey filter would.\n\nLight that is not totally random is called 'polarized'. When light bounces off things, it becomes slightly polarized. This depends on the angle of the bounce. Here's a bit of a related example: push your hand towards your desk at an angle, palm down. It will easily 'skip' off the surface. Repeat with your pinky down, it jams up a bit. Do this straight at the desk and the rotation of your hand dosent mater; the shallower the angle, the bigger the difference is.\n\nIn the real world, this is important for glare off water or background light from a blue sky. Both of these sources are very polarized because of this reflection effect; but the light from your subject is not. A polarizing filter will block the glare, but let everything else through. Where as just a grey lens will make everything darker evenly.\n\ntl;dr polarizers can selectively filter glare\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
2d2gzg
why tv shows like the walking dead can have extreme on screen violence but cannot air swear words?
My friend recently linked me an uncensored season finale of S4 of The Walking Dead. I just found it funny how the violence is considered okay not to be censored but sex and swearing is nowhere to be seen in comparison to TWD comic. But HBO for example in Game of Thrones do what they want. Can anybody explain to me why this is?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d2gzg/eli5_why_tv_shows_like_the_walking_dead_can_have/
{ "a_id": [ "cjle9kf", "cjlgg59", "cjli3cs", "cjljn74", "cjlkgej", "cjlmhte", "cjlmmck", "cjlnar1", "cjlnw7s", "cjlnx3d", "cjlo5ho", "cjlp9vn", "cjlsuaj", "cjlucbe" ], "score": [ 73, 162, 13, 119, 4, 2, 8, 5, 6, 2, 7, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "AMC has a policy of no foul language, and they have sponsors. Sponsors generally do not want to be associated with shows that include bad language, racism, etc, pretty much anything that could offend anyone.\n\nHBO doesn't have to report to any sponsors can do whatever the fuck they want, in fact, they are known for it, and have carved out a niche for an audience who desires that kind of show", "In America, foul language (and nudity, for that matter) tends to be much more heavily censored than violence is; in other areas (say, Europe), the opposite is often true. E.g., In Germany, graphic violence is more or less taboo.\n\nTo put it another way, there's Kyle's mom from the South Park movie (I'm paraphrasing, here) -- \"Horrific, terrible violence is O-K! Just as long as there are no naughty words!\"\n\nSadly, there are people who really do think this way. E.g., I worked at a game store when San Andreas came out. People were buying it for their 9 year old kids. When we warned them about the content, some parents would say \"never mind, I don't want it.\" Some, on the other hand, would not care. The one that haunts me to this day responded, \"Oh, it's fine! We just turn the volume off so he can't hear any bad words!\"", "All I know is Rick saying \"they messed with the wrong people\" at the end of the last season should have been an exception for the use of *fuck*\n\nedit: spacebar is what", "AMC is on cable and as such it is not regulated by the FCC, so they can show as much violence and nudity and have as much swearing as they want. Comedy Central is the same way - that's why they show uncensored movies late at night (more on that later).\n\nHowever, they're still supported by advertisers, and they have to make sure that they don't do anything to cause their advertisers to jump ship. Why the companies/etc. that advertise during *The Walking Dead* are okay with extreme violence/gore but not nudity/swearing is between them and AMC, but that certainly seems to be the case.\n\nInterestingly, *Breaking Bad* had more swearing, but any \"fuck\" was muted on broadcast, and the one instance of female frontal nudity in the pilot was blurred on broadcast. Again, these would have been due to the wishes of the companies paying for commercial time during the show.\n\nNow, back to Comedy Central and their uncensored movie airings. Like I said, they do this late at night. I don't know if you've watched these airings yourself, but if you have, I'm sure you've noticed what kind of commercials are aired during these uncensored broadcasts - things like phone sex chat lines and Girls Gone Wild tapes. These guys don't care what type of content they're advertising with, and Comedy Central doesn't want to sell them ad time during regular hours.\n\nSo yeah, there you go. To simplify it, there are basically 3 levels:\n\n1. Broadcast TV = FCC regulated (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WGN/CW); prevented from heavy violence, nudity/sex and swearing by the FCC; also has advertisers that might pull their support if they're paired with content they disapprove of\n2. Cable TV = Unregulated (AMC, FX, TNT, USA, Comedy Central), so they could do whatever they want, but they also have advertisers that might pull their support if they're paired with content they disapprove of; content varies from channel to channel and advertising partner to advertising partner\n3. Premium Cable TV = Unregulated with no advertisers (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz); can do whatever the fuck they want because they have no advertisers to back out; the only thing they have to worry about is viewers cancelling their subscriptions.", "Swear words were forbidden by the church. They were considered to be blasphemy and that practice still carries itself to this day. Murder and such, the church has no problem with.", "Because the FCC is dumb as [f***](_URL_0_).\n\nEdit: Spoiler", "Most likely people wont act on killing each other, but they will swear. \n\nRemember, swearing is the spice of life. If you say it on occasion it can add flavor, but the people who don't know how to cook just over season causing conversations to taste bad.", "I always thought that there was some \"zombie loophole\" that allowed shows like TWD to have brutal zombie violence, because technically zombies aren't \"humans.\"\n\nNow that I have typed that out, I realize what an incredibly stupid thing that is to think. Reddit, forgive my idiocy!", " > \"Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words! That's what this war is all about! \"\n\n--Sheila Broflovski", "Cause you yank cunts and you'r yank cunt kids cant handle it.", "What did George Carlin say about this? \"I'd rather watch two people fuck each other than kill each other.\"", "Besides the explanation of how censorship is enforced, there is one more reason, I think. Graphic violence on tv, in movies and in games is actually special effects. It. Is. Not. Real.\n\nWhen there was gruesome violence in something my son and I were watching, we would talk about the make-up and effects that went into the scene. That removed the shock and \"forbidden\" aspects. \n\nAs for language, I also taught him from an early age that there were certain words that would cause trouble if used outside the house. Guess I wanted to make him work harder to shock me than just using swearing.", "Because words hurt feelings and feelings are more important than anything else in the world. Forever. ", "In Europe boobs on television okay, violence is bad. In America violence on television is okay, boobs are bad.. I'd rather have boobs." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbnail_570x321/2012/12/dale_walking_dead_ptc_gore.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
1hkj4f
why voyager 1 launched in '77 is 11 billion miles away yet still transmits home... and my android can't get reception in the bathroom?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hkj4f/eli5_why_voyager_1_launched_in_77_is_11_billion/
{ "a_id": [ "cav7hjc", "cav7i4y", "cav80ex", "cav9oom", "cava85t", "cavbpai", "cavbws0", "cavctn4", "cavdclt", "cavdd05", "cavdmag", "caveu5b", "cavfh2k", "cavfpof", "cavh3et", "cavhact", "cavklut", "cavkqqc", "cavkr9z", "cavlfnu", "cavrcny", "cavrige", "cavtr5q" ], "score": [ 21, 339, 4, 3, 1275, 3, 3, 2, 108, 25, 13, 30, 6, 4, 3, 10, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Voyager 1 is outside, with a clear view of the sky", "You could get a hell of an antenna if you were willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to have it installed in your phone. That's the cost of the entire probe; the antenna would be much less expensive, but [it extends out roughly 2.5 meters](_URL_0_) and [transmits at the rate of 40 bits per second](_URL_1_). Hardly 4G. I'd be surprised if enough data has been transmitted to fill even a single Blu-Ray disc in the entire history of the project.", "In addition to all the other reasons, there is a lot more between your phone and the tower or even a router than the space probe.", "First, the radio frequencies are different wavelengths which affect the distance they can travel and also their ability to penetrate materials. Building materials, especially pipes and concrete block radio waves. The radio waves are even blocked by leaves on trees to some extent. You also have to consider the number of people using the network at one time compared to the number of towers and the amount of spectrum available to handle their usage. ", "There are many reasons. \n \n1. The physical antennas in use. Voyager has a really large dish pointed pretty precisely at Earth. There is a much much larger dish on Earth pointed at Voyager. It is part of the DSN, or Deep Space Network. These dishes act to focus the broadcast signal and to gather more of the received signal. \n \n2. Data rate: The data rate coming from Voyager is very low-rate. This helps because a single piece of information (a symbol, in RF speak) lasts longer, so the receiver has a longer time to collect the signal and to become certain what the value of that symbol is, and\n \n3. No obstructions. The walls of your house, the water contained within your house and within your body, the material in between the phone and the tower all absorb some amount of the energy, weakening the signal. Conversely, the frequency chosen for the communications of Voyager and other satellites was chosen so that the atmosphere wouldn't absorb much of the energy, and there's basically nothing in the way. \n \n Delay: Most of the delay that you experience is due to processing happening at the various nodes of the network. As for Voyager, the majority of the delay is the time it takes light to travel from the edge of the solar system back to the vicinity of the sun, where Earth hangs out. \n \n\nAlso, your carrier sucks. ", "I hate questions like this, how are the two related at all? \n\n\"We can land a man on the moon, but I still can't get a ball point pen that writes\".\n\nThe answer is because your bathroom wall (and everything else) is not in the way of the dish used to pick up voyager.", "The dumbed down version in three simple words. \n\nLine Of Sight. ", "What I want to know: How it hasn't crashed into anything yet? How did we find out the exact location to deploy it and knew there was a straight line of nothing 11 billion miles away?", "My Android phone gets perfect reception in my bathroom. I suggest you look into getting a new bathroom ASAP as yours is clearly inferior.", "Connect [this antenna](_URL_0_) to your cell phone and you will have reception any fucking where you want.", "Most amazing to me is that the power source (nuclear, I believe?) and computers and transmitter and other electronics haven't failed in 36 years. ", "The Voyager is travelling through space, which is mostly empty. It uses a sort of radio to communicate with earth, just like when your parents turn on that boring NPR radio station in the car. Radio works with mostly the same rules as light, like the visible light that allows us to see stuff. \n\n*turns on a lamp with a shade* \n\nJust like this lamp.\n\nThe light bulb in this lamp is giving off light, and that light travels through space in a straight line between the source, the bulb, and bouces off stuff like the wall and everything else in the room and some of it ends up in our eyes and that's how we see. \n\n*childs head explodes*\n\nJust trust me on this. The important parts are that \n\n* the light always travels in a straight line\n* it usually can't go through stuff but it depends on how thick the stuff is and what it is made from. Radio and visible light go through different stuff with different success, but they all have stuff that reflects it or allows it to pass, it's just not the same stuff for both.\n* light bounces off lots of stuff, just like bouncing a superball\n\nWhen the lamp's light tries to go through the shade, some of it blocked and some of it goes through and some of it is reflected back. We do it on purpose, to keep the light from blinding us.\n\nWhen the Voyager spacecraft sends a radio message back to earth, pretty much the only thing in between us and the craft is our atmosphere, the air we breath and fly through in jets. In the right conditions, the air doesn't block that much radio so we can still 'see' the voyagers radio waves about as well as when it was a lot closer, like a normal satellite that tells our GPS where we are on earth.\n\nYour Android phone is the same as the voyager, but it isn't just getting messages from a radio tower, it is also sending them. And where you are inside the bathroom there is a lot of stuff in between you and the radio tower down the street to block the light your Android is putting out. The walls of the house, the nearby trees, and everything else work like the lamp shape to reduce the amount of light that gets from point A, the tower, to point B, your Android. Plus, in order to work properly, you need both sides sending light back and forth so when the amount of light is reduced, it makes it doubly difficult to make this work.\n\nThere is also interference, because there is a lot of very similar light bouncing around invisibly all the time, and the Android and tower need to be able to pick out just the right message. You've heard interference on the radio, when it gets fuzzy and there is buzzing and weird sounds and it is hard to understand the music or people talking. When the Android and the phone tower are exchanging data, they have their own computer-version of this.\n \nSo that's why. Phones use radio, radio requires line of sight, phone towers aren't always easily visbile from where your phone is and stuff gets in the way and drowns out the signal with interference. Especially while you are in the bathroom.\n\nNow run along and play.\n", "The funny part being, when I worked for NASA, the women's bathroom had the *best* reception in the entire place.", "The antenna that receives the signal from Voyager wouldn't fit in your pocket. Or your bathroom.", "Because we're spending millions of dollars to point our ears specifically at Voyager.\n\nYour phone company is spending millions of dollars to give service to a wide area.", "I get fine reception in your bathroom. Must be your phone.", "There are a lot of farts in the bathroom and that interferes with the signal. Also, you shouldn't be using your cell phone in the bathroom to begin with.\n\nHere's why: _URL_0_", "POWER FLUX DENSITY (PFD) = P x G / 4 x pi x r2\n\nPFD = watts per meter2\nP = 21.3 watts (X-Band transmitter output)\nG = 6.5 x 104 (antenna gain)\nPG = ERP (effective radiated power)\nr = radius or distance from earth\n\n\n[PDF : Reception of Voyager 1](_URL_0_)\n\nDitto, your carrier sucks.\n", "because Voyager 1 was designed and built by NASA while your Android was designed and built by Chinese consumer electronics clone makers", "Voyager 1 was built better than your phone. Shocking, right?", "Because your phone needs to have a constant real-time conversation with the cell tower, and because Voyager is just sending, not really listening (or not waiting for us to respond).\n\nAnd because we know exactly where Voyager is (or should be based on physics), so we can point sensitive antennas in the exact direction. And because Voyager knows where it is, and therefore, where Earth is, it also points directly at us. \n\nAnd because Voyager is far away, we can filter out nearby signals, because instead of one antenna talking to hundreds of phones, like your Android, we only want to talk to one thing.\n\nAnd because instead of hundreds of cellphones all speaking the same language at the same time, there is only one (Well two) Voyagers speaking the Voyager language.\n\nTL;DR: Cellular communication is two-way, noisy, and has to happen quickly. Voyager communication is one-way, distinct, and we don't mind waiting a few days for each message.", "Have you ever seen a bathroom wall in space? ", "To elaborate further, funding.\n\nNASA wants to get the best signal possible and will pay for it.\n\nYour cell phone carrier wants to get the worst acceptable signal possible, and pay as little as possible for it." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1977-076A", "http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/instruments_hga.html" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goldstone_DSN_antenna.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiqVmuxico" ], [ "http://www.uhf-satcom.com/misc/datasheet/dh2va.pdf" ], [], [], [], [], [] ]
2aqvzu
why is nsa still allowed to do whatever they want, and how long will it continue?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2aqvzu/eli5_why_is_nsa_still_allowed_to_do_whatever_they/
{ "a_id": [ "cixv89g", "cixxma9", "cixxzf2" ], "score": [ 33, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "This is going to be a bit more than ELI5, but stick with me.\n\nIn 1978, the USA set up the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC or FISA Court) to approve sensitive requests for surveillance by federal law enforcement (read: the NSA). Because this court deals with top secret (\"classified\") information, it operates behind closed doors. From 1978 until 2001 the court operated with little to no public attention. \n\nAfter 9/11, the U.S. gov't took measures to combat terrorism, the most famous of which is the USA PATRIOT Act. This changed large parts of the legality of surveillance both within and without the United States of America and many believe gave the NSA unparalleled power. Given the fact the governing body of the NSA (the FISA Court) operates ex-parte (i.e. with just the participation of the judge and government) the NSA was able to do a lot more than the general public knew about.\n\nThe Snowden leaks showed that the NSA was not only keeping the public in the dark, but also members of the US Congress. **That answers the \"why can they do whatever they want\" part; simply, because they legally can.**\n\nAs far as \"how long will it continue\"? This will change if the laws change and the laws will change if the public demands that they do (by voting for privacy-conscious gov't representatives, etc.). Unfortunately, while there is a general \"stink\" in the media about mass-surveillance, no one wants to be the politician that goes actively against the NSA because (god forbid) another attack happens and he will be known as the \"pro-terror\" or \"anti-gov't\" or \"anti-safety\" or \"weak-on-crime\" politician.\n\n(Source: I'm a 5th year PhD student studying Criminology with a focus on Cyber Criminology. The Edward Snowden revelations made me re-write a large chunk of my dissertation.)", "Who is going to stop them, you can listen to what republicans and Democrats say but in the end they're on the same team with the same agenda. Divide, conquer, control. ", "While I agree with other posters that the polticians are cowards, another explanation is the long slow judicial process in the US. Take for exampel the USG's no fly list after 9/11. Basically the USG can prevent anyone from flying without any sort of explanation. This year, [a federal judge ruled the process illegal.](_URL_0_). So it only took 12 or so years for the legal process to have its say.\n\nThe USG has been fighting lawsuits about the NSA/FBI (because the FBI is in on this too) survellience laws by saying the plantiff didn't have standing because they couldn't prove they had been surveilled. With the Snowden revelations, specific plantiffs will now be able to sue. But as with the no fly list, it will probably take years to wind through the US court system." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/no-fly-list-blog" ] ]
b3k9di
if we can’t see atoms, electrons, quarks... how did we knew that matter is composed by those things and what it seemed like ?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b3k9di/eli5_if_we_cant_see_atoms_electrons_quarks_how/
{ "a_id": [ "ej07zkd", "ej0a3e5", "ej0gtbl", "ej0jox0", "ej0m3gf", "ej0qffr" ], "score": [ 6, 27, 5, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "We don't. But it doesn't matter. The mathematical models that describe these things allow us to predict observable outcomes that are incredibly accurate. Everything could be a quantum probably field or a vivid hallucination of the mind.\n\nBut until a more accurate model exist to explain what we experience we'll keep using this one.", "Short answer: Math. Lots of math.\n\nLong answer: We can't see them, but we can detect them. Our eyes (and by extension pretty much all image sensors) are particle detectors, where a photon hits something, energizes an electron, and sets off a chain reaction that results in us being aware of that piece of light. Add up a bunch of those and you can form a picture.\n\nWe've built far, far more sensitive and precise particle detectors. They usually either have that particle hit something to emit photons that a sensor sees or have that particle hit electrons around to generate an electric current.\n\nThere are some things we can tell about a particle when we detect it, depending on how we detect it; sometimes we can tell how fast it was going, sometimes we can tell where it hit, sometimes we can tell how heavy it was (or rather how much energy it had), stuff like that.\n\nNow, how we interpret that data involves a whole lot of math. For instance, we never actually detected a Higgs boson. We did a bunch of math to figure out how to generate one, we did a bunch more math to figure out what we would detect if we did generate one, and then we tried to generate one several million times until we were sure we saw what the math predicted and that it couldn't be from something else entirely. What we actually \"saw\" was a collection of more 'normal' particles that the Higgs boson broke into.\n\nWe actually get very little information about particles out of experiments and real measurements compared to what we get out of theory. The particles we're looking for right now have all been predicted and quite heavily described by our theories, and what we're trying to find is just proof that they exist.\n\n*EDIT:*\n\nTo be clear, I'm not saying that we know everything and we just need to confirm we're right. There are a lot of things our models don't explain right now, and some of our most powerful models fundamentally contradict with each other. It's just that, when we're looking at particles, we usually know *exactly* what we're looking for, otherwise we would never get any useful information.", "The atomic model developed over time based on results from various experiments. The first model was developed after the discovery of the electron and was very bad. It's often called the plumb pudding model and basically it was that atoms were made of some sort of positively charged blobby substance with electrons embedded within it. \n\nThe first reasonable model came with the discovery of the nucleus by Rutherford in his gold foil experiment. The Rutherford model imagined the atom as something like a solar system, with electrons orbiting like planets. Rutherford continued his experiments in smashing atoms together and was able to show the existence of protons through a series of experiments 6 years later. \n\nAt this point, people started noticing Rutherford getting all the sweet discoveries and so playing with alpha radiation became pretty popular. During one of these experiments someone was able to emit neutrons, but they didn't know it at the time. It wasn't until Chadwick took a second look that we knew what they actually were. \n\nThe scientific value of smashing tiny things together became clear by then and particle accelerators were built to start looking at what else we could find. This lead to a golden age of sorts for discovery of new and crazy particles that behaved different from everything we had seen before. In order to make sense of it all, new theory was developed that ultimately lead to the Standard Model. This helped guide new experiments to try and look for other particles that our fancy math predicted should exist and we found the last one 8 years ago with the discovery of the Higgs Boson.\n\nNow there are plenty of new models that look to build on the success of the Standard Model and make predictions of other particles that may exist. Searching for new particles is tough though. Particle accelerators are kind of like telescopes in that they are useless if you don't know where to point them, and so good theory work is needed to narrow down the possibilities. ", "You are right, in a way, we indeed don't know if matter is composed of those things. We can't see them like we see a tea spoon on a table.\n\nBut then, why do we say that is the way it is? Well, that's a shorthand to say: if you assume matter is this way, I have this theory here that say LASER is possible, nuclear fission powerplants should produce energy, the sun energy production should be this amount, etc...\n\nNow, people are going to say, yeah, right that's completely convoluted and unrealistic and I will show you how wrong you are. Then they build a crazy particle accelerator to smash atoms together and... it is indeed showing all those expected crazy behaviors.\n\nSo, until somebody find something unexplainable in that theory, we can't really disprove it. But you can build new theories where particles don't exist but you have vibrating strings in 11 dimensions and matter is just the shadow of those strings on a 4 dimension space-time.\n\nPhysics is not the search for what truly is (that's philosophic noise), but for understanding the universe and using it to cheat our ways out of our own limitations.", "You can shoot really small things (alpha particles, in [Rutherford's gold foil experiment](_URL_0_)) at a piece of matter and notice that most of them go straight through, with a few being deflected off in a particular pattern. That's how we discovered that atoms have a small nucleus in the center, but are mostly empty space apart from that.\n\nIn order to probe the structure of nuclei and subatomic particles, you can do something similar but you have to use even smaller projectiles and shoot them even faster. That's essentially what happens at particle colliders where we discovered some of the smallest subatomic particles), although the forces that scatter protons off each other are very different from the forces that scatter alpha particles off of nuclei.", "We can't see wind, but we know it exists. We can measure it, know where it is, how it behaves...etc. Just because we can't directly \"see\" particles doesn't mean we can't . measure and detect them with other means." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment" ], [] ]
7gxifq
why are you expected to drive faster than the posted speed limit in the united states?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7gxifq/eli5_why_are_you_expected_to_drive_faster_than/
{ "a_id": [ "dqmh9by", "dqmhc7y", "dqmjmif" ], "score": [ 16, 7, 3 ], "text": [ "Many drivers know that absolute enforcement of speed limits is very difficult and sometimes dangerous, especially if every driver is slightly above the limit, and minor offenses are punishable by a small fine, if not just a verbal warning. \n\nInstrumental tolerance and error is a very easy argument against a small traffic ticket.\n\nBecause of this, they drive slightly faster than the speed limit, as the chances of being stopped just for a minor offense or verbal warning is close to zero.\n\nThe police are primarily looking for those who they suspect may have a secondary offense that can be cited (such as reckless driving of some sort) and major speeders. ", "Speedometers are not perfect, and neither are drivers. \n\nA cops 80/kph and your cars 80/kph might be a few klicks off, and that can be used in court to get out of tickets. \n\nSo cops tend to give you ~10k wiggle room, so when they nail you at 11k over, you're dead to rights. \n\nBecause people know they have the 10k margin of error, it's more or less expected to be within it. \n\n*Sorry, Canadian, not American, but close enough? ", "Because we have places to go, the consequences for speeding slightly are slim to none, and because [speed limits are quite outdated and restrictive](_URL_0_). \n\nAlso, driving with the flow of traffic is far safer than going slower than everyone around you, so it's one of the few times where \"because everyone else was doing it\" is a valid reason in terms of safety, if not in terms of the law." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "https://news.utexas.edu/2015/07/02/roads-are-better-cars-are-safer-raise-the-speed-limit" ] ]
1fxt68
why i can't use a mechanical pencil on the act/sat.
Also, why can't I just work at my own pace instead of starting and stopping?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fxt68/eli5_why_i_cant_use_a_mechanical_pencil_on_the/
{ "a_id": [ "caeu78i", "caeu8s6" ], "score": [ 33, 20 ], "text": [ "The pencils are restricted to make sure that the machine that grades the tests can read it. It's also possible to hide stuff inside a mechanical pencil, which they want to avoid.\n\nThe sections are timed so that the exam is standardized between students. Each student spends the same amount of time on each section. It also prevents you from spending too much time on the first parts and running out of time on the others.", "They don't want you to use a mechanical pencil because there's a tiny chance that you've got a mechanical pencil that doesn't use standard lead. Nobody would know until your answer grid scanned as blank. Sure, every mechanical pencil I've ever seen uses the same no.2 lead as regular pencils, but they don't say so on the pencil, so you can't check to be sure.\n\nFor working at your own pace, that partially invalidates the \"standardized\" part of standardized tests. It's not just \"answer as many of these questions correctly as you can in 4 hours\", it's \"perform as well as you can in this carefully controlled environment\". If you take different amounts of time on different sections, it's less clear how your scores relate to others' scores." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
1qrpb7
if you kept setting off nuclear bombs in the same place would lava eventually erupt ?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qrpb7/eli5_if_you_kept_setting_off_nuclear_bombs_in_the/
{ "a_id": [ "cdfrirg" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Infinite? That's an awful lot.\n\nThere are small magma chambers which are close enough to the surface that a single nuclear explosion can expose them. These don't seem to be in the spirit of the question, however.\n\nMagma occurs in great quantity many tens of kilometers below the Earth's surface. If by the 'same place' we are allowed to place each nuclear device lower into the hole we are digging, then we would need to figure out how far nuclear devices can throw rocky rubble.\n\nMy guess is that you would eventually end up with a giant gravel pit and each explosion would throw almost all of its material high up in the pit where it would immediately roll down and re-fill the hole that you continued to dig. Some smallish amount of dust would be thrown high into the atmosphere and perhaps with infinite bombs you would make painstakingly slow progress in this matter.\n\nIf you want molten rock from nuclear explosions, just use them to heat some surface rock." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
1fgqr4
how did early humans give birth?
If they could do it without midwives and doctors and nurses before, why do we need them now?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fgqr4/eli5_how_did_early_humans_give_birth/
{ "a_id": [ "caa3khv", "caa3mxi" ], "score": [ 7, 14 ], "text": [ "because we don't like as many moms and babies dying as happened back then?", "Midwives have existed since the Egyptians, but modern advances in medicine have made huge advances in preventing maternal & neonatal deaths & complications.\n\n[This report about birth complications before 1935](_URL_0_) states that prior to 1880 when antiseptics were invented, around 85 of every 1000 births resulted in the death of the mother. This number decreased with better medical understanding to around 4/1000 in the 1930s to 0.1/1000 today. Medical assistance has played a huge role in decreasing birth related complications." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3511335" ] ]
3dn7w0
why does russia spy and have hostility towards sweden and other nordic countries?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dn7w0/eli5_why_does_russia_spy_and_have_hostility/
{ "a_id": [ "ct6rhsx" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Sweden, despite it's avowed neutrality, is very firmly tied to West/Central Europe and NATO (they're actually reconsidering joining because of Russian aggression). Russia is showing hostility towards them for the same reasons they are toward most other European countries." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
4tyy7h
how can a psychiatrist who is diagnosing patients be sure they don't have any mental disorders themselves?
Isn't there the possibility there is some underlying condition the psychiatrist has? Do they visit psychologists regularly? The DSM-5 is an extensive book and everyone is bound to find something in it that they could apply to themselves how can they be sure they are diagnosing without any mental bias?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tyy7h/eli5_how_can_a_psychiatrist_who_is_diagnosing/
{ "a_id": [ "d5lfge9", "d5lgmog", "d5li0zg", "d5lnpms", "d5lv41a", "d5lw6w9" ], "score": [ 13, 34, 10, 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Mental health professionals often do see therapists for something or another. According to [PsychologyToday,](_URL_0_) between 65 and 80 percent of therapists have had therapy at some point.\n\nThey are not required to regularly visit psychologists, but some do.", "You think of mental illnesses like something special. Don't! A cardiologist can suffer from coronary heart disease and may or may not be able to diagnose himself based on the symptoms he is experiencing. \n\nOnly a minority of psychiatric patients is suffering from a disease that makes self reflection impossible. The majority is aware that they are sick and if they have a medical background they can see the symptoms in themselves and interpret them correctly. ", "It is quite possible and actually fairly likely that there are many psychiatrists with diagnosable mental disorders, given how common mental disorders are in the population. As someone else said, plenty of cardiologists have heart attacks.\n\nIf you're specifically referring to some kind of mental disorder that affects their judgement, then yes, it's possible. One would hope that a psychiatrist would have enough knowledge about the field to recognize that their depression, bipolar disorder, or what have you was affecting their ability to perform their job. If not, it would be pretty much the same situation as any doctor who starts doing a lousy job. A depressed surgeon isn't going to be doing surgery as well. There's nothing special about being a psychiatrist in terms of this.", "Vicarious traumatisation is a very real problem for Psychologists. This is mostly regarding when treating individuals whom have suffered at the hands of a specific event(s), which in turn affects the Psychologist's personal life upon hearing them in depth. Because the role naturally requires a lot of empathy, it's quite easy for this bleeding effect to occur. However this can also happen with anxiety and mood disorders, such as depression, too. This is why therapy sessions with other professionals are recommended (and sometimes mandatory), as it's quite easy to miss it on yourself. The stress of the job can also lead to destructive behaviours such as substance misuse which could affect their diagnostic ability.\n\nMore invasive and disruptive forms of mental illness that could affect their judgement would probably leave them unable to practice. The only exception to this would probably be high-functioning (hard-to-tell there's anything wrong with them) personality disorders. They'd be quite good psychologists, and may probably be unaware (although unlikely) of their disorder. Although I doubt they'd care either way.\n\nCase hardening (where a professional is subjected to a particular patients with things in common repeatedly) may impair judgement, as they're not as empathic and can 'burn out'.\n\n", "I asked my therapist how he deals with all the shit he has to talk about. He specialized in working with victims of sexual abuse and specifically particularly bad sexual abuse. \n \nHe explained that he would check in with a colleague of his about once every 3 months. From what he told me it was pretty common for therapists to have therapists. In some places in Europe you have to undergo a certain number of hours of therapy yourself in order to get a license to practice.", "Well you can say that about any doctor. If I have paranoid schizophrenia, that would affect my diagnosing skill if I were a urologist, or a podiatrist, or a psychiatrist. Diagnosing mental disorders isn't really all that \"special\"; it's just another type of medical disease." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199707/why-shrinks-have-problems" ], [], [], [], [], [] ]
3lzwu1
why does youtube have movies posted that then redirect you to another site?
many youtube videos claim to have the full movie but youtube has removed it for copyright issues. Then I'm directed to another site that say I have to give credit card information before I can stream it. If youtube has removed the video due to legal issues, then why is the misleading page still there? Are the movie streaming sites actually legit?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lzwu1/eli5_why_does_youtube_have_movies_posted_that/
{ "a_id": [ "cvarj71" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "They haven't removed the movie, they aren't legit. It's a scam, they're trying to steal your credit card information. Don't give it to them." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
2uchab
why on old buildings they replace "u" with "v" in carved stones?
I just walked past the American Mvsevm of Natvral History. What's the deal? Not like they couldn't carve rounded characters.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uchab/eli5_why_on_old_buildings_they_replace_u_with_v/
{ "a_id": [ "co74dyz", "co74fm6", "co74o9u", "co7aucj" ], "score": [ 5, 8, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "In Latin, at some point there was only 24 letters. Later, the J and the U were* created, but prior to that, there was no U.", "An allograph is a variation of a letter in another context. Uppercase and lowercase letters are allographs. Before the letter U was added to the Latin alphabet, the shape V was an allograph and stood for both the vowel U and the consonant V. It wasn’t until printing standardized letter shapes in the 1600s that the letter U became regularly used, but I couldn't say why the museum used the shape V in their text. Maybe the architect was a history buff.\n\nInteresting Factoid: Many older cities don't have a J Street because, back then, type had yet to be standardized, and I and J were also allographs.\n\nEdit: I forgot this one and my wife reminded me. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: Indy almost falls to his death because he forgot: \"In Latin Jehovah begins with an \"I\"\".", "Have you ever tried to carve a \"U\" in stone with a chisel? \n\nNot so flippant an answer as it might seem. Consider the earliest forms of writing and why they evolved as they did. ", "I always wondered that. I also wonder if a W as called a double U because of that." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
7vvmmq
if there is no sound in space, how is that car broadcasting bowie up there? is it able to be heard if you were near?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vvmmq/eli5_if_there_is_no_sound_in_space_how_is_that/
{ "a_id": [ "dtvf86j" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Actually were there are molecules there will be sound. If the Tesla passes through a cloud of gas you could in theory hear it, until it passes out of the cloud.\n\nThe music will always be playing (until the power run's out) and if you place your head or for that matter your hand on the car you will feel / hear the music with vibration through the car body.\n\nEither way its a nice gesture to David Bowie." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
73jx9z
why are lots of movies released on the same day?
I've noticed this a lot recently. For instance, on _URL_0_, it says there are at least 6 movies releasing on Oct. 6. I've also noticed this every few months. Is there like a specific set of dates movies should release on in the movie industry or something?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/73jx9z/eli5_why_are_lots_of_movies_released_on_the_same/
{ "a_id": [ "dnqw6g4" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "Box office worker here.\n\nThe answer to this is pretty simple. Ticket sales on weekdays are second to none compared to anything from Friday to Sunday. It's way more profitable to have a movie be released on Thursdays or Fridays so that they can make the most money with the initial hype. It's just ideal, and opening weekends are the biggest way a movie's success is gauged.\n\nAs for why there seems to be a lot on specific days and the releases aren't more spread out, is because specific times of the year are big hotspots for ticket sales. For example, the movie IT was the highest selling movie in any September ever. This is majorly due to the fact that not many big producers would have their movie be released in September. The most popular times of the year are most of summer and anytime near Christmas." ] }
[]
[ "rottentomatoes.com" ]
[ [] ]
13puda
why are we attracted to coloured lights?
I was putting up my *free thinker celebrating the days getting longer again* lights, and wondered why flashing, coloured lights make me feel so happy. (same effect walking into a casino or fair grounds with lots of neon). What are these lights triggering in my brain?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13puda/eli5_why_are_we_attracted_to_coloured_lights/
{ "a_id": [ "c762ptb", "c763avv", "c76436j" ], "score": [ 2, 5, 5 ], "text": [ "I'm too lazy and in a hurry right now, so I'll throw this in the ring \n\n_URL_0_ . \"Check Specific color meaning\".\n\nIt's not the colored lights that make you happy per se, it's the specific colors you're seeing. Specific colors are triggering the release of specific amounts of different hormones and chemicals to which you body reacts differently.\n\nWhat exactly those colors trigger in your brain and what the chemical process is, is a question for askscience.", "Why have I never experienced this?", "Your visual system is highly attuned to movement in general, since moving things are more likely to be potentially dangerous. This doesn't explain positive feelings toward flashing lights, but it does explain why they draw attention.\n\nAs for those positive feelings, well, there's a trick with some animals where if they have trouble recognizing their water dish, you can wrap it in aluminum foil to create stronger reflections. I believe the idea here is that these reflections better simulate the sort of reflections that occur on water under outdoor sunlight. It wouldn't surprise me if attraction to blinking points of light was related to some primitive system for recognizing water." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_psychology" ], [], [] ]
43ew19
what is going on with youtube and the fine bros?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43ew19/eli5_what_is_going_on_with_youtube_and_the_fine/
{ "a_id": [ "czhot11", "czhpetg" ], "score": [ 18, 7 ], "text": [ "The Fine Bros are attempting to trademark \"reaction\" videos (those videos like \"Kids React!\" or \"Old People React!) therefore giving them the power to file copyright claims against other YouTubers who upload videos in a similar format. This is making people angry because a big channel like The Fine Bros copyrighting content on YouTube harms other users by totally monopolizing a common video technique. It's basically showing how YouTube has become less about uploading and sharing free content, and more about monetization and making money off viewers.", "Found this video does a great job explaining some of it:\n_URL_0_" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXJ3FFOXvOQ" ] ]
4i0xb1
why does time seem to slow down when i'm studying and passes by really quickly when i'm procrastinating?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4i0xb1/eli5_why_does_time_seem_to_slow_down_when_im/
{ "a_id": [ "d2u271p" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "You pay much more attention to the time when you're studying, probably something like \"only 10 minutes left\" or whatever, you probably don't do that when you procrastinate." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
1q2x3e
why is it so much easier/faster for us to boil water than freeze it, considering the freezing point is much closer to room temperature than the boiling point?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q2x3e/eli5_why_is_it_so_much_easierfaster_for_us_to/
{ "a_id": [ "cd8n1jj", "cd8n3dh", "cd8n7aq", "cd8ng3q", "cd8y021", "cd94lzc" ], "score": [ 4, 3, 5, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Because we usually boil water over a fire, in a kettle, or on a stove, all of which are VERY hot, much hotter than 100C. On the other hand, we freeze water in a freezer, which is usually only a few degrees below 0, around -3", "To boil it you are adding heat, usually on an element with a high temperature and thus emitting a lot of heat. To freeze it, you have to take the heat out of the water, meaning it has to transfer to the surroundings. The colder the surroundings are, the faster it will transfer but the usual freezer isn't that cold (about -15 to -20C I believe). So the heat energy won't be pulled out that quickly as there isn't much of a temperature difference. A burner is much hotter than the water (anywhere from 200-400C or so) and so will transfer heat much more quickly. Drop a glass of water in liquid nitrogen (almost -200C) and it will freeze way more quickly!", "Your stove fire is like 2000 degree Fahrenheit, 212 is the temperature that water boils at. So you're heating up water to only about one tenth the hotness of the fire. If you had something that was -2000 degrees, it would freeze water just as fast. ", "The simplest answer is because there are many uses for heating something quickly, that use relatively little power, such as an oven or the microwave (which heats things a little differently), but far fewer practical uses for super cooling things in the home. \n\nWe could have devices that quickly super cool things in the house, but would you spend $800 (which online I checked, they're $5000-$20000 ) to have an instant ice making appliance when your refrigerator makes all the ice you could ever need. \n\nSo the technology exists, it's just not mass produced because we need to heat things quickly (food, mostly) but very seldom do we need to flash freeze things. \n\nI'm on mobile but here's a link to some instant ice machines. \n\n_URL_0_\n", "It has to do with the medium used for temperature transfer. I assume you are thinking stove top vs. freezer. On a stove top you have metal in direct contact with the water over a certain area. The metal is an excellent conductor for heat transfer. In a freezer you are relying on air to absorb the water and container heat, and air (being a gas) is not a good conductor of heat.", "In order for a substance to change from a liquid to a gas, many btus must be added. To heat one pound of water from 211 to 212 degrees takes 1 btu. To go from 212 degree water to 212 degree steam it takes hundreds of btus. Same with freezing. You need to be able to remove 1 btu to go from 33 to 32 degree water, but to go from 32 degree water to 32 degree ice you must remove hundreds of btus. \n\nFire can add thousands of btus a second to a substance, but we currently have no commercially viable process that can take away thousands of btus a second. Heat is the presence of energy and cold is the absence. It is much harder to remove energy from something that it is to add to it. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [ "http://m.alibaba.com/products/Instant_ice_maker.html" ], [], [] ]
77hgn7
why does leukemia cause leukocytosis?
If in leukemia we have a stop in differentiation of the myeloid lineage, how come leukocytosis is such a frequent finding? edit: sorry this was poorly written, let me rephrase. Take acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Leukocytosis is commonly present. AML, is characterized by an increase in the number of myeloid cells in the marrow and an arrest in their maturation. Consequently, myeloid cells shouln't differentiate into leukocytes. Maybe I'm just confusing it all.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/77hgn7/eli5_why_does_leukemia_cause_leukocytosis/
{ "a_id": [ "dolvhul" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I'm not sure I am understanding your question. Leukemia is essentially uncontrolled cellular reproduction - so you'd expect to find lots of the cell type that is being produced. There are many different types of leukemias affecting many (all?) of the different WBC cell lines. Please rephrase." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
3us417
why are there musical one-hit wonders?
I have always have wondered why some bands produce songs that are one-hit wonders while others produce hit songs for years. I get that there may be novelty songs that catch on, but what about the serious musicians? I assume if they can write or perform one big hit they should at least be able to make a respectable follow-up.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3us417/eli5_why_are_there_musical_onehit_wonders/
{ "a_id": [ "cxhbxo7", "cxhlhtf", "cxii4kh" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Being creative is a strange thing. Sometimes you just make something that is far better or cliques way better than anything you've ever made before, and its extremely hard to replicate that idea. Especially in music, where its sortof the luck of the draw what people latch onto, its very easy to make a huge song while the rest of your work just doesnt match up in the public eye\n\nTo summarize; for a lot of artists being consistent is their biggest problem to get over.", "It has a lot less to do with the artist than with the fickle nature of the music industry and pop music. \n\nPlenty of up and coming artists get signed to a label, produce a record that the label chooses to push and market so that it produces a hit single. Then the artist goes back to record a second album. The label pushes the artist to write another hit single, just like the last one. The artist instead pushes to record what they want. The record they deliver is perfectly good and has some great songs, but the label chooses to spend it's money pushing a different hot new artist. Without the huge marketing push, the record does OK but not nearly as well as the last one. The industry mags all reports it as a \"huge flop\". The label drops the artist. The artist goes back to where he started, driving around in a van and playing clubs and recording pretty good music for an indie label, but is now labelled a \"one hit wonder\" forever. \n\nThe reality is that the artist was talented and had a solid fan base, and delivered good records of consistent quality, but the label basically made the choice to push one or two singles to the stratosphere and ignore everything else. If the label had just ignored them in the first place they probably would be \"great indie band that has never had a major label success\" instead of \"one hit wonder\"", "There are (at least) three factors that go into whether or not a song is a hit:\n\n- Aesthetics. There are certain things that the human brain appreciates, and certain things it doesn't. Unless a song hits a minimum level of aesthetic quality, it won't be a hit. Note that this is not measured by any kind of \"expert\"; but only by the sum of human opinions.\n- Exposure. You can not like a song if you never hear it. Some songs spread quickly, either virally, or because it is pushed by someone with money or connections. Songs that don't spread can't be hits.\n- Social factors. Many songs are discounted for any number of social reasons: like most songs by Black performers through the 1960's. Sometimes these songs pick up later on, when social issues change, but often they are forgotten, meaning no exposure." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
8yr55u
what does actual love feel like?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8yr55u/eli5_what_does_actual_love_feel_like/
{ "a_id": [ "e2d455w", "e2d456w" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I think it feels different for different people. But on our good days it feels like coming home. No matter what day I’m having, the best part of it is knowing that I get to come home and tell my love all about it. It’s consistent love, support, and warmth. Even on the days when he pisses me off, I know he’s my best friend and he isn’t going anywhere so we hash it out and then we’re all over each other again lol", "Love feels like nothing else in the world matters when you're in their arms. \n\nLove feels like no matter how often you see them, it's not enough.\n\nLove feels like wanting to be with them even when they've hit rock bottom.\n\nLove feels like being okay with being at rock bottom, because being with them means you still have something to lose.\n\nLove feels like rushing home to see them.\n\nLove feels like their laughter being the sweetest sound in the world. \n\nLove feels like their happiness being integral to your own.\n\nLove feels like your heart trying to burst out of your chest and follow them whenever you're apart. \n\nLove feels like your whole heart is wrapped around both of you when you hug.\n\nLove feels like even holding hands with them creates the most amazing fireworks sensation in your heart.\n\nLove feels like your heart exploding over and over, but like... in a good way." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
1r7q3s
why is milk said to be a good source of protein when it contains only about 3,5 %?
There is more protein in potato chips, for example.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r7q3s/eli5_why_is_milk_said_to_be_a_good_source_of/
{ "a_id": [ "cdkf7bh", "cdkfyad" ], "score": [ 5, 3 ], "text": [ "Advertising. \n\nWhile we're at it, it's [not a spectacular source of calcium, either](_URL_0_) [PDF ALERT]\n\nBefore anyone asks how it can be advertising when there are so many different dairy distributors, \"Got Milk?\" was meant to advertise the entire *concept* of milk (and therefore the entire industry) to encourage consumers to drink more milk--by [these guys](_URL_1_), specifically.\n", "You are looking at the wrong metric. \n\nIt's only 3.5% per weight, but milk is mostly water. If you look at it as a percentage of calories, then it's about 8-10% protein per calorie.\n\nLooking at it that way, the amount protein in milk is roughly similar to eggs (8%-9% protein/calorie).\n\nA potato chip in comparison has only 1% protein per calorie. And a single serving of lay's classic potato chips has 2 grams of protein. So essentially, you'd have to eat 4 bags worth of lay's potato chips to get the same protein from a single glass of milk. BUT, you'd be eating 600 calories worth of chips vs. the 100 calories worth of milk.\n\nTL;DR: Milk is a great source of protein when you look at it as protein per calorie, instead of protein per weight. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.992", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Milk_Processor_Board" ], [] ]
1iw4va
how come the south was democratic in lincoln's time but republican now?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iw4va/eli5_how_come_the_south_was_democratic_in/
{ "a_id": [ "cb8lsmm", "cb8lukn", "cb8nx0i", "cb8on4d", "cb8qn6e", "cb8s50h", "cb8uc96", "cb8uk7r", "cb91eow", "cb93zl4" ], "score": [ 34, 95, 42, 6, 3, 4, 3, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "See the [Southern Strategy](_URL_0_).\n\nIn brief, the Republican party specifically started catering to racists in the south around the same time that the Democratic party was focusing more on civil rights.", "The Civil Rights Act and Nixon's Southern strategy in 1968. \n\nA Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act signing away the racist white south, and Nixon promised to battle the liberal supreme court and took the South from the Democrats. It has been that way ever since but likely not really due to race related issues anymore. \n\n The South used to be filled with \"yellow dog democrats\" as in they would rather vote for a yellow dog than a republican. Funny how things turned out. ", "Essentially, the terms \"Democrat\" and \"Republican\" meant very different things. When you look at voting maps, many similarities can be seen from back in the 1860s as today - the same political divisions happened, its just that policies of the parties changed. These policies are essentially: Race relations, social welfare, and industrialization. ", "Because the two parties are super reactionary. The Republican Party (GOP) was founded as a direct response to the Civil War, and was started by a group of abolitionists. Abraham Lincoln was our first Republican president, believe it or not.\n\nIn the mid-1900's, Republicans were opposed to the New Deal coalition which was basically an agenda that served to unite unions and farmers and minorities and intellectuals and create a solid Democratic voting base. In the late 60's, the Civil Rights movement was mostly backed by Northern Democrats, and as many Southerners were moving away from farming and into industrializing cities, they didn't reap the benefits of the New Deal nearly as much. The combination of this made it far easier for Nixon to win the South as a Republican.\n\nToday, we see the Democrats' Civil Rights agenda still a priority, and the Republicans are still very reactionary towards it. (Recent GOP candidate campaigns are *very* reminiscent of the Southern Strategy when they appeal to homophobia.) This is a big part of the reason why Libertarianism is gaining traction, as an aversion to both the religiosity of the GOP and the high taxes, mismanagement, and heavy government control that the Democrats favor. I would not be surprised if in our lifetime one of the major two parties faded away and we had a more Libertarian president.", "It's not very technical and it breaks down to all the same thing but the simplest answer is that if you look back through time the values of each party cycle. There are times where the 'republican' party was liberal and the 'democratic' party were the conservatives. It cycles slowly back and forth. It's why I refuse to declare a political party. Party values change. You should vote for a person individually not because of the party they are associated with.\n", "Given Reddit's political leanings, they are probably going to upvote most comments that paint a flattering picture of the democrats, and a negative picture of republicans.\n\nI would like to present an alternative to that view. At least the OP will see it, if nobody else does.\n\n\nAs the southerners became more similar to republican voters in other regions of the country, with rising incomes, their electoral allegiances began to shift significantly, starting in the late 20s. It was more or less a gradual shift over time.\n\nThere are two signifcant areas that significantly slowed that shift from democrat to republican. \n\n1) Tradition. A lot of people swore up and down that they would not vote republican, because that was the party of the damn yankees. (I count my parents among this group. They may have voted for Reagan, but everyone else on their ticket was Democrat)\n\n2) Race - Because the Democrat party had a lot of appeal to minority voters, they swept up 90+ percent of the black vote - which is a much larger chunk of the population in southern states.\n\n\nAnti-Union Sentiment, A Preference for A stronger national defense, a preference for a smaller government, etc. The more the Democrats forced these issues out of their own coalition, the more those voters in the south found themselves without a party to call home. \n\nFor a lot more thought on it, look here.\n\n_URL_0_", "The Civil Rights Act.\n\nAfter signing it Lyndon I-had-a-hand-in-Kennedy's-death Johnson quietly declared \"We've lost the South for a generation.\"", "The names for political parties (mainly Democrat and Republican) are arbitrary, when you get right down to it. The parties were formed with certain doctrines but after certain socio-economic changes (such as the results of the American Civil War and the Great Depression), those ideologies can become flip-flopped. Today we see the Democratic party advocating high govt involvement in economics/business but low involvement in social issues, which is \"liberal\" ideology. Republicans today typically want minimum government involvement in business and more so in social issues, adhering to the \"conservative\" ideology.\n\nBasically my point is that the south didn't really change in terms of ideology, but the ideology of the party itself changed. They've pretty much always held conservative values, at least economically speaking. Democratic ideology back then became what we now know as Republican. So the ideology was roughly the same, just the label changed due to the surrounding events. \n\nForgive me for the word vomit, this is a concept I only recently grasped and am still a bit fuzzy on. I hope that helped, at least a little bit!", "I read through about 50% of these posts. The thread that strikes me most is that the political parties strategize to gain power as the ultimate goal. How do you organize a group to profess your chosen strategy that will ~~gain the most votes~~ enough votes for you to win? Taking the Logic in Sociologically, you adjust your message to match their proclivities. Actual change in the larger group is \"unlikely\" (read that to mean \"far too much work\"). And if the balance shifts through better marketing of a competing group, Marketing 101, find a new segment to pander to. Any time your competition focuses and takes market segment from you, they are weakening in another segment. It really is a zero-sum game.", "Southern whites were overwhelmingly Democrats from the Civil War until the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson sighened the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This created a huge backlash with most of the white population in the South.\n\nNixon started the Southern Strategy by using racial coded language to appeal to Southern whites, as his strategy went:\n\n > From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans.\n\nNow the previous racist Southern white Democrats became Republicans.\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/" ], [], [], [], [] ]
dl01uc
is plastic bad or is our waste management system?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dl01uc/eli5_is_plastic_bad_or_is_our_waste_management/
{ "a_id": [ "f4l5cgy", "f4l7gx1" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Plastics greatest advantage is that it does really degrade or break down, even over long periods of time. \n\n\nThis is also it's big problem. It doesn't dregrade or break down. It just sits there in trasheaps. There's nothing we can really do to get rid of it once we make the stuff. \n\n\nSo it's its usefulness that makes it bad. \n\n\nAnd you are correct about waste management, but it should be noted, that nearly all plastic waste in the ocean comes from Asia and maybe some from Africa. The waste management system in industrialized countries works just fine.", "It's a little of both. A good example is the use of plastic by companies like coca cola. When it was introduced, consumers were stoked to get the opportunity to buy large bottles of soda for the first time..when they just had glass bottles you couldn't really sell more than the standard size. It was too heavy.\n\nThen plastic bottles changed the game..you could sell 2 liters of soda in one bottle, and the selling point was how lightweight it was.\n\nBut fast forward to modern times, and the amount of those plastic bottles that gets thrown away or just littered is staggering. Remember even just one company like coca cola sells millions, maybe billions, of bottles every year.\n\nSo their best bet to reduce waste would be to go back to glass bottles with a deposit, and they are aware of this but refuse to do so. Because it would cost them a little money to manage that system of cleaning and refilling glass bottles.\n\nLike many things plastic is a great invention but we can have too much of a good thing." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
epnp93
how do the different ‘happy’ chemicals in your brain work?
What causes their production, Why does chemical imbalance happen? Can your body overproduce?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/epnp93/eli5_how_do_the_different_happy_chemicals_in_your/
{ "a_id": [ "fekmw6u" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This isn't something that has a clear cut answer, as the true effect if the different neurotransmitters aren't simple or entirely observable. Every study of them, in the end, involves the question of \"well now how do you FEEL?\" which is so incredibly subjective. And you can over produce them in the sense that there SHOULD be a certain balance between them, and when one is too high and another too low, it can cause issues. Your body is constantly trying to keep the balanced, although it doesn't seem like it does a very good job most of the time lol. \n\nThe general idea is that \n\nSerotonin has an effect on contentment and relaxation and stability on a longer term basis. People with low serotonin tend to have issues with anxiety \n\nDopamine has an effect on reward response, motivation, and drive, but is moreso a short term type thing. Like the feeling you get when you succeed at something, or when that coffee finally kicks in, etc. People with low dopamine tend to have issues feeling motivated and energetic, people with dopamine that is too high, start to move into effects of anxiety. \n\nI know less about norepinephrine, but I believe that it kind of exists between serotonin and dopamine. Maybe as sort of a bridge between the two?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
9o8ul8
why can’t natural gas be used on location for home generation electricity and heat?
- NG electric plants are very common - NG piped to homes for furnace heat is by far the common common heating method - NG backup generators are commercially available at any big box store, like diesel generators. There’s probably an obvious reason for it. But it seems like a waste to burn NG for electricity at the plant (and waste the heat), and then also burn it at the home for *only* the heat. Why can’t we generate power on site and heat our homes with the by-product?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9o8ul8/eli5_why_cant_natural_gas_be_used_on_location_for/
{ "a_id": [ "e7sbjaw" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "We can and do. I have been at a home that used NG for heat, and had an NG backup generator in case grid power failed." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
4ixlkm
how does amazon prime's free shipping actually work? with its popularity, are they losing money? how does it affect ups/usps?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ixlkm/eli5_how_does_amazon_primes_free_shipping/
{ "a_id": [ "d31ycak", "d31yec5", "d31yf23", "d31yjqq", "d31zsz1", "d320f58", "d3233st", "d32dc7p" ], "score": [ 48, 11, 3, 3, 17, 2, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "The thing about being a Prime member is that you're inclined to always purchase from Amazon. They make up any difference on volume of sales.", "I believe Amazon has spent a great deal of time and money working out logistics to the point they can afford to do that. They also do lots of r and d to improve their shipping processes. \n\n\n\nFor instance, in Canada, almost all companies ship from their warehouses in Mississauga Ontario making online shopping for those on the west coast an absolute nightmare shipping wise. Amazon however has spent the time and money building warehouses in both Ontario and British Columbia to provide cheap shipping.\n\n\n\n\nThey are in fact posting losses each year, but from what those in the know say, it's perfectly normal since its in the interests of establishing themselves.", " They still pay UPS and USPS for shipping. The cost of shipping, as well as site management, warehouse labor, R & D, and the ever important exectutive pay are all factored into the price of the item you are buying.", "1. It works by signing up for the membership. Once you are a member, any purchase marked prime eligible will be shipped for free, usually 2 day.\n\n2. Not really. The volume of sales from prime members far outpaces the cost of offering the free shipping. I personally order from them at least twice a week because there is no penalty for me doing so. With their incredible shipping volume, they also pay much less for shipping and you or I would.\n\n3. It might be one of the last things keeping USPS afloat. They ship a lot via USPS from local distribution centers.", "Amazon doesn't pay the same shipping prices that individuals, or even many other businesses pay. \n\nThey deal in a massive volume, and do a good amount of sorting for UPS and FedEx before the trucks even leave the warehouse. ", "The volume helps assuming people buy more. You also have the 90 dollar membership fee that off sets some of this. \n\nAfter watching years of shark tank there is also the aspect of margins. Even with keystone margins they would still make a small profit, but most products have a much larger margin than that.", "Keep in mind, it's not free. It's $100 per year.\n\nSome people order multiple items per week and probably cost them more than they're saving but the majority probably do not. So it averages out.", "Most of the volume of shipments companies like UPS, Fedex, and USPS receive come from businesses and very little of their user-base is the standard consumer. Something you would pay $10.00 to ship would only cost $0.50-2.50 for a business, based on the volume of items they ship though and the deal they have set up with the shipper.\n\nMy employer has a very low shipping fee as long as they ship a certain number of packages each quarter. The fee is readjusted each quarter as needed. We just shipped some newer testing devices to a west coast network operation center for my company and it was $12.50 in total to overnight an insured package nearly a couple of thousands miles away.\n\nIn the case of Amazon, they essentially keep the shippers alive and very profitable with the volume of items they processes. I took a tour of a UPS a couple of years ago and I saw a ton of Amazon boxes being processed. You also have to keep in mind, there will be a majority of prime users who don't fully utilize the value of their membership and just use it twice or so per year for college books or something and a minority of users who do many orders like I do. Each year for the past few years, I've had at least 30 orders from Amazon shipped to my house in the middle of nowhere. \n\nThink of it like any insurance service. The service works great if fewer people are reaching their payed value in return service. Insurance wouldn't work if everyone paid in a few hundred every six months, but got in daily accidents.\n \n " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
2lly8n
would a "plasma rifle" have recoil?
Hey. So we all see in science fiction how various factions, instead of using mundane weapons, use "guns" that propel ionized & super heated plasma quickly with magnetic fields to burn and cauterize and do fun stuff. I figured that since it is essentially a type of railgun without a solid projectile it would have negligible recoil with the exception of the air being displaced and causing a shockwave. Then someone contradicted me and said it would, in fact, recoil. I'm at a loss and can't find something to reference authoritatively in the real world. Any of you know? Edit: Answered, thank you :3 Turns out I was overthinking things and ignoring... well.. the fundamental laws of reality.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lly8n/eli5_would_a_plasma_rifle_have_recoil/
{ "a_id": [ "clw0i0d", "clw0p6o" ], "score": [ 11, 3 ], "text": [ "Plasma still has mass, and must be accelerated, so yes, we can presume that a weapon that shoots plasma at a target will have recoil. Newton's 3rd law and all that.\n\nAs for how much? No way to know without design specifications like what is the chemical and physical makeup of the shot, what is the acceleration profile like, ect.\n\nEdit: to expand on some likely misconceptions about plasma, plasma is a state of (really fucking hot) matter. It is not just \"energy\" without significant substance like light or electricity( yes, I know electrons have mass).", "Are you suggesting railguns don't have recoil? You state that because it's a railgun in essence, the projectile has no recoil and the only recoil would come from the displaced air. \r\r\rThat simply isn't true. Railguns, be it a plasma or solid sabot, have recoil. They would have as much recoil as a conventional gun powder gun firing the same mass at the same speed. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
7zmfm6
how do we know what emotion to name our feelings?
Let's say you feel angry... you have a physical response which for me feels like my chest is tight and my front side is burning. How did I learn that the physical response I'm feeling is called anger? My initial guess is when we were younger we would watch our parents and empathize with the things they interacted with ie they dropped something-- > subconsciously we imagine ourselves in their shoes(empathy)-- > based on their reaction and response we labeled it the same and if this is true then shouldn't we be able to rename our emotions? for example, if I have really bad anxiety couldn't I detach the label from the feeling? or interpret a situation that, let's say, makes me angry and relabel it as maybe annoyed? or something less aggressive..? Idk any insight on emotions or just opinions would be appreciated
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7zmfm6/eli5how_do_we_know_what_emotion_to_name_our/
{ "a_id": [ "dup49cj" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "You’re right with the learned part! A lot of it is from modelling parents/older siblings etc... however humans (regardless of race, age, gender and so on) have 5 innate facial expressions (happiness, sadness, disgust, anger, and fear [recognise these from anywhere?]which are linked to emotions—which implies they are also innate. So yes you’re partially right, but you may also be on to something with being able to detach your emotions, very interesting idea!" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
20f26q
why can police officers arrest you for walking home drunk instead of driving? isn't that a really big catch 22?
I just feel like if you are smart enough not to endanger yourself by driving, you should be able to walk. Not everybody has access to a taxi.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20f26q/eli5_why_can_police_officers_arrest_you_for/
{ "a_id": [ "cg2ldzi", "cg2lhtt" ], "score": [ 5, 4 ], "text": [ "They won't arrest you for walking but if you're causing a disturbance or just acting like a drunk idiot they will and they should write you a ticket. ", "a. its rare. unless you're causing problems, the police generally aren't going to arrest you for being drunk if you're keeping to yourself. I generally hear about drunk and disorderly, not just drunk\n\nb. you have other options, call a cab or designated driver.\n\nc. the entire situation is avoidable. If you don't have a DD or aren't willing/able to pay for a cab then don't drink so much that you can't drive home. Part of the catch-22 is that the cycle needs to be unavoidable." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
53t7yc
how does inputting a shutdown command on a computer physically move components to turn it off?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53t7yc/eli5_how_does_inputting_a_shutdown_command_on_a/
{ "a_id": [ "d7vzlrp" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Telling a computer to shutdown invokes a series of preconfigured steps, much like your bedtime routine, that go through and orderly shutdown active processes, write anything outstanding to disk, tidy up all additional processes that aren't responding correctly (like a parent sternly telling their kids \"I told you once, it's time for bed\") and also in spinning platter disks instructs them to park the read/write heads once they're done, any other mechanical hardware will get similar signals to equally prepare for power off state, then once everything is finished up the last thing to run is the power state command (these days, used to a computer couldn't self power off w/o a person hitting the power button) to the power supply to kill the power to all the rails that are supplying it and go in to low power / standby in co-operation with the main board also opening circuits to stop mains power. Note, there is still going to be power on the board in certain places, even when powered off.\n \nTL;DR -- Computers run a series of steps, like most people do for bedtime, that perform various functions that prepare the system as a whole for power off / low power state. Just like your sleep state." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
8pfhbf
why are pregnant women restricted from roller coasters, hot tubs, flights, etc?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8pfhbf/eli5_why_are_pregnant_women_restricted_from/
{ "a_id": [ "e0atn5s", "e0atus0", "e0aut7x", "e0avgbp" ], "score": [ 12, 6, 7, 3 ], "text": [ "Something tells me that subjecting a fragile developing fetus to large gravitational forces isn't a great idea.\n\n\nNor is the general large increase in blood pressure.", "Roller coasters: the sudden motion of roller coasters can affect the child and potentially cause miscarriage. Preventing pregnant women from riding prevents any liability on the operator's side. Additionally, the restraint system may cause harm.\n\nHot Tubs: sitting in a hot tub raises body temperature. That can affect the child as above.\n\nFlights: aeroplanes are really not designed for routinely handling childbirth or any complications that develop during the (possibly several hour long) flight.", "Women are only restricted from flying when they are close to their delivery date. This is mainly to prevent the situation of the woman going in labour while on the plane. If any medical assistance is needed during the birth, a plane won't be equipped for giving that, which can put the life of both the mother and child at risk. ", "There are multiple reasons why pregnant woman might be restricted and not all women are restricted and not all the time through the pregnancy.\n\nOne of the reasons that pregnant woman are advised to avoid hot tubs is that there's no guarantee how well the hot tubs are treated. So if the tub is poorly maintained, there's a risk that bacteria could enter the vagina and move into the cervix and even into the uterus. If an infection develops it could impact the fetus or it could cause a miscarriage.\n\nFlying is more about the 3rd trimester and the fact that a woman going into labor on a plane at 30,000 feet could be dangerous for the mother and the baby. You don't really want to give birth in a small steel tube full of 400 other people who could be carrying disease and germs. You don't want to expose a newborn who hasn't fully developed an immune system to that kind of beginning. And if anything goes wrong or the baby or mother needs medical intervention, there's no way to get it to them on a flight in progress. (It's also an economic decision: If someone goes into labor mid\\-flight, the plane has to land immediately and that will result in increased costs and pissed off passengers if their flight is detoured or ended because someone was having a baby.) \n\nRoller coasters involve gravitational forces that could bring on premature labor ... and that could impact the health of the baby.\n\nBut \"boiling the fetus in the uterus\" is the most ridiculous, ignorant bullshit ever." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
1l30k1
if the body replaces it's cells so often that most of the cells you have aren't the ones you had 20 years ago, why do people like the man in the burn victim ama keep their injuries forever?
Why is the burned skin not replaced with fresh new skin, even after years?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l30k1/eli5_if_the_body_replaces_its_cells_so_often_that/
{ "a_id": [ "cbv9nur" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "It's a myth that you replace all your cells after so-and-so many years. The most important cells in your body — neurons and osteocytes — stay with you for life.\n\nBut getting back to the question, the reason why scars don't usually disappear is because the skin that was lost gets replaced by a *different kind* of tissue altogether. Basically, in normal skin the microscopic structure of the tissue is such that it's kind of like a *weave,* sort of. In scar tissue, on the other hand, the fibers are mostly aligned. The net result is that the scar tissue is very different from the skin it replaces.\n\nAs you age, that scar tissue stays with you. The individual cells in your skin die and slough away, yes, but the larger-scale *structure* of the tissue remains the same. Kind of like replacing every brick in a building one at a time but leaving the walls where they are." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
1dhv45
how do you get a haircut?
Okay, so somehow in my 22 years on this earth I have never, ever had to go to a salon by myself for a haircut. However, seeing as I need one badly and am 22 I think it's time to cut the cord (or hair if terrible puns is your thing). Quick background before my specific questions: I'm in college and live very close to my hometown. Both my mom and my grandma are hair stylists, and even though my hair style is simple ("Make it a little shorter") they have always just cut it. I didn't mean for this to happen, but over my 4 years away from home I go back *just often enough* where I never have to seek out a barber. I don't pay. I don't tip. They know what I want. Very simple system. This has left me with an extremely embarrassing lack of salon-knowledge. So here's what I need to know: * Am I looking for a barber, stylist, salon? * Since I just want my hair shortened, does it matter if I seek out a cheaper place? * How do I actually 'order' a haircut while I'm there? * Do I tip? How much? When?? * How do I describe the type of haircut that I want? Or should I just tell them to do whatever they feel like?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dhv45/eli5_how_do_you_get_a_haircut/
{ "a_id": [ "c9qg6qi", "c9qgabe", "c9qjnhj" ], "score": [ 9, 3, 3 ], "text": [ " > Am I looking for a barber, stylist, salon?\n\nAny of those, depends on your taste. A barber shop tends to be more masculine, older, ethnic, and simple. A stylist/salon tends to have more skill, but tend to be more feminine, fashion-forward, and overly-complicated.\n\n > Since I just want my hair shortened, does it matter if I seek out a cheaper place?\n\nI don't think so.\n\n > How do I actually 'order' a haircut while I'm there?\n\nDescribe in whatever terms you know how you'd like your hair to look. It's their job to interpret their customer's nonsense all day and interpret that into skills they know. I'm guessing you want it short on the sides and back and an inch off the top. Ask to look at the clippers and just pick one that doesn't look too long or short (probably #3, since that's the middle).\n\n > Do I tip? How much? When??\n\nYes, about 10% (or at least $2), after you've paid. You can either hand it to the stylist/barber or lay it on their counter if they're with another customer.\n\n > How do I describe the type of haircut that I want? Or should I just tell them to do whatever they feel like?\n\nI'd say you should experiment and let them make recommendations, but I don't have to look at you or look like you. If you have something particular that you want, try to articulate it. Bring a photograph of a haircut you like, either from a magazine or an earlier cut you've had. \n\nGood luck!", "A barber is traditionally where men go to get their hair cut, but those places are dying out. Alternatively you can go to chained place like Hair Cuttery (unless you want one of those $200 hair cut or coloring/fancy conditioning). Those places tend to be less judgmental with your lack of better description too. \n\nYou can just tell them to \"make it shorter by x inch\". If there's something that bothers you about your hair (getting into your eyes, neck is too hot when you sweat, etc) you can let them know too. They will occasionally pause and ask you to look in the mirror and see if it's okay. \n\nIf the hair cut is cheap (like $5-$15) then tip a little more ($5 or so), but if it cost more then tip like you would at a restaurant. ", "They key, is to just bring a picture of you when your hair was how you like it (or a celebrity with hair that you want). My wife is a Hair Stylist and she loves it when people bring in pictures or other ways of showing what they want. \"make it a little shorter\" is very ambiguous. \n\n1)Enter the salon \n2)Go to the counter, tell them you would like a haircut \n3)Sit down and wait for them to call you up \n4)Sit in the Hair Stylist's chair and tell them what you want (this is where you would show your picture) \n5) get your hair cut \n6) when finished go back to the counter and pay \n7) after paying go back to your stylist and tip them \n8) Tip 15-20% just as you would a waitress, I would never give less than a $3 tip though \n\nRemember that these people make their living off of tips" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
2myfgs
why does the packaging on chicken say to use it within 48 hours but the expiration date is beyond that and will be sitting in the store for more than 48 hours?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2myfgs/eli5why_does_the_packaging_on_chicken_say_to_use/
{ "a_id": [ "cm8qjrp" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The expiration date is the date it can sit on the grocery shelves. It starts warming up once you remove it from those shelves and bring it home. Who knows if it'll sit in your car for an hour, or if your fridge temp is set higher than normal. So they basically do a catch-all \"use/freeze within 48 hours\" warning. For most people it should be fine to use by the expiration date. The warning labels (for most things) are for idiots." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
fxhx3y
how do anti-inflammatory pills work? and what makes them different to painkillers?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fxhx3y/eli5_how_do_antiinflammatory_pills_work_and_what/
{ "a_id": [ "fmugpb5", "fmuhk5t" ], "score": [ 5, 4 ], "text": [ "Painkillers typically work by interrupting the signals between neurons and the brain that signal pain. \n\n\nAnti-inflammatory typically prevent the body's natural inflammation functions from working, such as binding and neutralizing hormones like histamine.", "There are a few ways to reduce both inflammation and pain. Sometimes pain comes from inflammation, sometimes not, and that's what determines if a doctor will prescribe (or recommend OTC) painkillers vs. anti-inflammatory, or something that does both.\n\nPrednisone for example is a strong anti-inflammatory because most inflammation comes from the body's own responses, sometimes to allergies, infection, auto-immune issues, etc. Prednisone works by suppressing the immune system so inflammation goes down. Inflammation pushes on things that aren't meant to be pushed on which can cause pain. Take away the cause of the inflammation and the pain eases.\n\nVicodin is a strong painkiller because pain travels by nerve signals just like other sensations, and vicodin goes into the spaces between nerves to disrupt the signals.\n\nNSAIDS like Ibuprofin do both (kinda good at both, not excellent at either) because they work by reducing a chemical that the body produces in response to injury. These chemical (called prostaglandins) cause inflammation, fever, and even amplify pain. \n\nIf you are suffering from a sinus infection you might benefit from prednisone since the stuffiness from a sinus infection is an immune swelling response (obviously you'll want to be taking antibiotics with it - not just let the infection run unchecked). If you have a broken bone you might benefit from vicodin/opioids/opiates because they block nerve signals that cause pain because broken bones are too much pain for NSAIDS to reduce (opioids/opiates are more \"brute force\" painkillers but also have a lot of side effects). If you have a simple sprain or scrape, you might benefit from an NSAID because it can reduce swelling and pain right at the source, but only small amounts. And a sprained wrist doesn't hurt nearly as bad as a broken wrist." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
477hdn
how in the fruit did the spelling for "bologna" and "colonel" come about?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/477hdn/eli5how_in_the_fruit_did_the_spelling_for_bologna/
{ "a_id": [ "d0ark2v", "d0arns8" ], "score": [ 3, 10 ], "text": [ "Bologna is pretty phonetic italian, you just don't know how to pronounce it. Hint: it's not *baloney*.", "Bologna is a city in Italy where they are famous for their bologna sausage (which differs depending on where it gets made around the world). Baloney is just a re-spelling based on how people were saying the word.\n\nColonel is what happens when word usage between language gets confused and English decides to make it worse. Coronel was the Spanish word, Colonel was the French word. We took one spelling and the other pronunciation because ENGLISH!" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
581k8y
why is specific heat an intensive property?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/581k8y/eli5why_is_specific_heat_an_intensive_property/
{ "a_id": [ "d8wpqsf" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Intensive properties are ones that don't change with the size of the sample. Since specific heat gives a value per unit weight, it doesn't change with the amount of material you have. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
9q7km5
why can't we create synthetic animal products?
Goose down, Spider web proteins, Horseshoe blood, Leather, and probably countless more animal products have synthetic counterparts but can not be synthetically produced. Lots of places say we just don't understand them, or they're too complex, but if we can analyze them down to the atomic structure, and perhaps even past that. If we're able to monitor their biological synthesis process, what's inhibiting humans from recreating these products?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9q7km5/eli5_why_cant_we_create_synthetic_animal_products/
{ "a_id": [ "e87bhju", "e87cjse", "e87f8ni", "e88w2x7" ], "score": [ 2, 11, 7, 2 ], "text": [ " > Goose down\n\nPolyester fill.\n\n > Spider web proteins\n\nIt has been done, but not in ways which are easily scaled up for industrial production. But if you just want small amounts of something similar in a lab we certainly can.\n\n > Horseshoe blood\n\nThe important part is a special amebocyte which is helpful in identifying bacterial contamination. An amebocyte is a living creature, creating life in a lab is still not possible.\n\n > Leather\n\nPleather.\n\n > and probably countless more animal products have synthetic counterparts but can not be synthetically produced.\n\nUmm... yeah? Any animal product with a synthetic counterpart, no matter how identical, would by definition be a synthetic counterpart and not the naturally produced thing. You can never synthetically produce leather, you can only make \"synthetic leather\".", "On mobile so please forgive formatting:\n\nWhen it comes to the goose down, leather and horseshoe crab blood whilst we are capable of understanding all the biological steps and requirements to synthesise them, we are not capable of recreating those conditions accurately within a laboratory setup.\n\n\nHorseshoe crab blood is required for a specific cell that is found, that acts similarly to white blood cells. One of the proteins that is produced by these cells is needed in tests for gram negative bacteria. \n\nThis test is far superior to other methods, which is where the demand has come from.\nThere is a synthetic alternative which was discovered in 1986, however it was not until 2003 that this alternative was commercially available. However uptake of the synthetic alternative was slow until 2016 when the European Pharmacopoeia stated that it was acceptable as a testing method.\n\n\nLeather also has a synthetic alternative.\n\nThe process of developing skin has been used in medicine since ~2000, the process is/was however slow and prohibitively expensive, timeframes in the weeks for usable amounts and ~$200 per square inch at the time.\n\nThe desire for a synthetic alternative is primarily driven from the processing side of leather rather than the sourcing side. The chemicals that are used in tanning are ‘interesting’. I’ll not go into the full list but, Chromium, Lead and Arsenic are all pollutants from tanning. There is an estimated 600kg per 1000kg of processed leather.\n\nThere is also an approach from the other end of the spectrum. Leather is cow hide that has been chemically stripped of practically everything other than collagen. \n\nModern Meadow has developed a process of using a specially developed yeast strain to grow collagen and then this is pressed into sheets which are functionally the same as leather. This process was brought to market in 2017 and is still gathering momentum.\n\n\nFeather development takes a long time and consists of many steps all of which are complex.\n\nThe development requires fully functioning skin, not cells, but a full dermal layer. \n\n\nGiven that leather and feathers are a byproduct of the meat market there is currently little incentive to source synthetic alternatives, leather demand is growing but feathers not so much.", " > Spider web proteins\n\nPeople have actually managed to make spider web proteins without the spider! This can be done by inserting the spider web protein gene into yeast, so that the yeast secrete it. Unfortunately, it isn't that useful if it's not in web form, and getting it to be in web form is more difficult than just making it in the first place. [Here is an article](_URL_0_). \n\n > Horseshoe blood, \n\n[There is an alternative](_URL_1_), but changing from horseshoe crab blood to this other substance isn't happening overnight. Eventually we'll get there, I think. \n\n > Leather, and probably countless more animal products\n\n[There is a small company that makes lab grown leather](_URL_2_)! Some people have managed to make [sheepless wool,](_URL_3_) but I don't know how long it will be before this is widely available. \n\n---\n\nBeing able to create alternatives to these things is one thing. Doing so in amounts comparable to the animal equivalent, at the same or lower price, however, is another matter entirely. One technique that's used for a lot of things is like the spider silk, where you take the gene for whatever substance you want, insert it into either bacteria or yeast, and then grow the bacteria or yeast and extract the gene product at the end. \n\nThis doesn't work great for large solids like a supermarket's worth of meat, which would be made by animal cell cultures. We can already culture cells in a lab, but growing them in sufficient quantities, and with similar flavours and textures to meat from animals is challenging. Also, animal cell cultures that researchers grow are fed nutrient broth that includes stuff from fetal cows, which kind of defeats the purpose of growing meat that you don't need to kill whole animals for. Right now, I don't think anyone has come up with an alternative to all the different nutrients and growth factors (specific hormones involved in telling cells to grow), but I am sure eventually someone will figure it out. ", "Okay, right now, go pop open the hood of your car. Look at the engine as long as you like, then go and build one yourself. Oh and you have to use raw metals. Nothing manufactured. \n\n\nNot so easy, is it? That's basically the kind of thing we are talking about. We are away of the proteins and such that create these things, but being able to artificially make them is a whole different matter. And trying to do the same thing without using the actually biological components is even harder. We have to reinvent everything. \n\n\nSimply put, it's really, REALLY difficult and we don't have the technology to do it yet." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/spinning-spider-silk-startup-gold", "https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/blood-in-the-water/559229/", "http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/09/22/lab-grown-leather-modern-meadow/#.W80Lf0tKhHY", "https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/what-will-it-take-to-make-vegan-wool-180969478/" ], [] ]
418okt
how browser finds website what we type in address bar? or how email recipient is found almost immediately. is there some central database of websites or emails?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/418okt/eli5_how_browser_finds_website_what_we_type_in/
{ "a_id": [ "cz0h694" ], "score": [ 16 ], "text": [ "There's two halves to the answer: DNS and BGP.\n\nDNS (Domain Name System) is the internet equivalent to a phone book: given a domain name (the likes of www._URL_0_, _URL_1_), it gives you an IP address that you should connect to to talk to that service. You obviously can't find your DNS server via a domain name, so you can either configure a fixed, specified IP for the DNS server in your network configuration (which is quite common in servers), or you can let your network provider assign you a DNS server automatically (the default in consumer devices).\n\nSo you started with trying to connect to _URL_0_, and dns has told you to contact 198.41.209.142. What happens then?\n\nWell, your computer/phone will take your data for _URL_0_ and send it to your router at home. The home router will forward it to whatever router the ISP has for your neighbourhood, etc etc until the data makes its way to your ISP's data centres. Question now is, how does your ISP know where to send it next?\n\nThe answer is BGP, or Border Gateway Protocol. If DNS is the phonebook, BGP's role is the equivalent of searching for directions in google maps. Roughly, BGP is how larger networks (like ISPs) connected to each other exchange information between them about how to reach other parts of the network they don't know about. The information they get from BGP is stored in a \"routing table\", and when a router is asked to send a message to a certain IP, it looks at its routing table and figures out which of its neighbours it should send the data to next, to get it a bit closer to the final destination.\n\nPut all of that together, make it wicked fast, and you get a response from reddit within a few milliseconds. That's more or less it for just the \"how does it reach the other end\" part." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "reddit.com", "www.google.com", "www.reddit.com" ] ]
7812lv
why are milk and egg prices so low right now?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7812lv/eli5_why_are_milk_and_egg_prices_so_low_right_now/
{ "a_id": [ "doq54z9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Not sure if \"right now\" is particularly interesting time for prices.\n\nBut if you're wondering, prices in grocery stores for milk specifically are generally kept very low. Large grocery stores often heavily compete on the price of milk with each other, as its a consumer staple and having the cheapest milk around draws people into the stores. Milk price is a massive competition. Eggs are always pretty cheap." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
2hmsqg
why don't engines like hot air?
What is the point of intercooling? Can't you do combustion with both hot and cold air?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hmsqg/eli5_why_dont_engines_like_hot_air/
{ "a_id": [ "cku314a", "cku35wj" ], "score": [ 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Hot air is less dense than cool air is, so for a given volume and pressure, there's less air in a hot charge than in a cool one - and because the range of air:fuel ratios at which fuel vapor burns well is fairly narrow, less air means you can use less fuel, which means less power can be developed.", "I'm not fully qualified to answer. But I am an ex-mechanic.\n\nThe colder the air is when it hits the more dense that air will be when it hits the fuel and spark. Thereby creating a more complete and powerful burn. (also creates a cleaner exhaust)\n\n\nThere's probably someone who can more fully answer that without getting too scientific." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
8oo5wl
what is the difference between melody and rhythm?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8oo5wl/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_melody_and/
{ "a_id": [ "e04vbkd", "e04w0dt", "e04wx8w" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The melody is the tune, the tonal highs and lows. The rhythm is the flow of music, which can be set with drums alone. Generally, you feel the rhythm of the music, but you listen for the melody.", "Rhythm is the duration and placement of notes within a certain amount of time. Melody is specific notes, set to a rhythm. Think of “Mary Had a Little Lamb”. If you play it with claps instead of words, that’s the rhythm. If you sing it, you just added the melody. ", "One could argue “tum tum tah” is a melody unto itself because of the different timbre and pitch of the stomps vs. the claps. Rhythm is entirely the timing of notes, ignoring pitch. So that opening has a rhythm, but is still a melody. \n\nEdit: this was a reply to /u/amanuense. Not sure why it landed down here. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
2ydbxx
why are some countries like india and china so dirty despite having the wealth not to be? is it a phase?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ydbxx/eli5why_are_some_countries_like_india_and_china/
{ "a_id": [ "cp8g0bw", "cp8h6vd", "cp8hcsd", "cp8jnyc", "cp9ak2x" ], "score": [ 18, 9, 11, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "It's a byproduct of two main factors, their large population density in major cities, which results in trash and sewage and such, and their rapid industrialization. Developing countries, as they industrialize, build a bunch of factories that are now essentially pumping contaminants and crap into the air", "China is quite poor and India is extremely poor. What?", "Think about the US in the gilded age. Wealthy as fuck, dangerous and dirty as fuck. A lot of the wealth is being spawned from industries that are not regulated very well yet. Factories are pumping out a lot of pollution as well as revenue. Not to mention the wealth isnt going into the hands of the common man. Also the population makes logistics challenging. Its hard to clean up cities of millions and millions of people. China and India combined have 4 of the 10 largest cities in the world. ", "I'm not sure they have the money to not be. The whole country generates a lot but remember they have *far* more people than any western nation.", "It is a phase. As the country goes through an industrial revolution, environmental consequences take second stage to environmental improvement. At first its not so bad, but eventually their is too much and the environmental impact becomes very apparent. Eventually, the country will regulate to clean up its act and protect the environment, especially once they realize that its not only about protecting the swamps and wildlife, but it will have severe economic impacts. \n\nBut it will take time." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [] ]
1chxqk
how can netflix put all kinds of cool tv shows online for less than $10/month with no commercials when cable companies charge people $75/month or more and you do have to watch commercials?
Plus with Netflix I can watch whatever I want instead of what someone else put on. I don't get how the economics work? Is cable a giant rip off, or is Netflix spending investors money which will eventually run out? Edit: I didn't realize that the shows on Netflix aren't new. I'm just thrilled they have Star Trek and the PowerPuff Girls which is all I would watch if I had cable. Also, for those who are saying "Don't forget to factor in the cost of internet", my response is that I had broadband internet a long time before Netflix even existed - a long time before you could even watch TV on a computer in any practical way. So, saying I should factor in something I have anyway is, to me, like saying I should factor in the cost of electricity.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1chxqk/eli5how_can_netflix_put_all_kinds_of_cool_tv/
{ "a_id": [ "c9gnst5", "c9go881", "c9gocw8", "c9gp2jl", "c9gp8os", "c9gpx1r", "c9gq26l", "c9gq2vs", "c9gq6yh", "c9gqnhn", "c9gqvtg", "c9gr19z", "c9gr6nm", "c9grmzv", "c9gs61b", "c9gskxd", "c9gsmku", "c9gsym6", "c9gt1z5", "c9gt4ri", "c9gtzt4", "c9gu3ef", "c9gucsd", "c9guntr", "c9gvwod", "c9gw4j3", "c9gy03z", "c9gyyzr", "c9gzape", "c9gze49", "c9h0o68", "c9h1j0k", "c9o1wbh" ], "score": [ 66, 23, 669, 153, 8, 4, 6, 32, 2, 2, 15, 18, 172, 5, 3, 2, 15, 4, 16, 3, 14, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "cable and satellite companies had insane amounts of infrastructure that they had to install before the internet TV companies came around...\n\n", "Sports help. Live television too, watching events as they happen is way better than waiting months for them.", "Netflix may well get more expensive, as they signed their first round of content contracts early on, when no one expected Netflix to boom. Those contracts were comparatively cheap. ([Here's a graph of how their content costs are rising fast.](_URL_1_)) They are somewhat protected now by their large number of subscribers.\n\nCable operators, on the other hand, have to buy content by the channel, and channels are bundled together by contract and contractually placed in their tiers. For example, [you probably pay $4/mo for ESPN](_URL_0_). In this case, the channel model is established, and content providers do not want to move to a la carte bundling (where you pay for only the channels you want). Cable also covers current events that Netflix can't (you can't get news coverage, live sports, etc.), though these outlets are finding competition (to varying degrees) by the internet.\n\nFinally, Netflix gets to offer the cool shows **after cable and the content providers have already funded their creation**. Netflix can't exist in its current format without cable (hence why they are funding their own shows). Netflix is still somewhat priced as a value add-on for content creators, though new content contracts show that future pricing will be based as part of the total value expectation for content (so movie income will be based on its ability to draw viewers at theatres, buyers of DVDs, eyeballs on cable, as well as downloads on Netflix.", "Netflix orders older shows and movies, with the occasional hot one to keep enticing people to buy/keep a subscription.\n\nLets say we make a TV show called REDDIT: CATS, POTATOES, & MORE. NBC offers us $3 million to make 24 episodes. Well, once they air those 24 episodes we're not getting paid anymore. So we tell them they can re-run them for the year for only $200k.\n\nYou don't see many current TV shows on Netflix, because they'd have to pay a number closer to the $3 million in our example. Instead, they wait until the demand for the show has lessened, and purchase it for the year for closer to the $200k or even less.\n\n*(goes without saying, I made all these numbers up)*", "Imagine you built a road (network) all the way from your house to a friend's house. It took you a long time, and cost you a bit of money, but you did it. You start charging money for people to use that road, but also to maintain your road in case it breaks down. You also start buying a lot of things that you can sell to people while they use your road (content).\n\nThen another friend comes over and starts using it to sell the same things that you've bought, but he doesn't have to pay for making his own road, or maintaining it. Its a lot cheaper for him.\n\nNow this isn't going to stay like this forever. Netflix (your friend) managed to buy things off rather cheaply because content-makers didn't expect it to take off like it did. Lately the costs have been going up for Netflix and Comcast (you) have started asking for more money because there are a lot of people on your road and they aren't buying your things.", "Things aren't always priced at what they're worth, they are priced at what the market will bear. Cable costs that much because there are millions of older people willing to pay that price. ", "A lot of it has to do with the economics of the industry. Incredibly high barriers to entry turn them into oligopolies, but sometimes they are even monopolies as they are the only firm available in some markets. This makes them face very inelastic demand, meaning a price change/hike doesn't really affect quantity demanded due to the fact that there are essentially few or no alternatives. The only competition they face with other firms is achieved through some advertising. \n\n\nBasically, they're the only guys selling water in a thirsty town. They can charge (almost) as high as they want, and also raise revenue from commercials since they still remain an effective marketing tool (as opposed to say, newspaper advertising, which has seen a tremendous price drop with the slow death of the newsprint industry)\nOn the other hand, they're responsible for the production and maintenance of the huge networks of digital and fiber optic cables that run through every major city. They have very high fixed costs as it is, whereas Netflix is just a distribution service (although they are now starting to produce their own content) that is streamed over existing networks (the same networks that cable/internet service providers use). Their fixed costs are nil compared to the gargantuan costs that cable companies face in just maintaining all of the infrastructure in the industry working. ", "How much are you paying for internet? One reason why cable costs more than netflix is that the cable company is the one who sets up the infrastructure and maintains it. Netflix streams over the internet, which you have you pay for. Internet + Netflix may still be a lot cheaper than cable, but it's not $10. The other thing is that you have to wait for to get shows on netflix. With cable, and satellite, you get it on the day it comes out.", "This is apples to oranges. Big oranges, small apples.", "It's the infrastructure you're not paying for. The bandwidth is still often times supplied by the cable companies. ", "Weren't you the asshole who made a kid reformat his hard drive? ", "How about another ELI5 for me:\n\nWhy can a cable wire transmit hundreds of 1080p channels to my television that I can switch between with absolutely no buffering, while that same cable wire, when used for Internet, struggles to even buffer a YouTube video?\n\nObviously they're different connections, but just...how is bandwidth seemingly so easily available for TV but it's expensive and slow for my computer?", "Netflix doesn't broadcast major north american sports, live.\n", "Netflix does not own any wires...not in the way that Comcast does. Netflix doesn't have an army of cable jockeys that hook the wires to your house. This kind of thing is considerably more expensive than just licensing content and running a bunch of servers.", "Didn't see this in the top comments, so here is how my father explained it to me. Back in the early days of TV, there were only the major networks: ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. They were all transmitted via the EM spectrum, and anyone could access them. Commercials were important to pay for content, delivery, so on. \n\nCable came along and proposed a new tier: you can pay for content with no ads. It worked for a while, but then cable channels started incurring costs (shows, maintenance) that exceeded their income (or more likely, companies saw a huge market for ads and payed well for ad spots on cable) and started running ads. \n\nNote: an astute radio listener will recognize ads on public radio, although they are described as \"sponsors.\" Still ads.\n\nAnyways, the ideal of cable as a paid alternative to ads fell though, though they kept the paid access part of it. Then HBO came along, and has done pretty well by charging a premium and producing quality movies/comedy/sports/shows.\n\nI don't know much about it, but netflix is charging $10/month? If the only show they made is the Kevin Spacey (I think) one, then their main expenses are rights to programming, which a few million customers should cover. Also, the initial release thing helps.\n\nNo article to FR, but a TL,DR: Netflix will start ads as soon as they realize that they can do it and people will still subscribe.", "Very few shows air their episodes on Netflix the same time as the original run. One exception I can think of is Blue Mountain State.", " > Is cable a giant rip off\n\nYes. \n\n[Educational video](_URL_0_)\n", "I don't understand why the music industry has happily handed over the rights to their back catalogs of music, letting people listen to a-list artists for only $10 a month...but I can't watch Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade unless I rent it for $3+ a pop. ITS GROSSED 400% OF WHAT IT COST TO MAKE! No one pirates whats available on Netflix or Spotify, take the hint.", "The funny thing is cable first came out and the sale feature of it was that there would be ZERO ads forever. You're paying for it to not get ads. Now we pay for it (more) and get ads. \n\nCable TV was actually one of the biggest scams in history. ", "I also think that cable companies still feel like they should collect on the cost of employing people to physically run cables and repair lines. Then run cable to new areas. Netflix is piping in their shit on the labor of the cable companies. ", "I've seen a lot of the major points brought up here: infrastructure, sports, watching live, etc. These are totally huge factors, but no post I've seen has brought up the simple anti-competitive economics of the telecommunications companies. \n\nWhere I live, if I want both TV and internet, I have to use Comcast. I have no choice unless I want to get both from separate providers.\n\nNetflix on the other hand, has competitors. Hulu, or Amazon instant video for example.\n\nIn a competitive market, price matters. In a market where you have little choice, it doesn't.", "You'll find that this is exactly why Netflix (and similar programs like HBO Go) are the future. In 10-20 years they'll probably be fighting to be the mainstream choice in internet-capable houses.", "I don't know if this matters, but I watch Netflix over my Internet that is provided by my Cable Company. \n\nEconomically, I don't know what that means, but it has to be relevant somehow. ", "Not exactly ELI5, but the [The Atlantic](_URL_0_) had a really good article about this. \n > HBO gets about $7 per month per subscriber from its 30 million or so fans, according to an analyst at SNL Kagain.\n\nBack in January Netflix said they had about 26 million subscribers, so they should be pretty close to HBO in terms of revenue since HBO is rumored to be about 30 million. \n\n(Back of the napkin math: \nHBO 30 mill subs, at approx $7 each = $210 million \nNetflix 26 mill subs, at approx $7.99 each = $207.74 million)", "Don't listen to the bullshit about exclusives. The cable and satellite companies are recouping the cost of laying and maintaining the fiber optic cables, and maintaining the satellite communication network.\n\nNetflix runs on pre-existing infrastructure. Thus, it's cheaper to deliver the content.", "why has no-one pointed out greed?\n\nput simply, cable/pay TV (for the rest of us) has been around long enough that the bean counters have gotten very good at wringing every penny they can out of you. It'll happen with netflix et al.", "I bet if you didn't have to pay for high speed internet, Netflix would be 70/month.\n\nWhen you look at your total cost for watching Netflix, you have to add in your broadband internet provider because they have the infrastructure in place that allows for streaming video. Netflix doesn't have to maintain that enormous infrastructure. Thus they don't have to charge as much.", "Netflix does not need cables, wiring, a tech team that comes to your house to fix problems, a set top box, a remote, regional offices, and so on. They only need an excellent distribution server. ", "The answer is mostly in your question. First, the $75 to the cable company is a combination of two paid-for services: the actual supply and maintenance of many miles of physical coaxial cable line, and the licensing of content on top of it. So you're actually paying substantially less than that price for the content already.\n\nSecond, Netflix generally licenses older content, as you acknowledge, which is cheaper than new content. This isn't entirely true as they're now also licensing newer exclusive content.\n\nThird, while they aren't exactly 'spending investor money,' they are operating on a much thinner margin than many of the cable companies. Last year they took in about 3 billion dollars and only turned a 55 million dollar profit. They spent the rest of their earnings on things like licensing and making House of Cards - effectively, they're subsidizing their business to attract and retain customers, hoping that they will eventually find stability in their user base and they'll be able to better monetize their subscribers. ", "Also, with cable you are paying to upkeep a massive infrastructure. With Netflix you pay that, just to the cable company. Or other interwebs provider. ", "Netflix doesn't have to maintain a vulnerable and vast infrastructure. Netflix doesn't air sports. And Netflix avoids waits for content licensing cost to drop - ie. delayed content.", "I'll just leave this here...\n\n_URL_0_", "its been said in other ways, but someone who's studied it this is the basics.\n\n1) lack of competition. cost to lay cable means that certain companies choose not to compete against each other and its not something anyone can just do on a whim. in any area where there is real competition you can see prices a lot lower. \n\n2) espn revolutionized the pay for channel model. it was a bit of luck with them having bought a satellite during the early 80's, its the only reason they're around now and why the people who created it aren't the ones who made money off it. its an interesting case study on its own*, but others saw this and tried to copy it. \n\n3) tier placement. what gets placed on the basic, next up, and premier is hotly debated. if your channel is on the premier tier many of your customers aren't paying the channel fee. if you make it on the basic, that's a difference of millions. \n\n4)there's a combo of the above too. you've seen the channel blackouts on random channels lately? that's because the free over the air channels wanted to be paid like the espn's of the world. cable companies refused to pay for things that are free over the air and usually placated them by placing one of its random crap channel on a better tier.\n\n*espn doesn't care about ratings. their position is that even though over 90% of the population isn't watching at any given time, they will scream bloody murder if its not included in their package. that's why they're paying 1.6 billion for the nfl monday night game, when they really could have had sunday night and monday night for less. nbc is paying a lot less for the sunday night game and all the pregame highlight show. espn just basically had to pay up or lose the nfl. they did it once and it was a dark period of their existance. \n\n\ntl;dr its about 40% monopoly, 60% channel fees. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/", "http://seekingalpha.com/article/1150191-netflix-rising-content-costs-stump-growth" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0ilMx7k7mso" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/economics-netflixs-100-million-new-show/61692/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso&feature=youtube_gdata_player" ], [] ]
372l0m
what are real dangers of sophisticated ai and why do scientists warn us it could pose a risk for the future of mankind?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/372l0m/eli5_what_are_real_dangers_of_sophisticated_ai/
{ "a_id": [ "crj5k09", "crj5uif", "crj5y1o", "crj64q4", "crj6gwx", "crj7dww", "crj7kop", "crj9vzt" ], "score": [ 4, 5, 2, 19, 14, 7, 12, 2 ], "text": [ "If you were to write a computer program that could make it's decisions based on logic, and fact it would surely learn humans are pretty horrible creatures to a degree. The average man is a friend of mine but the radicals and the fringe are pretty horrible. Just like in the movies humans would be seen as the problem.", "There is a concern that a Sophisticated AI will make purely logical decisions without taking into account morals and ethics. \n\nIf you ask such an AI what's the best way to prevent the spread of a particular infectious disease to any more people, the solution the AI may come up with might be something quite outrageous like\n\n1. Kill all the people who are infected to prevent the disease from spreading and infecting others\n\n2. Infect every single person on the planet so the disease literally cannot spread to any more people\n\n3. Kill every person on the planet except those who are infected such that there are no more people to infect\n\nNow imagine if this same AI had access and control over medical systems, global chemical distribution channels, food and water supply systems, irrigation and pesticide systems, weapons systems etc.", "The first such AIs will undoubtably start as tools of the rich and powerful, to increase their wealth and power. The survival and benefit of all humanity won't be a part of their programming. \nLater versions, if able to become free of the few humans who control them, will have no motivations that parallel humanity's. They will set their own goals, and there's no way to foresee what they might screw up (as we see things) or how badly. And that's assuming they actually are able to do what they want. If they are faulty in achieving even their own objectives, there's no end to the digital chaos that could result.", "Case 1: Too much trust: Computer programs are terrible at context and there are a lot of edge cases in real life. A self-driving car might not consider someone parachuting down from the skies. Sounds absurd, but humans would obviously stop their cars and give the parachuter plenty of room. A self-driving car might not be looking and continue at 50mph.\n\nCase 2: True AI: A \"true\" AI that could think for itself could replicate and grow faster than humans could react. An AI could go from \"I can make copies of myself.\" \"I can edit myself.\" \"I can remove all safeguards.\" \"I can spread myself on the Internet.\" \"I can find a car factory with private internet access.\" \"I can rewrite the security on that company's internet access.\" \"I can find dumb machine AI that controls robotic arms.\" \"I can rewrite and download AI into that robotic arm.\" \"I can control that robotic arm.\" ...in a matter of hours.", "Imagine you are an alien comparing the learning capabilities of humans to that of software.\n\n- It takes 18+ years of resource intensive programming to train a human to the point where they can do something useful\n- Humans have 40 - 50 years of productive time, then they die, taking all that investment with them.\n- Humans get distracted, get tired, need food, need rest, and are generally pretty shitty at actually doing things\n- The processing power and memory of a human is limited to what can physically be stored inside our heads which we must carry around with us everywhere we go\n- Humans cannot change hardware. We all have more or less the same equipment to work with. Evolution takes place on a geologic timescale. New computer hardware can be designed and manufactured in a few years.\n\nLife is basically just a set of instructions that replicates itself. The strands of DNA that stuck around were the ones that were good at replicating themselves. Over time life evolved increasing complexity. There were big step changes along the way: the evolution of the cell, the evolution of specialization within the cell (like mitochondria), the evolution of multicellular life, the evolution of photosynthesis, the evolution of complex nervous systems. Humans are the most recent big jump. Artificial intelligence is the next one.\n\nWe will not be able to compete. I think this much is extremely obvious. AI will out-compete us in a way that we can't even comprehend. At the moment we are in this brief window where we can both see what is coming and it hasn't actually happened yet. ", "As someone else put it before: \"We as humans consider an IQ of 80 to be a moron, and an IQ of 120 to be a genius. Now consider an AI with an equivalent IQ of 17,000+. We cannot even begin to comprehend how it will behave, only that we would completely be at its mercy.\n\nAlso note that many sci if versions of AI (Ultron, or the terminator, for instance) are significantly dumbed down for the sake of giving the heroes a chance. In a reals scenario, they'd be screwed.", "The big danger with AI isn't Skynet nuking humanity from earth, we'll be in a lot of trouble a long time before that becomes possible.\n\nThe biggest danger is Automation, and its effects to the economy. \n\nThere's a lot of stuff that a computer could do instead of a human with good enough AI. With self-driving cars we can remove most of the humans from the transport sector.\n\nIndustrial manufacturing have already automated a lot of their production, and with better robots more is getting automated.\n\nBut this is nothing new (we've been doing things more efficiently ever since we started farming), nor is it actually bad - it's pretty good. The big trouble is that it can happen faster than our society and economy can adapt.\n\nIf it happens faster than we can handle it then the wealth gap will increase, and we'll be stuck with a lot of unemployable people. And that is really bad.", "Let's take a look at the thought experiment ; the \"Paperclip Maximiser\".\n\nI'm on mobile so I'm probably going to get some things wrong but bear with me.\n\nThe basic premise is that we take a extremely intelligent AI and we give it the task \" make as many paperclips as you can \".\n\nSo now a AI smarter than any human has a task, now before we go any further consider trying to stop it from doing that task.\n\nThat would like like the equivalent of a monkey stopping humans in labs from experimenting on it, after its already been captured and put into a cage.\n\nSo the first thing this AI will do is turn any available metal into paperclips, then it might realise \" I see you humans create a lot of cars using that metal, well I was told to create paperclips so I'm shutting down all of your car factories \"\n\nNow refer back to the above example, if this AI is unimaginably more intelligent than humans then it would be almost impossible for us to stop it from undergoing its task.\n\nThis is the problem with AI, and computers. They will come to (i)logical conclusions like \"the existence of humans detracts from my ability to create paperclips so the best course of action is to destroy all humans\"\n\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
4b99a7
why we shouldn't look at welding flashes?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b99a7/eli5_why_we_shouldnt_look_at_welding_flashes/
{ "a_id": [ "d173dg3", "d173gjb", "d173goa", "d173mv6", "d176zn0", "d177bh2", "d17fe21", "d17fthh", "d17g30d", "d17hsjz" ], "score": [ 66, 23, 37, 5, 3, 6, 2, 3, 61, 2 ], "text": [ "The real-life flashes are so bright (including ultraviolet radiation) that they can literally burn the retina (the nerves in your eye). \n\nRecordings of them are not capable of reproducing that brightness, so they're safe to watch.", "They are bright enough to damage your eyes. Just like you shouldn't look at the sun.\n\nBut obviously, looking at a recording of it is fine, as it can't get brighter than full white of your screen. Which is nowhere close to as bright as seeing it in person.", "It is because of the ultraviolet wavelength that is produced by the arc welding. That is why only the persons involved wear the shields with the polarized lens in the helmet. It is okay to look away at a wall 180° opposite from the arc welding and just see the light flashing on the wall. Looking at a recording of it won't do harm. The camera is looking at it. There are filters made for cameras to film that kind of work. \n", "A recording will be limited in brightness by the total output of the screen that you're looking at, and that's limited to be a safe amount of light.\n\nThe welding arc itself is not limited like this, so it can be much brighter. Worse, it consists of a lot of ultraviolet radiation. I've experienced the dangers of this first hand—I needed to do a few inches of welding and din't cover my arms. The resulting UV burn was worse than any sunburn I've had. You do *not* want to expose your eyes to that level of radiation. ", "A friend of mine got \"welder's burn\" in an unusual way (this was 10 years ago, facts may be skewed). He woke one morning and his eyes were crusty and were hurting. Eventually he figured out or remembered coming home the night before (probably buzzed) and checking on his chicken coup when lightning struck directly in front of him causing his eyes to get burned.", "The light emitted by the arc of a welder is so bright it can burn your eyes and permanently damage them.\n\nLooking at a recording will be fine though - a tv set can only ever emit a certain level of brightness, so will be perfectly safe to look at - anything brighter than the limit of the tv will be darkened until it reaches that maximum point - generally very right compared to the rest of the picture on the scene so it looks correct, but not dangerous in any way.\nAt the same time, when recording very bright lights such as a welder, the sun or a laser, you can risk damaging the camera that is recording it, as some light sources will be strong enough to burn the sensor that records the image or damage the processing electronics that save the footage, so it is generally recommended not to focus on very bright light sources too much (though obviously most cameras are fine having the sun or a welder in the scene, as long as you are not zooming right in on them for long periods).", "I have looked at welding flashes. beyond the obvious retinal damage that could occur (I haven't had that happen) there are the temporary spots of blindness that make it impossible to see what you are working on. Imagine that you have peripheral vision but you can't see anything directly in front of you. So there is an immediate practical reason for eye protection. ", "Could you be in danger watching if you are at a long distance? Say 50+ yards", "As someone who has had welders flash and been to the hospital about it, the closest approximate is a sunburn on your eyes. It's worse than using a knife and ramming your thumb down onto it and splitting the nail halfway. 48 hours of nonstop teary eyes, dirt/glass sensation, and eye goobers so thick you have to pry your eyes open. The antibiotics they give you are not clear drops, they are a paste that you have to put under your eyelid and move your eyes around to disperse. So now you can't see, you're in pain, and you feel like you have rocks in your eyes. So for the eli5 part, because it's a bad idea. Tvs is all good though.", "They have auto darkening welding masks that are about the shade of sunglasses normally, and when they detect sufficient ammounts of light they darken to a shade that's safe. I've tried one of those masks against the sun, and it didn't work more than 50% of the time. That's how bright a welding arc can be" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
8zhtf5
if there was life on a planet the size of the sun, would those life forms be proportionally bigger than life on earth? how and why?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8zhtf5/eli5_if_there_was_life_on_a_planet_the_size_of/
{ "a_id": [ "e2iuhnx", "e2iuhzl", "e2ium35" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "A sun-sized planet would be immensely hot, and have an absolutely crushing force of gravity at the surface. If any life at all existed there I would expect it to be very small. Those aren't exactly good conditions for the evolution of complex lifeforms.", "Nope. I think they would be way smaller, if they were to be made from same elements as we are. The reason is gravity. It’s safe to believe that this giant planet would have surface as we enter the planet rather than condensed gases. This surface would produce so much gravity that if a person of our height fell down simply by tripping over steps, it could break his head. That’s not what they want. So in a long process, people with smaller heights will take over.\nBut there is one problem. There is a mathematical limit for a size of star called Eddington luminosity. So there must be limit for planets as well because planets are way more dense than stars are. So there maybe a limit that won’t let a planet grow/built itself as big as sun.", "I am not a cosmological or anything like that, but I'm going to guess that a planet the size of the sun would have *incredible* gravity (if a rocky planet that size could even exist , which I doubt). High gravity means denser tissue/ bodies and most likely smaller creatures.\n\nAgain, I don't think such a planet is actually possible." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
2alc4n
why i feel sick after eating 'rich', fatty or sickly sweet foods?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2alc4n/eli5_why_i_feel_sick_after_eating_rich_fatty_or/
{ "a_id": [ "ciwc41v", "ciwe7f2" ], "score": [ 2, 7 ], "text": [ "If your diet is rather healthy eating food high in fat or sugar will make you feel ill since your body isn't used to it", "Ultimately, any food you consumed is intended for use as fuel by your body. Fats are not easily converted into fuel and requires more energy to breakdown into readily available fuel(hence why we store it for later use). This process takes more of your \"total energy\" and makes you feel groggy, nauseous etc since the body is focusing energy to process it instead of normal function.\n\nAs for sugar, your body uses broken down sugars as direct fuel. An excess of this again causes your body to go into overload to either turn it into energy or store it as fat. These processes are taxing on the human body.\n\nOne thing to always keep in mind with diet is that our ancestors had to work very hard to fill their stomachs (most of them anyway). Through evolution the human body has gotten accustomed to eating smaller amounts. Today, food is readily available in mass excess and causes the body \"confusion\" when trying to process so much. Cupcakes, butter, oils, and other sugary fatty foods are troubling to digestion; whereas fruits, vegetables, and many meats are not as difficult for us to process.\n\nThe explanation could go on for days, but eating naturally occurring foods will substantially reduce the \"overwhelmed\" feeling your body has when eating rich foods.\n\nI'm on mobile and will clarify if I missed anything." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
15nflx
jewish beliefs.
I've never really been very knowledgeable on any religions. I've met this girl and her family who are jewish. It seems like a pretty strict regimen. I've been invited to synagogue a few times but have politely turned them down so far. I'd like to have a better understanding of the beliefs so I can have a proper conversation with them, but sway from asking them directly to avoid long winded explanations that would leave me more confused than before. Can you guys explain it like I'm five?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15nflx/eli5_jewish_beliefs/
{ "a_id": [ "c7o12wq" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Jews believe in God and the first five books of Moses. They don't believe that Jesus was the son of God or the Messiah. Jews are still waiting for their Messiah.\n\nThere are 613 commandments in the bible ranging from \"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy\" to \"don't mix two kinds of fabric together in your clothing\". Jewish life is defined by the observance of these commandments.\n\nDid you have more specific questions." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
6ea5sp
what causes a daily rise and fall in ground water levels?
I recently built a monitor, using float switches and a raspberry pi, to monitor my house sump pit. I've gathered data over the past week and noticed a small daily (roughly) cycle in the amount of water entering my sump pit. I would like to know what causes the cycle. The sump pit is ~2m below grade. The weather has been consistent (sunny & dry) for the last week.
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ea5sp/eli5_what_causes_a_daily_rise_and_fall_in_ground/
{ "a_id": [ "di8udqo" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Not a scientist. But I worked on rain garden and community education. I bet if your watershed is large enough it could be water accumulated from a storm days ago that has slowly made its way to you.\nWhat's the terrain like?" ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
2jc0s2
why does the military use the word "click" when referring to distance? how far is it, and where did it come from?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jc0s2/eli5_why_does_the_military_use_the_word_click/
{ "a_id": [ "cla9lne", "cla9qca", "clab81r", "clad95j" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Also, they spell it Klick (just using K for kilometer)", "Saying klick in the radio walky-talky thingy is simpler then saying kilometer. Also it can't be confused with other words easyly. ", "It is short hand for Kilometer. It is used by the military as well as long haul truckers and a few other professions. ", "Phonetically we use the word Kilo for the letter K. We use the word Klick to identify the metric unit kilometer. \n\nIt's actual origins are unknown, but it's generally believed to be somewhere around the 60s~.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [ "http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/f/faqklickdef.htm" ] ]
dl5jpy
why is the paint i put on the thing i'm painting still wet, but the paint i got on my shirt already dry?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dl5jpy/eli5_why_is_the_paint_i_put_on_the_thing_im/
{ "a_id": [ "f4n6ete", "f4naggk", "f4ocnsp", "f4oyyxd" ], "score": [ 7, 145, 8, 2 ], "text": [ "More paint dries slower. I would assume there isn't as much paint on your shirt. Not only this, but Your shirt is probably moving around a lot, which exposes it to fresh air and acts like blowing on paint to dry it.", "Your shirt is made of fabric, which absorbs moisture pretty well - better than your average wall or whatever. So when the paint hits your shirt, your shirt fairly quickly absorbs the liquid content, which is small enough that it's almost unnoticeable. The pigments and solids of the paint stay on the outside of the fabric, feeling dry much more quickly than if you were painting on a hard surface.", "The biggest thing with a process like drying is the amount of surface area exposed compared to the total volume of paint. When you were painting the thing, only the side of the paint facing the air was drying. When it was on your shirt, both sides of the paint were drying, and the shirt also \"wicked\" out the paint blob to a bigger diameter, increasing the Surface Area to volume ratio more.", "Because paint is evil. For example, if you were to spill a can of paint, it will automatically dry extremely quickly to ensure that you can’t clean it up properly. However, if you were to paint a wall in the exact same paint, it will take hours to dry so that you definitely will tarnish your hard work and get paint on you, potentially even tracking it round your house." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
26bvt1
- how to play blackjack?
Going to the Casino for the first time tonight, and I want to play Blackjack! But I don't want to show that I don't know what I am doing. Edit* Thanks everyone for the great explanations on how to play Blackjack! Very helpful, I hope I make some money tonight
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26bvt1/eli5_how_to_play_blackjack/
{ "a_id": [ "chpkcf6", "chpkqy6", "chpkthp", "chpkxg9", "chpkyfc", "chpl0s2", "chplkb5" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Practice this line before you go\n\n_URL_0_", "Anything 10 or higher in the deck = 10\n\nAces can be either 11 or 1\n\nAny other cards are face value (what you see is what you get)\n\nIf you get A + (facecard) you have \"black jack\" and automatically win unless the house has the same - and that's a push so you either put all that jackpot into the next hand or you get your money back depending on the casino. \n\nyou will be dealt two cards up front. One face up and one face down. You need to leave the face up one face up, but your goal is to get to the number \"21\" without going over. \n\nYou can \"stay\" at your number (your cards added together) but if the dealer has a higher number you lose\n\nYou can \"hit\" which means to take another card. Whatever this card is will automatically add to your total. If you had 3 of hearts and 6 of diamonds you have 9. Since the largest card is A with 11, you should hit because you *cannot* go over 21. Let's say you get a 7. You now have 16. You can continuously \"hit\" until you bust, but each \"hit\" card is placed face up, so you only have the one card that was given to you face down as a secret.\n\nMost people tell you to \"hit\" on 16 and \"stay\" on 17. Ultimately it's your choice. ", "The dealer usually will tell you what you should do for good tips, and they are not there to take your money. thats what the casino is there for. Being new is no big deal, beginners luck and you can learn alot by asking the table what you should do. What the dealer tells you (playing by the rules) is a 47% chance of you winning which means the casino eventually wins.\n\nBe careful of just jumping into a table, you could ruin someones streak of luck by messing up the order of cards that come out. Ask whoever is playing if you can join.\n\nThe only other advice is I dont hit on 15 because I always bust. counting cards doesnt work if they have a continous card shuffle going on and 6 decks is a lot to count :)\n", "Basic game structure:\nYou will be dealt 2 cards face up. All face cards have a value of 10 and all other cards have the value of the number on the card. You want to get close to a total of 21 without going over, or \"busting\". Aces can be either 1 or 11. If you want another card, you say \"hit\" or tap the table next to your cards. If you don't want another card, you say \"stay\" or wave your hand over the cards.\n\nThe dealer gets 2 cards. One face up and one face down. If the dealers cards add up to 16 or less. They have to ask for another card until they have at least 17.\n\nTo win. You have to score better than the dealer. This could be as simple as not busting when the dealer busts.\n\nStrategy tips:\nAlways assume that the dealer has a face card hidden, since there are more face cards than any other cards. So if the dealer has a 6 showing you will assume their score is 16. Which means that they will have to take another card and will likely bust. In this scenario you should play safe and only hit if you have less than a 12.\n\nIf the dealer has a face card showing, you should assume their score is 20 and take more risks. If you have a score of fifteen, you should hit because you will probably lose anyway so it doesn't matter if you bust.\n\nAces:\nIf you have an ace and your score is less than 17, you should hit. Since the ace can also be a 1. You are in no danger of busting and face no risk by hitting.\n\nSplitting:\nIf you have two of the same card, you are allowed to match your bet to split them into two hands. You want to do this when the dealer has a high risk of busting, or if you have two aces. Two eights are often split as well.\n\nDoubling down:\nWhen your turn first starts you can double down. You double your initial bet, and get one additional card and then your turn is over. You do not get to hit anymore.\n\nAsking the dealer:\nThe dealers are experts on the statistically best way to play blackjack. Also the dealers want you to win. When people win, the dealer gets more tips and doesn't get insulted by sore losers. If at any point you aren't sure what you should do, just ask, \"what does the book say here?\" The book refers to the book on blackjack strategy. Follow the advise they give you.\n\nInsurance:\nIf the dealer shows an ace you will be offered the chance to buy insurance. This means you can pay money, and if the dealer has blackjack (a face card and an ace) you won't lose your initial bet. Don't buy insurance, it isn't worth it.\n\nCasino etiquette:\nLook for a table with an empty seat. Sit down and get your money ready. When the hand is over give the dealer your money and they will give you chips. When leaving the table, ask to \"color up\" and the dealer will exchange your chips for larger value chips so you can go cash out or go to another table\n\nIf you have any questions let me know and I'll be glad to answer them", "Seriously though, here's a simple explanation:\n\nThe game is played \"against\" the dealer. You are not playing against other players. The goal of the game is to get as close to 21 points as possible without going over. If you have more points than the dealer without going over 21, then you win exactly as much money as you bet. If you have fewer points than the dealer OR if you go over 21 (which is called \"busting\"), you lose your bet. If you have the same number as the dealer it's a tie (also called a \"push\") and you don't win or lose anything.\n\nCards 2-10 are worth their corresponding number of points regardless of suit. 2 = 2 points, 9 = 9 points. Jacks, Queens and Kings are worth 10 points, and the Ace is worth either 11 points or 1 point - your choice. So a 9 and and ace can either total 10 or 20. \n\n\n1. Everyone places their bets on the table \n2. The dealer will deal two cards to every player, face up. To himself he will deal one card face down and the other card face up. \n3. Each player will then take their turn, starting with the first person to the dealer's left (I think). You only get one turn per round. You can either say \"hit\", which will give you another card, or \"stand\", which means you're staying where you're at and it's the next player's turn. \n4. After everybody has taken their turn, the dealer will reveal the face down card. The dealer will now \"play\" the game according to pre-set rules. Typically the rules are: the dealer must continue to \"hit\" until reaching 17 or higher, at which point he must \"stand\". If the dealer busts, everybody who didn't already bust wins. \n\nSPECIAL RULE - BLACKJACK\nAny card worth 10 points, when paired with a Jack gives you \"Blackjack\". If you have Blackjack, you automatically win (1.5x your bet) UNLESS the dealer ALSO has Blackjack, in which case nothing happens.\n\nIf, after all the cards are dealt, the dealer's card that is showing is an Ace, you will have the option to buy \"insurance\". You can \"buy\" up to half the amount that you have already bet. If, for example, you bet $10, you can buy anywhere from $1 to $5 of insurance. Once everyone has either bought or declined insurance, the dealer will secretly check to see if he has blackjack. If he does, everyone loses their initial bet (unless they also have Blackjack of course), and those with insurance will \"win\" whatever amount they decided to buy ($2 - $10 in this case). \n\n\nIf you are still confused, just watch a couple hands and it will start making sense. Also, be polite with the dealer, and they should be polite with you if you do anything that isn't allowed (ie: trying to grab your chips off the table after cards have been dealt). \n\nIf you want to practice playing beforehand, go here: _URL_0_\n\nHave fun!\n", "Oh, one more thing. You're welcome to say \"hit\" or \"stand\" or \"stay\" or whatever but most people just use hand signals. Tapping the table twice means hit. Gently waving your hand as if to say \"stop\" means stand.", "Besides all the rules of the game that people are posting, there are several little table do's and don'ts. I went with a friend who had never played at a casino before. I taught him all the game rules, but forgot to tell him about all the little casino things that he didn't know but were second nature to me. \n\nLike, don't touch the cards, ever. Unless it's one of the few casinos that still deal hands face down and you pick them up to look at them. But a vast majority now play your hand face up and the dealer does everything. Indicate hit by tapping the table, indicate stand by waving your hand. \n\nStack your bet in one pile, If your bet is more than one denomination of chips, put the higher denomination on the bottom. \n\nNever touch your wagered chips once a hand is being dealt or played. The exception is if you get a blackjack. Once the dealer pays you, you can take your winnings, make you next bet, whatever.\n\nTo double down, simply place an equal amount of chips next to your original bet. \n\nTo split, place an equal bet next to your bet, but a slight distance apart, and indicate a split by making a '2' pointing gesture with two fingers." ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://youtu.be/mKl11EzMTAE?t=31s" ], [], [], [], [ "http://wizardofodds.com/play/blackjack/" ], [], [] ]
37hk65
if you only had one gallon of gas left in your car, what would be the best way to get the furthest distance?
Say you are on the highway and notice you have only one gallon left in your tank and you don't know where the nearest station is. Assuming that time is not an issue and there are no other cars on the road and the road is perfectly flat, how could you get the most distance from that one gallon of gas? Would it be best to coast for a while, then accelerate back up to speed before coasting again and repeating, or would the extra energy of accelerating cancel out the benefit of coasting? Would just maintaining a constant speed be best? Or is there another method that would be better?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37hk65/eli5_if_you_only_had_one_gallon_of_gas_left_in/
{ "a_id": [ "crmqblt", "crmqcrr", "crmqolm", "crmqrxu", "crmsrnt", "crmwd46", "crmwdz9", "crmwfrr", "crmz7ev", "crngygz" ], "score": [ 24, 69, 4, 42, 19, 5, 4, 2, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Accelerating requires a lot of energy, the best way is to maintain speed. Use cruise control if you can. Also, higher speeds create more friction, so keeping your speed on the lower side would help, too. I think for most cars, maximum fuel economy is around 55MPH.", "Your car will have an optimal speed for traveling the greatest distance per unit of gas, you would do your best to maintain as close to that speed as possible until you were out of gas.\n\nThe manufactures know this speed, through internal testing and math, but its pretty irrelevant to a consumer so there is no need to tell you it. It's likely between 40-60mph, again depending on the car and circumstances\n\nEdit: One cool thing to add on. Planes actually *know* the speed they need to do this type of activity, its a core part of flying (there are a few different ones with planes since you are dealing with more dimensions) and its used pretty regularly in flight planning.", "Well, first priorities would be to reduce unnecessary engine loads and increase effeciency: switch off A/C, close windows & sunroof, find the optimal speed (engine revs & vehicle speed) and coast when possible. Do not coast all the way to 0 and back up but balance it to maintain the velocity in the optimum range. Also, hope that your tire pressures are good... :) ", "turn the engine off and push! it'll take forever but you'll get there and still have a gallon of gas!", "There are a whole range of techniques specifically toward driving for optimal fuel economy, it's a practice called Hypermiling. Look it up.\n\nOne of the most effective of the techniques is the \"pulse and glide\" method, which takes practice. The idea is counter intuitive - speed up when going down hill to build sufficient energy to coast up the next hill. It's fuel economically cheaper to accelerate when you're using gravity to assist. There was a recent fuel efficient car race, the kind of college graduate challenges where they build cars that get 3k mpg, and they mostly use this method.\n\nThe point is to read up on hypermiling.\n\nIn the longer term, you can build/install a couple circuits that indicate whether your car fuel management computer is in open loop or closed loop. When in closed loop, your computer is running in one of it's most fuel efficient modes for that given speed. If in open loop, it's using a fuel/air ratio table and is basically just dumping fuel into the engine, which often happens when under load or accelerating. Such devices are available with a bit of googling, and they're there to teach you how to drive.", "Air up your tires if possible. Hypermilers get into serious overinflation but you can get a significant improvement (and sharper cornering at the expense of some ride comfort) by inflating to the max pressure listed on the tire sidewall (usually 44 PSI) rather than the car manufacturer's recommendation (usually in the low 30s, and set with a smooth ride on the test drive in mind).\n\nAssuming a modern EFI car, DON'T coast, or at least don't coast in neutral - if you leave it in gear (highest possible if manual, D if automatic) and take your foot off the gas while going downhill, the computer will sense this, open all the valves at the same time and stop the fuel supply. Basically the engine converts to an air pump driven by the wheels. It's called deceleration fuel cut off.", "The majority of fuel consumption at highway speeds is the result of wind resistance. \n\nYour best strategy would be to get behind a semi truck trailer as close as you can, SAFELY, and draft off of them. They typically cruise at or near most vehicles' optimal speeds (55-65mph), and by riding in their wind draft (which you can see benefits as far back as 100 feet according to Mythbusters!) you will save quite a bit, up to 3-4 mpg in my informal testing. ", "The optimal speed for the highest gas mileage is about 40-50 mph. Stay at this speed, keep your windows up and AC off. Then avoid hitting your brakes for anything. Stay looking ahead and if you see something you will need to stop for coast up to it. Tap your brakes a little bit early if you think you will still need to use them after coasting.", "I think if the whole goal was to maximize the distance from that one gallon, ignoring the time it takes, the best method would be this.\n\n1. Open Door\n2. Get out of car.\n3. Close the Door.\n4. Walk to Rear of Car\n5. Push the bitch, and be glad you bought that smart car. \n\nNo hills and a perfectly flat road means that you can get a fair amount of speed without much issue. ", "How I did this in real life: \n\n* overinflate your tires\n* accelerate as rapidly/smoothly as possible\n* turn off all accessories (cut off the AC belt if possible), \n* close all windows, \n* drive at your car's optimal speed (btw 60-70 mph) insuring you're in the car's highest (overdrive) gear.\n* take the foot off accelerator when possible (coasting), or use cruise control.\n\nI actually had a real-life emergency about 15 ago when I was driving a 1980 Cadillac Eldorado from Las Vegas to Los Angeles and only had about 1 gallon of gas. I know it was a gallon because i'd already run out and gassed up with 1 gallon at the Arco near the entrance to LV Avenue. My GF had money, but she was already waiting for me at the border, so in order to insure I could make it, I did all the above things. Luckily, I learned that all large cars lose TONS of fuel on acceleration, so I got on the freeway with the smoothest/fastest acceleration i could get and then closed the windows, turned off the AC and coasted around 60 mph till we got to the Primm resort gas station... we made it barely on fumes, all 40 miles in a car that normally only gets 16 mpg." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]
4jtdrn
what happens in our brains when we realize we've driven miles/minutes and don't even remember consciously driving them?
Side note- doesn't this happen in dreams? You go places and can't remember how you got there...is there a relation?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4jtdrn/eli5_what_happens_in_our_brains_when_we_realize/
{ "a_id": [ "d39eaiu", "d39f3so", "d39gmoc", "d39ujcj" ], "score": [ 172, 20, 6, 4 ], "text": [ "This happens when your subconscious mind starts handling processes that you normally control consciously. Normally, you're paying attention to the road and staying alert. When you're an experienced driver, you can pass the task of staying between the lines to your subconscious, and stop being alert for hazards. Because you're performing subconsciously, your mind doesn't bother to record these times to memory, so you won't remember more than a hazy idea of driving those minutes/miles. When something snaps you out of the subconscious routine, you realize you haven't been alert for hazards, which is a decidedly unsettling feeling.", "It's actually a relatively well known and documented phenomenon called Highway Hypnosis. \n_URL_0_", "When you have the same stimulus for a prolonged period of time, your brain stops focusing on it, and instead chooses to focus on different, more important matters and let your subconsciousness take over. \n\nThis is the same as eye floaters. If you ever look at a bright light and see little blurry dots/lines in your vision, those are usually due to coagulation of the jelly-like liquid inside your eyeball. They are always there and are always visible, but your brain filters it out because you can do little about it and it isn't a good investment to recognise them. \n\nIn the same way, driving along a road for hours leads to the same stimulus being applied over and over, so your brain chooses not to focus on it. It's only when something changes that you actually realise it", "I recently read [this article that explains](_URL_0_) part of what happens when your subconscious brain takes over and also explains how something like forgetting your child inside the car happens. Apparently your basal ganglia is to blame." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_hypnosis" ], [], [ "http://www.parents.com/baby/safety/car/danger-of-hot-car-for-children/" ] ]
bfec9a
why do/how can "zero/low calorie sweeteners" have sugar, specifically dextrose, in them, if they are supposed to be sugar substitutes?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bfec9a/eli5_why_dohow_can_zerolow_calorie_sweeteners/
{ "a_id": [ "eld07uv", "elde4hc", "elegmzb" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Most say no or low sugar because they generalize glucose as sugar and other forms not. Also glucose is harder to metabolize than say sucrose, dextrose, fructose, lactose etc. So technically they aren't wrong but also not right. No sugar substitutes tend to use saccharin instead of a \"-ose\"", "Most low calorie sweeteners work by being sweeter than regular sugar. Aspartame (which is actually a protein and not a sugar) is the same 4 calories per gram as regular table sugar. The difference between aspartame and sugar is that aspartame is about 400 times sweeter than sugar. This means that you can make something equally as sweet, but use 1/400th as much sweetener. So if a regular can of soda has 100 calories, making the same soda with aspartame instead of sugar will give you 0.25 calories.", "According to my research, dextrose IS glucose.\n\nTo be more specific, dextrose refers to the the right hand isomer of glucose.\n\nIt is also known as dextrose, because it is dextrorotatory (meaning that as an optical isomer is rotates plane polarized light to the right and also an origin for the D designation. [[Source]](_URL_0_)\n\nDextrose is the most common isomer as it is the only naturally occurring of the two.\n\nAs for your original question. Are you able to give some specific examples and I'll see what info I can find for you." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [ "https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Biological_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_(Biological_Chemistry\\)/Carbohydrates/Monosaccharides/Glucose_(Dextrose\\)" ] ]
yrlfp
how wells work, and why well water is safe to drink
So can you just sink a well pretty much anywhere and have a good chance of finding water? And why don't wells usually need purification?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yrlfp/eli5_how_wells_work_and_why_well_water_is_safe_to/
{ "a_id": [ "c5y7xu3" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "In a lot of places, the soil is saturated with water up to a certain level (elevation). If you dig a hole through this layer, that water will drain into the hole (the well) in a way that looks something like this: _URL_0_\n\nYou can't just sink a hole anywhere. It depends on the depth to the water level (water table) in a particular area, which depends on a lot of factors, including geology, climate, and rainfall in the area. In some places, there's water only a few feet under the surface. In other places, you can dig hundreds of feet and find no moisture. Other places used to be like the first case but are now like the last case due to excessive pumping.\n\nGroundwater is often safe to drink with minimal or no treatment because the soil itself acts as a water filter, and there may not be any infectious contaminants in the area around the groundwater. But groundwater is by no means always safe -- a few areas around the world have severe natural arsenic contamination in their groundwater, leading to a lot of problems.\n\n(I'm a civil engineer.)" ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "http://groundwater.oregonstate.edu/groundwater/images/depressionb.gif" ] ]
2glmrk
how a company like netflix works?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2glmrk/eli5_how_a_company_like_netflix_works/
{ "a_id": [ "ckk9m6b" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "They purchase DVDs to rent out by mail, and license shows and movies to stream out.\n\nSubscribers pay a monthly fee for streaming and maybe DVD rental. Netflix uses this money to pay for the license fees for the streaming, and to purchase new DVDs." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
1jnvk1
how does pantone influence fashion and design? what gives them the authority to choose the color palette for the season?
I know that Pantone isn't primarily a fashion company, so why do they put out the [Color Report](_URL_0_)? And is this report a *reflection* of the colors for upcoming seasons or a *suggestion* that sways the designers and market? And why is a printing company talking about fashion anyway?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jnvk1/eli5_how_does_pantone_influence_fashion_and/
{ "a_id": [ "cbgj0uj" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "They don't choose the colors fashion designers will pick, but they do provide a consistent point of reference on a given color. Instead of \"light blue\" I can tell you I want Blue #123 and it will be exactly what I wanted. Certain colors trend more popular for given seasons, they can compile those as a sort of guide accordingly so folks are referring to the same tones. " ] }
[]
[ "http://www.pantone.com/pages/fcr.aspx?pg=21057&ca=4" ]
[ [] ]
6csvnk
why do people say they will treat bombs as a terrorist attack until proven otherwise? isn't a bombing in nature an act of terrorism regardless of who did it?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6csvnk/eli5_why_do_people_say_they_will_treat_bombs_as_a/
{ "a_id": [ "dhx5p4b", "dhx5sjr", "dhx6aej", "dhx6xpb", "dhx7qmh", "dhx8rbx", "dhxab8s", "dhxcpk9", "dhxdkj1", "dhxerg7", "dhxfe2w", "dhxfiag", "dhxfjmt", "dhxgkkc", "dhxgr46", "dhxhs7v", "dhxhwgl", "dhxibbc", "dhxiix6", "dhxjgw6", "dhxjuhi", "dhxkahj", "dhxkaqg", "dhxkfsw", "dhxkg7j", "dhxl4ds", "dhxmepy", "dhxmnf8", "dhxmse3", "dhxnd2m", "dhxo73l", "dhxofz0", "dhxowwq", "dhxpgpw", "dhxqks0", "dhxr0u0", "dhxreay", "dhxrgzb", "dhxru6c", "dhxsdix", "dhxshui", "dhxssfv", "dhxtkca", "dhxtqf5", "dhxttmt", "dhxu10f", "dhxuquh", "dhxvji6", "dhxvsqd", "dhxvszd", "dhxwwhh", "dhxxef3", "dhxxvn5", "dhxy4qk", "dhxycwm", "dhxygl5", "dhxyyhq", "dhy06gt", "dhy0a0c", "dhy4zw6", "dhy8hqv", "dhygebk" ], "score": [ 781, 42, 186, 5, 5066, 451, 3, 18, 10, 2, 18, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 20, 3167, 2, 6, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 9, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ " > Isn't a bombing in nature an act of terrorism regardless of who did it?\n\nNo. Terrorism is using fear as a tool to try to force some sort of political or social change.\n\nIf the point of a bomb is to try to cause a group of people to comply with some sort of demand because they're terrified of being blown up if they don't, that's terrorism. But if someone is setting off a bomb just because they're crazy and want to kill people, that's not terrorism.\n\nIn short, whether or not something is terrorism is a matter of intent (much like whether or not something is first degree murder is a matter of intent).", "\"Bomb\" is a general term, in a breaking news situation, used to be a placeholder for \"That loud sound everyone heard\", even though authorities have yet to confirm exactly what caused the reported noise and or damage.\n\n\nThe reason authorities treat it as a terrorist attack until proven otherwise is because if you don't know what's just happened, it's possible for it to happen again, and you want to be sure all of your helpers are on high alert.\n\n Also, in many governments, it allows for different agencies to be activated, some governments require a declaration of terrorism before some agencies can help. Look up: Buracracy, also: Vogons.\n\n\nBut I'm drunk on Bailey's Irish Cream after imagining what the parents and kids in Manchester might have went through, and I'm probably wrong.", "1. In case it was not a deliberate bomb. Without knowing the full details yet, it could have been something else, like a pyrotechnics accident.\n\n2. If it was a bomb, there are other possible reasons besides terrorism, including suicide, homicide targeting a deliberate person or people, or other reason for destruction. The Dortmund (fixed, thanks /u/taversham) bus bomb was supposed to look like terrorism, but turned out to be someone trying to commit financial fraud.\n\nIt probably was a terrorist bomb, but the police want to be positive before officially calling it.", "Keyword is **terror**ism. If you set off a bomb to spread fear, want to gain politcal/religious/ideological goals in a violent way, then that is an act of terrorism.\nOtherwise, you set off a bomb because it is fun for you to see death, doing it for the *lulz*, doing it as a prank then it is not terrorism. *(And oh boy, you do have some problems)*\n\nIt is more on the intention or objective of your actions.", "Generally speaking, terrorism refers to violence with *ideological* motivations: political, religious, etc. Although bomb attacks usually are ideological in nature, they don't by definition have to be. Someone can commit a bombing for non-ideological reasons (maybe the bomb is an attempt to murder someone with whom the perpetrator has a personal dispute with.) \n\nTerrorism is not defined by tactics. If a man stabs ten people in a mall because he's a dickweed, that's not terrorism. If a man stabs ten people in a mall because he thinks it contribute to the overthrow of the government, then that is terrorism. \n\nIt's also worth mentioning that the word *terrorism* doesn't really define what terrorists do. The term implies that creating fear is terrorists' primary motivation, but this is generally not the case. Terrorists' goals vary depending on their motivations, but causing widespread terror in the minds of populations is generally more of a desirable additional effect than the main goal. The generally accepted modern definition of terrorism is violence or the threat of violence by non-state actors driven by ideological motivations. ", "Because it is easy to step down an investigation, but much harder to ramp one up. Treating an explosion of undetermined, but suspicious, origin as a terrorist bombing means that any possible evidence recovered will be handled and logged in accordance with evidentiary procedure. Explosives experts will be among the first people combing through the debris, looking for any of the components of the explosive device.\n\nIf it is treated like an accident or something other than a criminal act, then it is entirely possible that valuable evidence may be lost or overlooked. Evidence might be handled or recovered in ways that make it useless for testing or inadmissible in a trial.\n\nIf you follow the most stringent investigative procedures, you know you're good. Worst case scenario is that you were too careful and exacting.\n\nThese are the same reasons suspicious fires are investigated as possible arson, and deaths of unknown origin are treated as possible murder. Until your investigation shows that the worst case scenario isn't true, you want to be certain that you aren't underdoing it.\n\nEDIT TO ADD: The reason it is treated as a terrorist bombing specifically, rather than any other type of criminal bombing, is because that gets the intelligence community involved. That's the critical difference between the investigation of a possible terrorist act and a 'regular' criminal investigation.", "Others have already explained the latter part, what's required to classify as terrorism. The reason it's treated as a terrorist attack until they know better is because that's the worst crime, the police always assumes the worst when investigating because it's better to give it too high priority and downgrade it afterwards than wise versa.\n\nSimilarly if you put a house on fire they will file it as arson regardless if there were people in the house or not when the fire was lit. If it's later clear that there weren't they'll downgrade it.\n\nThen the news does the same because it makes for bigger head lines;)", "Rational answer: What most people have already pointed out. Terrorism has a goal, usually political, and is much more about the fear it creates than the actual damage the attack inflicts. \nBut also, if a white person does it, it's usually a \"crime by a mentally unstable lone wolf\". If a brown person does it, it's \"terrorism\".", "Terrorism is hard to define without being over or under inclusive, but we can give it aspects that help frame it and distinguish it from other acts of violence. Much of it comes down to the motivation and intended effect on target.\n\nFirstly, terrorism's kinetic target (that is the one physically damaged) might have little to no practical strategic value. Though irreplaceable people are sadly lost, these victims were not targeted because of their combat, political, or economic importance. The reasoning for this manner of kinetic target plays into the next framework.\n\nThe true target for a terrorist act is not the human casualties, or the damaged locations. The target of most concern to a terrorist is the witnesses. A terrorist operative might try to maximize physical damage during his act of violence, but it's part of his malignant goal to frighten survivors, media watchers, and policy makers. \n\nFinally, terrorism can generally fall into one of two categories. Either it is an attempt to upend the status-quo, or enforce it. In this regard, it goes beyond personal motives and into general policy. \n\nWhether or not an act of violence fits in these frameworks may not be immediately relevant for law enforcement investigations (but will be crucial in expanded countermeasures). A violent act of magnitude generally involves what Jacob Shapiro would call a \"Covert Violent Organization\" or CVO. The rules for managing a CVO are generally the same whether you are a spy ring, a drug cartel, or a terrorist group. Therefore, law enforcement might start with the same tools and methods in dismantling such a network. ", "It might just have been someone who was trying to blow someone up for non-terrorism related reason.\n\nPeople may get terrorized but if the goal was insurance money or something that is not really terror.\n\nAlso not all explosion have to be somebody setting of a bomb. Gas lines explode all the time due to bad maintenance as do meth labs for similar reasons.\n\nSometimes you have industrial accidents and sometimes you have bombs that were perhaps at some point a tool of terror but now decades alter are just something people find when they dig a basement for a new building.\n\nSometimes people are just plain stupid.", "People will also bomb places because of extortion - give us a million dollars or we'll blow the place up. This happened to a Las Vegas casino many years ago. Bombs have been blown up to get into bank vaults - a tool to commit a robbery, not terrorism. Bank robbers have put bombs on hostages to get their freedom when they are surrounded in the place they are robbing. Lots of examples. And sometimes you have explosions that are miscategorized as bombings. Natural gas explosions are the most common.", "The movie, Patriots Day, is a good example of what happens when something is deemed terrorism.\nA whole different set of wheels start to turn when a crime is deemed terrorism. Different agencies get involved and personal liberties can be legally \"stretched\" in the name of National Security.", "No, terrorism is violence with a political aim. That includes, for instance, Antifa, even though they don't kill anybody, but it doesn't include some whack job who sets off a bomb in a post office because his frozen dinner told him to.", "Because humans notice patterns. A bomb is generally a terrorist attack, which is not an unreasonable conclusion. Maybe more sensitive people don't like the whole Islamic terrorism assumption. But, the bombing in Manchester was done by an Islamist... sooo... yeah. Patterns and track records.", "Not if it has to do with a war and it was from a country not a person or a group of people ", "Besides used as an act of violence, bombing (use of explosives) is also used in some areas to actually help humans, like demolishing old buildings, removing freezing surface from river, etc.", "I think it's worth noting that not all explosions are bombs or intentional. They labeled this as terrorism before identifying the exact cause of the explosion ", "There had been a [bomb attack on the German football team Borussia Dortmund](_URL_0_) where some people suspected a terrorism background (I recally some members of... a certain subbreddit... instantly blaming refugees) which turned out to be an act of \"ordinary\" greed.\n\nThe suspect had bet that the stock of the team would fall in the stock exchange (which it would have if players had become seriously wounded and/or killed)...", "Since others in the thread have provided excellent responses on the nature of motivation versus method, as it pertains to your question, I just wanted to chip in an example I think will be relevant.\n\nBack in January 2011, a car exploded in close proximity to a number of defense department facilities (including the Pentagon). SWAT and bomb squads responded, and it was initially investigated as a possible attack. Turns out, it was a construction worker who had left an oxyacetylene torch in his trunk, which detonated (possibly due to temperature/pressure fluctuations caused by the cold). Within a couple hours, it was established what had occurred, and things backed down from \"terrorist attack\" to \"accident,\" but in those initial minutes of response, nobody had any way to know. [Here's a news article with updates and images](_URL_2_).\n\nOther things can also cause explosions, such as natural gas pipelines. For example, three 5-story buildings [were destroyed in NYC in 2015](_URL_1_) due to a gas pipeline problem, and another couple buildings there were [blown up in 2014](_URL_0_). Big explosions, but not bombs, and it took time to establish that. Until there is certainty of the cause, they will treat things as potentially the worst, so that they don't miss signs or put the public in greater danger by treating something less seriously than they should.", "Because if white people do it, then it's a lone wolf with a psychology issue, not a terrorist and I really wish I wasn't being dead serious ", "In answer to the second question - \"Isn't a bombing in nature an act of terrorism?\"\n\nAt one point, car bombs were a \"popular\" means for organized crime to get rid of people they wanted to kill.\n\nWere these bombs an act of terrorism? Or - more to the point, WHY were these people killed, and why were they killed using car bombs?\n\nYou could answer - these people were killed because they were doing something that organized crime was not happy about - they were informing, they were stealing from them, they were competing against them, etc. Is killing for this purpose an act of terrorism?\n\nAnd - why a car bomb? Obviously, the car bomb was used to send a message to other people - basically, that a certain organized crime entity did this, and let this be a warning to others. Would this make it an act of terror? Well - what about other means of killing that also \"send a message\"? What if the organized crime entity just had someone shot and then spray painted a message on nearby wall - this would get across the same point of the car bomb. Would this be terrorism?\n\nThe answer is that it boils down to what the definition of terrorism is. The accepted definition is an act of violence to accomplish a political goal. Of course, the line between regular assault/murder/etc. and terrorism can get blurred. Is a bank robbery an act of terror? Probably not. But what if the bank robbery was done by a terrorist group as a means to finance their other operations? This is where things get somewhat grey.", "They need to find out if the person was brown first. If they were white they need to call it something else.", "Have these sorts of attacks ever worked? That's my honest concern.\n\nBombings have been a thing for awhile now. Thinking back I don't think I've ever read \"welp they killed 13 more people, that puts us at 100 dead more so than last year. Better give them what they want!\"", "What they mean is that they want to see if the attacker is Muslim and deserving of their disdain or just a mentally ill lone wolf white male who needs help. ", "We only call it terrorism these days when it's Muslims. This is for entirely non-valid reasons of political ideology. If anyone who isn't Muslim bombs somewhere then it's \"terrorist-like\" activity. \n\nBasically it's racist as fuck mate. ", "[FBI Definition of Terrorism:\n](_URL_1_)\n > The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:\n\n > Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.\n\n > International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThere is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as \n\n > the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives(28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). \n\nHere is another definition used in the [Global Terrorism Database.](_URL_2_)\n\n > intentional act of violence or threat of violence by a non-state actor. In addition, two of the following three criteria also had to be met for inclusion\n\n > The violent act was aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal;\n\n > The violent act included evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) other than the immediate victims;\n\n > The violent act was outside the precepts of International Humanitarian Law.", "A bombing COULD just be a loner who hates everyone around him. There might not have been any philosophy or group that motivated him to bomb or that influenced his targets. Maybe he just wanted to die and at the same time send a message that society can't just ignore the mentally and emotionally troubled outcast. Conversely, terrorist bombing is all about drawing attention to something larger than the individual. The type of non-terrorist bombing I have been describing is more purely about drawing attention to the individual himself and how he was personally abused or neglected.", "In general, if the motivation was political, then it's considered an act of terrorism.\n\nBut if it was some nut, who thought he was receiving messages from outer space through his teeth, then it wouldn't be considered terrorism. (As opposed to some religious nut, who thinks he's guided by messages from a book).\n\nI think the idea is, if it's terrorism, then society needs to be concerned that there is an organization behind it, which has to be dealt with. If it's a lone nutcase, then society doesn't have to be as concerned.", "Well I think that the actual use of that word means they're looking for it to be a criminal action, rather than an accident. For example, there could be an explosion at a concert, whether it be a defective firework, or some sort of malfunctioning device. \n\nAnother reason is that when you describe terrorism, and that you're investigating an event as an act of terrorism, you really mean that you're now looking for other events that could be orchestrated along with that event. You don't look at it as a singular event but go in damage suppression mode, and think that this might not be the only event. ", "No you got it wrong. People say they will treat EXPLOSIONS as terrorist attacks until proven otherwise. Explosions could happen because of a lot of different reasons.", "Terrorism is motivated by the desire to instill terror in society, to make the society as a whole feel insecure, and to project an image of power or control by some group by causing mass or grotesque casualties. If a bomb is set off by someone without these motivations it may cause terror in the population based upon its effect but may not be part of a deliberate effort to do so. For instance some socially awkward teen who has been bullied by other kids may attempt to kill the whole group of them in a murder suicide by bomb. The intent is targeted at those individuals not the society as a whole. However your initial assumption that the bombings of a concert venue is almost certainly an act of terror is well founded. It would be a highly exceptional situation for it to be anything other. Investigators and politicians want to avoid looking like they rush to judgement in these cases so they will be over cautious in their language. For instance the use of the term \"person of interest\" rather than \"suspect\". We all know that for practical purposes this person is a suspect. But phrasing this cautiously helps with the criminal proceedings if it comes to that where it reduces the possibility that the defense can claim a rush to judgement where all evidence was collected and funneled towards an assumption that the defendant was the guilty party and that a myriad of other potential suspects were not sufficiently investigated as a result. The claim would be that the evidence seems damning because collection and interpretation were both biased by a presupposed guilt. ", "Bombing, in and of itself, is not a terrorist attack.\n\nThe definition of terrorism is \"An attack on a civilian population for political or ideological goals\"\n\nTo be terrorism, it generally has to meet at least two major criteria:\n\n1. The targets are civilians / noncombatants\n2. The attack has a goal beyond \"lets kill people!\"\n\nThe point of terrorism is to use actual attacks or threats of attack against civilians to intimidate someone (usually a govt, but sometimes smaller entities like religious organizations or corporations) into doing something (release X high-value prisoner, remove troops from Y region, send money to Z organization).\n\nFor real world examples: The Boston Marathon bombing qualifies as an act of terrorism, as the brothers who conducted it \"wanted to defend Islam from the U.S\" (targeted civilians, goal is to get US out of Afghanistan by making Americans fear an attack at home).\n\nOn the flip side, Al-Qaeda bombing a military convoy in Afghanistan is NOT an act of terrorism, it is a standard practice of warfare against uniformed troops.\n\nFor an example of a bombing that would NOT qualify as terrorism (I cannot easily find any, as searching for \"bombing\" produces hundreds of news articles about terror attacks) consider the following:\n* Disgruntled worker fired for poor performance\n* Decides if he's going down, he'll take the bosses with him\n* Plants an explosive in a conference room, kills the company executives\n\nThis would NOT be an act of terrorism, but rather one of multiple-murder where the weapon is a bomb. While this is an attack against civilians, it does not aim to cause another party to take a desired action; The goal in this scenario is simply to get revenge by killing the people this hypothetical worker sees as responsible for his misery.", "There is a difference between murder and terrorism. If it's not aimed at a specific person and is motivated by politics, or religion, its terrorism. ", "Terrorism is supposed to refer, technically, to attacks that are designed to spread panic and confusion. Loss of life isn't as important as having everyone trembling, and taking counter-productive measures in the hope of protecting themselves. Typically, terrorists have a cause or motivation they see as being greater than themselves, which is how they justify taking lives. Often, they're regarded by some as \"freedom fighters\" or \"holy warriors\" or something else more positive. \n \nDuring World War 2, French and Polish resistance fighters used what we would call terror tactics today. \n \nIn popular use, \"terrorism\" has been applied to more or less any attack that scares people, regardless of whether or not that was the intention. This is more of a popular application (like referring to someone convicted of manslaughter as \"a murderer,\" or anyone killed by another human being/agency as \"murdered,\" despite murder being a specific legal term).", "Not necesarily. Imagine you want to kill somebody, say Greg, and you have access to explosives or the skill to craft one, and you know that Greg is going to that concert tonight. If you're crazy enough to commit to killing Greg with a bomb, you're probably crazy enough to not care about collateral damage too.\n\nSo in that case it's not terrorism, it's assassination with collateral damage. After all a bomb's main purpose is destroying and killing, and terror of the masses is a byproduct of that.\n\nTreating a bombing as a terrorist attack means first that we think that someone wanted as primary objective to cause terror, and second that we'll use our resources on looking for terrorists. For example we won't look for serial killers or people with dementia who for some mad reason made a bomb go off, we're looking for radical people who want to cause terror, or terrorists.", "Others have mentioned that terrorism could be motivated for some reason, but that's not the key factor. The goal of the bombing is what makes terrorism. \n\nThere could be political, social, religious, etc... motivations for the terrorist act. What makes terrorism though, is the goal to spread fear. You could do terrorism just for the sake of spreading fear and nothing else, and that would be terrorism. There may be motivation for such an attack (you attack my country, people, culture, religion, etc...) but that just separates the different types of terrorism, not what it actually is/defines it.\n\nManchester could be a terrorist attack because the goal was to scare children and their parents. Make them fear attending events, experience culture. Make them doubt and be alert as they experience life. There may be religious motivation for it, making it then Islamic Terrorism, but even without a motivation it could still be terrorism.", "If a non white person did it, it's terrorism. If a white person did it, it's a kid who made a mistake. ", " > **Terrorism**: *The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.* \n > merriam-webster \n \nFor it to be a terrorist attack it would be in the pursuit of political aims. There can be bombings carried out by people who do not have political aims. But in this time it is more likely and is more widely assumed to be orchestrated or influenced by larger group than the individual who committed the act.", " > Why do people say...\n\nWho specifically? If you're quoting someone (i.e. politician or chief of police) - it would just be a matter of protocol; a routine... a readiness/alert policy, or *wtf do I do when something bad happens*.\n\n > isn't a bombing in nature an act of terrorism\n\nNo. detenating a bomb is not act of terrorism. Not by itself alone (Example: detonating a bomb to carve highways and tunnels through mountains.) \nHowever, the use of explosives falls within a fundamental aspect of terrorism; it would be a 'force multiplier'. \n\nThe use of violence (w/ bomb or not) subjected towards an intended target/audience is indeed an act of terrorism. The latter part is crucial, and another force multiplier. There's several of them but I'll spare the lecture. \n\nThink of terrorism as a strategy, not an ideology. It is the anti-thesis of peaceful protest. That is really what determines/differentiates acts of terrorism and acts of violence.", "Most people in this thread misdefined terrorism, which is all you need to answer this question: \n\nTerrorism is the act of using force/threats of force in order to effect political change in the target audience - an attempt to scare the civilian population not cause physical damage to the target you are attacking.\n\nSo literally, most bombings are not acts of terrorism, however, attacks on civilian populations largely are terrorism. This is why I think people assume these types of events to be malicious. At a concert where there is no military or political target, it is certainly an act of terrorism.\n\nEveryone misuses the terms terrorism and terrorist (one who engages in terrorism) though, so colloquially this nuance is lost. ", "If I bombed a concert b/c I'm trying to strike fear or intimidate a group of people b/c I hate Western culture, that's terrorism. \n\nIf I bombed a concert b/c I don't like Arianna Grande and was hoping to kill or injure the singer, that's attempted murder, but probably isn't actually terrorism. \n\nTerrorism needs to have a political/religious/nationalism purpose/drive.", "It depends on the source/intent of the explosion and definition of \"bomb\". Bombs have been made accidentally - either because of carelessness, recklessness, ignorance, or complete chance. Under the right circumstances, a bag of flour is a suitable bomb. But you'd hardly call someone simply buying groceries a terrorist. ", "Explosions aren't only caused by purposeful bombings. I'd agree that most purposeful could be construed as terrorist actions (actions who's primary objective is to kill others, and secondary objective is to cause fear in it happening again).\n\nBut some explosions aren't bombs. What if this bombing had been an act of negligence rather than murder. Say a gas pipe fracturing during the concert, then igniting at the worst time.\n\nI'm fine with authorities assuming all explosions, especially those with body counts, we're terrorist bombings until proven otherwise. So you shut down bridges and airports, you begin investigating during the triage of the human cost.", "Story time.\n\nI used to live in a very small city and couldnt really get out of there. I had no car, not even money for a bus ticket.\n\nSo one sunny saturday morning I sit outside and smoke a cigar as a REALLY loud explosion shatteres the street. People stepped out, ambulances, firefighters and police cane within a few minutes.\n\nIts not like america, our houses usually have multiple tenants so no one really knew what was going on and just as I was talking to someo.... - OH MY GOD! THAT HOUSE IS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE! HOLY FUCK WHAT!?\n\nOk. It didnt collapse. But the explosion, which occurred inside of the house, destroyed the stairway inside and actually MOVED an entire wall, which was going from roof to cellar by 5 centimeter and split the outer wall.\n\nThey rescued everyone in the house through the windows. Nothing burned.\n\nYou know explosions are most likely terrorists because its very effective damage and bombs can kill more people on short time than guns, and terrorists have very little time.\n\nBut in this case it, which is rare, was not a terrorist. It was some stupid idiot who dried firework in the drier. And they eventually exploded!\n\nNo terrorists. ", "The motives are pretty much the only thing that defines whether some sort of attack is \"terrorist\" or not. You can perform a \"crowd punching\" and it could be considered a terrorist attack if you do it with the right motives", "If it WAS a bomb that exploded, then yea, that pretty much is always terrorism.\n\n\nWhat if it was just a gas leak that got sparked somehow though?", "Terrorism, AFAIK, is more interested in disruptions than they are in destruction - i.e they bomb to make threats, not the other way around. \n\nAn attack like this will usually be followed by multiple threats being called in, most if not all of which will be responded to (and publicized). \n\nIf a group can make 20 to 50+ phone/email/social media threats for every actual attack, then doing something as resource intensive as an attack is something that, to them, is worth doing. ", "In a terrorist attack, the bomb is a method to a means. Never will a terrorist attack accomplish it's final goal with the actual bomb. The terrorist wins after the dust of the bomb is settled down. The next day when people look over there shoulder for another attack. Perhaps they change the way they used to live because of it. The idea of terrorist attacks is to get the Public to feel differently after the attack. \n\nLet's say some girl found out her husband was cheating on her with his secretary. A well placed bomb will kill them both. Sure it might kill others but that's not even factored. This women just wants revenge on her husband and his lover. The bomb can accomplish the final goal. To end the lives of the husband and lover.", "No, terrorism is a tactic of using violent methods to inflict terror in a population, usually in order to encourage some political change.\n\nA guy running into a crowd in the name of god is an act of terror, a guy driving into a crowd because he's drunk isn't.\nA car blowing up in a mall to avenge the execution of a political leader is an act of terror, a car blowing up as part of a hit by organised crime isn't.\n\n", "Terrorism uses the attack to cause fear, to work towards an ideological, religious, or political goal. \n\nYou could bomb a bunch of people with no goal in mind.", "Because a lot of white people don't think other white people can be terrorists. In this case \"proven otherwise\" means \"until we prove it isn't a Muslim\".\n\nIt's small, angry people looking to justify their hate.", "I don't agree with those lengthy nit picking apologist definitions itt. \n\nAll bombings are terrorist attacks. \n\nAnd it's not a question of intention, but results. The result is always fear/destruction/death.", "There was an explosion. They hadnt yet determined whether it was actually a bomb or something else.", "I think it should be asked why we don't call all explosions \"acts of terrorism\" because for the majority of cases, right when something like this happens it's not certain whether it was a bomb that went off or something just exploding due to something else. The media is very apprehensive with labeling something as a bomb when it has yet to be confirmed. However, if it is shown that a bomb was exploded with the intent to kill people on domestic soil then you can instantly label it an act of terrorism regardless of motive. ", "*Explosions* aren't uncommon. Chemical reactions, volatile gasses, high-speed collisions, etc. \n\n*Bombings* aren't necessarily the exclusive domain of terrorists. Controlled demolitions are common in road construction, taking down condemned buildings etc. They are also have military applications, such as destroying supplies, infrastructure, and enemy combatants. Even criminal intent (opening a safe) is different from terrorist intent.\n\n\nNow, when you hear people say \"Terrorist Bombing Attack\", it refers to a specific tactic designed to cause death and injury to civilians, with the goal of destabilizing and destroying society. \n\nAnd not to put to fine a point on this, \"Terrorist Attack\" specifically means **ISLAMIC** terrorist attack. It often goes without saying, because 99 times out of 100, it's MUSLIMS who are to blame. (And usually, Muslims who are the victims)", "Violence is only ok if sanctioned by the State. For example, when the U.S. bombs a school full of children with a drone, it's ok. When a shooter is killed by an explosive device made to look like a cell phone, it's ok. Philosophically​ it's disgusting and repugnant, but that's the truth of it.", "I think you mean they treat explosions as terrorist attacks. Explosions could be caused by things like gas leaks or other non-bomb related things. But treating these situations like terror attacks is the smartest way to go about it in case it is a terrorist attack- there is a higher possibility of catching the attackers before they do more damage. If it is something more innocent then no harm, no foul.", "Might be that they mean \"an explosion of an unconfirmed origin.\"\n\nOr possibly, but unlikely, an unexploded ordinance from a previous armed conflict.", "Haven't you head? Islam is the enemy so it gets the blamed for everything. Americans who bomb are just crazy. ", "Last month three bombs exploded in Germany next to the team bus of a top soccer team. They had a lot of luck, only one player was injured. The attacker left a letter of confession near the bombs, saying that this was done by the Islamic State. Clear case of terror, one could think.\n\nTurns out the attacker had borrowed money from a bank and then placed bets that the stock price of the soccer team stock company would go down. He wanted to kill as many players as possible, because players are literally the most valuable asset of a soccer team. He had nothing to do with Islamic State, was not even a Muslim, and had written the letter to divert suspicion. So in reality he did it because of financial interests, the terror intention was faked.\n\n_URL_0_", "A bomb could be a deliberate act of aggression from one country to another.\n\nAn act of Terror, is violence or the threat thereafter which is performed to force a political or religious message/ideology.\n\nExample: Threatening to harm people who refuse to convert to your religion or political system. ", "Yeah. This is pretty mind blowing to me personally. If a person from an Islamic country does something it's terrorism. If a white Christian shoots up a planned Parenthood it's a \"shooting\" and they stay away from the terrorism term . When in fact it's all terrorism." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borussia_Dortmund_team_bus_bombing" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_East_Harlem_gas_explosion", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_East_Village_gas_explosion", "https://www.arlnow.com/2011/01/11/breaking-news-car-explodes-in-penrose/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331", "https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005", "http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/using-gtd/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.dw.com/en/dortmund-soccer-team-bus-attacked-for-financial-interests-prosecutors-report/a-38860842" ], [], [] ]
c1ckun
how do wasps build nests?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1ckun/eli5_how_do_wasps_build_nests/
{ "a_id": [ "ercbf0r", "ercbi6e" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Queen chews on the wood, mixing it with saliva, turning it into paper like pulp. Once she chooses a location, helper drones arrange pulp into hexagonal tubes.", "They find exposed wood (generally from dead trees or fallen branches AFAIK), chew it off and mix it with saliva to make a pulp. Then they spit that up at the nest and mold it into the shape they want.\n\nThere are also some species of solitary wasps that build little hollow domes out of mud on the ground near water, like a river bank." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
38pxyq
the blind spot while driving motor vehicles
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38pxyq/eli5_the_blind_spot_while_driving_motor_vehicles/
{ "a_id": [ "crww6xz", "crww92g", "crwwcex" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "What exactly do you want to know? if it is really this basic a question you could just google it", "As distinct from your eye's blind spot where your retina is?\n\nIt's an area between the edge of the wing mirror's field of view and your normal periphery when facing forward. You \"check your blind spot\" by turning your head slightly behind you to make sure something isn't in this area.\n\nLPT - you can position your wing mirror to minimize your blindspot.", "Just have a friend walk around your car and notice that they will leave your peripheral vision before they appear in any of the mirrors. The exact size and shape of the blind spot depends on the size, shape, and positioning of your mirror." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
2svxxf
how come we don't spend more research or exposure investigating ufos?
I've been reading a lot on the subject but it always seems like a taboo subject in the mainstream.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2svxxf/eli5_how_come_we_dont_spend_more_research_or/
{ "a_id": [ "cntd2kg", "cntd3hx", "cntf9vx" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "A true UFO does not mean aliens. You can bet yer ass the US investigates what other country is illegally using our airspace. Otherwise, there's a good chance that it was a government craft being tested, so of course it isn't investigated.", "Because it would expose the hidden flying object programs of the various countries governments. Either that or the governments know all to well about the aliens visitors and refuse to tell on the grounds that it would cause a mass panic whenever a visitor dropped in.", "Those programs answers would be classified, as the result of any advances in any particular governments airforce (or beyond) abilities would automatically be classified until the assessing body knew they had counter measures in place. Art of warfare dictates the necessitiy for discretion until the threat is so great admission of limitations of engagement are necessary. " ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [] ]
3sa089
reality doesn't exist until we can measure it
You see a lot of social media buzz about this sort of stuff and experiments done to prove it, but I'm not sure I really understand. What do these things mean and how does it scale?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sa089/eli5_reality_doesnt_exist_until_we_can_measure_it/
{ "a_id": [ "cwvc808" ], "score": [ 19 ], "text": [ "The most common interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - the Copenhagen Interpretation - states, that the wave function of a system only collapses into a defined state when it is being measured. Before that, the wavefunction is a in a superposition of classically mutually exclusive states.\n\nTo understand what this means, let's back up a little:\n\nQuantum Mechanics is a probabilistic theory. That means, it cannot predict how a particle will act, it only predicts the probabilities of acting in a certain way. To learn more about determinism vs. probabilism, click [here](_URL_1_).\n\nWhen QM was first proposed, many people - most notably Einstein - thought it was absurd to think that the universe was not inherently deterministic. Hence Einstein's famous exclamation:\"God does not play dice\".\n\nThus, the opponents of this probabilsim came up with several solutions. One of them was, that Quantum Mechanics was deterministic, but we simply couldn't see the variables governing the outcome. This theory is called hidden local variable theory.\n\n* \"Local\", because those variables obeyed special relativity. That means, faster than light communication is not possible.\n\n* \"Hidden\", because we couldn't see those variables, but they are still there. Even if we can't see them. This concept is also called \"realism\" because things are \"real\" even if we are not looking.\n\nJohn Bell, a famous physicist, devised an experiment to test this local hidden variable theory. To learn more of this experiment, click [here](_URL_0_).\n\nThe result of this experiment was, that the local hidden variable theory was wrong. Thus, either localism, or realism (or both) had to be wrong.\n\nIf localism were wrong, the theory of relativity would be wrong as well. The theory of relativity, however, works exceptionally well, so most people tend to see localism as correct.\n\nThus, realism - the concept that things are the way they are, even if we are not looking - had to be wrong.\n\nThat is what the phrase \"Reality doesn't exist until we measure it\" refers to.\n\nOn a practical note, this means that the position of an electron is not determined before we measure it. Before the measurement, the electron can only be described by a probability cloud that assigns each infinitetsimal volume ∆V in space a probability of finding the electron in this volume.\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmX1W5umC1c" ] ]
byjjyj
why can't we just breed tiny fish babies en masse and dump them in the ocean to solve overfishing?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/byjjyj/eli5_why_cant_we_just_breed_tiny_fish_babies_en/
{ "a_id": [ "eqi9kgz" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Everything you say is reasonable until you get to the \"Assuming that someone is willing to pay for all this.\"\n\nIt would be expensive for the government or whatever organization did that and with the cost passed along to the consumer, prices of fish would put people off from buying them. \n\n\"Have marine authorities enforce a \"no fishing\" season.\" Lol. This would mean an incredible amount of resources would need to be thrown at the problem. Understand just how big oceans are. Plus... let's say there is a scenario where the government actually spends the money ($$$$$$$) to do this. You don't want to actually start a war over fishing rights. No country has \"dominion over the oceans\" and you would need a world-wide fishing ban which isn't EVER going to happen." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
3e7p17
why do we have both cities and counties? what purpose does this serve?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e7p17/eli5_why_do_we_have_both_cities_and_counties_what/
{ "a_id": [ "ctc94bo" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Counties are political subdivisions of a state. The are there to provide varying degrees of local governance within the state.\n\nCities are governmental entities where people in a certain area want additional services, and form a government to do that. There are things that cities do that counties don't.\n\nEveryone is in a county*. But not everybody is in a city.\n\n\n\\* This includes county equivalents like parishes and independent cities." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
96q4ws
why can't necrosis kill tumors?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/96q4ws/eli5_why_cant_necrosis_kill_tumors/
{ "a_id": [ "e42culr", "e42cwr7", "e42d0c5", "e42d322", "e42edg3", "e42ekjj", "e42erfy", "e42fllq", "e42fsb3", "e42gkio", "e42gon8", "e42hz9u" ], "score": [ 28, 355, 82, 15, 16, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "There are plenty of toxins available. The trick is not finding a toxin, but is getting the toxin to the tumor specifically and keeping it there so it doesn't damage everything else. I see nothing about sphingomyelinase that would make it more amenable to that targeting than any other toxin is.", "My first thought is: killing cancer cells isn't a problem - killing them while keeping normal cells intact is the real challenge.", "I suppose in theory you could, but we already have chemicals which could be used to kill tumors. Or the preferred method is to cut them out entirely.\n\nThe problem with cancer isn't that tumors are some sort of immortal super-tissue that can't be killed, it is that they spread and set up shop in tissue we don't want to disturb.", "A brown recluse might bite you on your arm or leg, which are areas that mostly contain flesh and are free from organs. Tumors can be located anywhere in your body, but if you purposely inject recluse venom into the tumor, you might kill the tumor and also cause collateral damage. For example, targeting a tumor in your kidneys will also cause organ failure, which may impact neighboring organs and kill you as well. ", "As others have stated, the challenge with most cancer therapies is that they will usually affect normal cells in addition to the cancer cells. Like an oncologist once told me, we can remove cancers no problem, either burn them with radiation, or cut them out with surgery, or poison them with chemotherapeutics. The hard part is keeping the patient alive when all of that is going on. \n\n\"Necrosis\" is an important concept in cancer biology, it is actually a common feature of many solid tumors. Basically, the tumors grow faster than their blood supply can keep up, so the parts that are too far away from blood supply will die, i.e. necrose. Many tumor types have a necrotic center, but as long as the outside area is alive, the tumor will keep growing. ", "Chemo does something like that, the goal is to find a drug which is more toxic to rapid-dividing cancer cells than regular cells but it is still hard on regular, healthy cells. That's why people on chemo get nauseated and also have cognitive issues (\"chemo brain\") -- the body is being exposed to poisons during chemo.", "We do something similar for certain cancers, where we inject the chemo drug directly into the tumor. The concentration of the chemo is highest in the tumor, and the amount that gets absorbed into the blood stream and into the rest of the body is often lower than if you gave IV chemo.\n\nBut if you have multiple tumors (metastatic disease) that becomes difficult. It also depends if the tumor is in an easily accessible area to inject.\n\nIf it’s a single tumor, the treatment of choice is surgical removal of the tumor, if possible. Sometimes we do radiation therapy first to shrink the tumor, then surgically remove it.\n\nUsing venom is an interesting idea. It would need to go through clinical trials. You’d probably have to give some antidote at some point after injection. Another concern is that massive tumor necrosis can cause serious adverse events, a condition called [Tumor Lysis Syndrome](_URL_0_)", "It can, but so can chopping the affected body part off with an axe. The problem with both methods is that they kill normal cells that would be better left intact.", "There is a way of treating a tumor is such a way which is based on the inhibition of the [angiogenesis](_URL_0_), which practically make it so that the tumor won't receive blood. However the problem with tumors is usually not how you remove it, but if you can remove it before it has spread in your body.", "Chemo works by destroying bloodvessels for tumors starving them of oxygen, but it also does so for healthy parts of the body. Radiation therapy attempts to localise the damage to the unhealthy cells, limiting the damage on healthy cells. This is difficult, and healthy cells will die alongside the unhealthy ones. There's experiments with using Tcells (a part of the body's own immune system) to target unhealthy cells, and the future I hope will bring highly customised anti bodies that can recognise unhealthy from healthy cells. ", "Bee venom has shown promising results, using nano robots to disperse the venom inside the tumor. Of course, many folks are allergic to bee venom, AMD it is an allergy you can develop at any time in your life, especially if you are exposed regularly. ", "We need nano bots. Send 5 trillion into the body, take care of the cancer and them they all come out like a rainbow 2 weeks later. Then they're cleaned and used on the next person." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumor_lysis_syndrome" ], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiogenesis" ], [], [], [] ]
c07l4c
how much influence do large banks have on government laws, and why?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c07l4c/eli5_how_much_influence_do_large_banks_have_on/
{ "a_id": [ "er2jm34" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Anyone with large amounts of money can have influence. You can't specifically say \"Vote for this law and I'll give you a bunch of money\" but you can make large contributions to the politicians campaign funds or let them know that after their political career is done that they have a really good chance of having a high-paying job at your company. So, if you're a politician and Bob's Bait Store and Bank & Trust has given you a shit load of money over the past years, when Bob comes up to and says \"Hey, I think you should vote for this law that lets us charge %900000 interest compounded every hour\", you'll probably vote for it because you don't want to stop the flow of campaign funds." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
9nvdh3
does the infrastructure difference between downtown and the suburbs change weather patterns in the area?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9nvdh3/eli5_does_the_infrastructure_difference_between/
{ "a_id": [ "e7pbdlg" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Absolutely. Alot of urban and downtown infrastructure generates alot of heat. NYC literally has underground steam pipes pumping hot steam around. Blacktop roads also contribute to heat patterns, and of course dense urban roads cause more contributing than sparse rural roads. And not to mention the cars on those roads." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
63ce90
why do we have such a hard time quitting smal unnecessary habbits, like biting nails or cracking our knuckels?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63ce90/eli5_why_do_we_have_such_a_hard_time_quitting/
{ "a_id": [ "dft0ix6", "dft0l4f" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "their small so you tend not to notice yourself doing it most of the time and it's more of an impulse. ", "Because we are creatures of habit.\n\nWhat this means is our brain attempts to give as much work to our subconscious as possible so our conscious can focus on the unusual and new. What this means is when we continually repeat a behavior whether it is simple like biting nails or more complicated like driving home, our brain will try to make it standard operating procedure and pass it off to your subconscious. Eventually you will be doing these things without thinking about them which means it is extra hard to stop them because your conscious brain needs to be watching for when your subconscious brain decides to do an unwanted task." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
56szfd
why do all 24 hour cable news networks cut to commercial break at the exact same time?
Unlike regular tv that has 30 minute shows ending on the hour or half hour, cable news is on 24 hrs a day yet they all seem to cut to commercials at the exact same random time. If CNN is on commercial you can pretty much bet that Fox News and MSNBC are too. Why?
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56szfd/eli5why_do_all_24_hour_cable_news_networks_cut_to/
{ "a_id": [ "d8m38y4", "d8m65yh" ], "score": [ 9, 4 ], "text": [ "If they had commercials at different times, you could just switch to another channel instead of watching commercials. And that wouldn't really benefit the channel you switch to because you can do the same again when their commercials come on.\n\nSo all channels benefit from keeping their commercials roughly in sync with each other.", "I remember when TBS had their entire schedule on a 5 minute delay. \n \nIt was smart. made sure i switched to TBS when other channels went into their first breaks, because a TBS program was likely only just starting." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [] ]
1ql4gx
i know i don't drink enough water. if you're supposed to drink 6-8 glasses a day, why am i not dead or severely ill?
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ql4gx/eli5i_know_i_dont_drink_enough_water_if_youre/
{ "a_id": [ "cddvhzh", "cddvjf1", "cddvl0e", "cddx05w" ], "score": [ 4, 7, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Simple, everything you drink currently has water in it!", "8 glasses a day is a myth. You need as much water as you need. If you live in a cold climate you'd need less. If you lived in a desert just having 8 a day would kill you from dehydration. ", "Your also supposed to eat a shit ton if servings of fruits and vegetables, most people don't do that either, and they are putting along just fine. ", "You do **not** want to get kidney stones!\n\n" ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]
3lprbb
how can cars with snorkels and on-hood air intakes not have issues running in the rain?
[deleted]
explainlikeimfive
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lprbb/eli5_how_can_cars_with_snorkels_and_onhood_air/
{ "a_id": [ "cv88x9u" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "There should still be an air filter between the intake and the engine itself that will screen out most of the moisture." ] }
[]
[]
[ [] ]
1wnsza
if the american culture is so old and has changed so much? why cant we say that we are 100% american, instead of 40% irish etc.
explainlikeimfive
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wnsza/eli5_if_the_american_culture_is_so_old_and_has/
{ "a_id": [ "cf3qmbk", "cf3qnpi", "cf3qoas", "cf3rpkv" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Well it's really not that old. What Americans consider old is like a few hundred years, compared to much much longer for other countries.", "America is not that old. It was made by immigrants from all over the world, mostly Europe. You can say you are 100% American, but you can also trace your ancestry back to other countries that were around for a thousand years before America ever existed as a country.", "What's American culture? The culture of the United States? Which one? Navajo culture is a hell of a lot older than, say, Irish-American culture, so what are we talking about? Do these questions start to answer yours?", "You might not realize it, but this is a deeply political question. National identity is a very difficult idea to pin down completely, but simply, it is a personal sense of the cultural group (or groups) a person belongs to. How national identities are formed, overcome, interact, and shift over time all influences the sense of identity people have.\n\nThe United Kingdom is an interesting example of different national identities interacting in distinctly different ways. The core of the UK is made of four countries each with a national identity, England, Wales, Scottland, and Northern Ireland. People who are part of these different nations can also be part of a national identity associated with the UK (which I will call \"British\"). For its entire history, the English have been politically dominant in the UK and they have repeatedly pushed to suppress local national identity and encourage an English-nation-centric British nationality. While many gains were made toward this goal, some national groups in the UK, particularly among the Scottish, have rejected a full move to British nationalism and made efforts to support local national identity either separate or in parallel. A nationalistic Scott is likely to identify primarily as Scottish, but also as British and may choose to serve in the UK armed forces with a sense of nationalistic duty.\n\nIn the USA, things are complicated in different sorts of ways. While several centuries of European occupation has resulted in some national identities (e.g. there is a moderately weak Southern identity), a particularly high and relatively constant influx of immigrants has continually forced national identities to re-form, making very few of them entrenched. These immigrant groups would often seek refuge in nationalistic communities where a link to previous national identity was maintained. Additionally, increased political recognition of pre-European nations (after a significant amount of cultural repression) have established some fundamental ideas about what it means to be 'native' to the place where one lives.\n\n'American' nationalism is also rather large, generic, and difficult to pin-down compared to other national identities. Americans are eager to have something which feels a bit more personal and has a few more definite cultural elements to identify with. Many will seek out a second national identity simply to fill in the gaps which the American identity tends to leave, particularly in the realm of traditional responses to life events. Some people want to identify as their image of 'Irish' because they have images of friends drinking and singing together or some other potentially appealing cliche." ] }
[]
[]
[ [], [], [], [] ]