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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2al81r | why do i have to lift with my knees? | The gym has machines to work out your back, but I constantly hear people saying lift with your knees. Why is it ok to work out your back, but not actually use it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2al81r/eli5_why_do_i_have_to_lift_with_my_knees/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciw91uq",
"ciw9glu"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Lifting with your back is poor posture and puts you at risk of injury.\n\nLifting with your legs keeps your spine in alignment and uses the much more powerful leg muscles to do all the work.",
"If you fuck up your back, that shit hardly ever gets better. Even surgery doesn't guarantee a fix and some people have more pain after surgery than before.\n\nKeep your back straight and lift with your legs. Wear a back support belt if you have to."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2m8yju | why are unrealistic things, such as horror movies, much more scary than realistic things, such as a murderer? | EDIT: There has been some miscommunication on my part. I meant the kind of fear you get while lying in bed, thinking about it (the scary thing), not actually facing it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m8yju/eli5_why_are_unrealistic_things_such_as_horror/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm22h2j"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The fear you experience from a good horror movie is a result of good film-making. The writing, camera work, acting, and music all are working together to make you identify with the person or people in danger, and experience what they feel. When done perfectly, you feel the fear just as much as if you were in that exact situation.\nYour mind is constantly pushing down fears it knows are real, but not present (such as burglars, global warming, terrorists, and nuclear Armageddon), and making you not care about those things so that you may function properly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
14jb5e | why haven't animals adapted to the modern world to avoid being ran over by avoiding roads and cars? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14jb5e/eli5_why_havent_animals_adapted_to_the_modern/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7dk2d7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Why do you assume they havent? Hell, bumans still get hit by cars!\n\nThe real answer is cars have only existed since 1903, and evolution takes a *lot* longer than that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2ovh5c | why would the cia torture if torture "doesn't work"? wouldn't they want the most effective tool to gather intelligence? | The CIA is supposed to be the most advanced intelligence gathering agency of it's kind. Why would they insist on using a method that people argue doesn't even provide actionable intelligence? Is it just a matter of us citizens not knowing the successes of the program? Or is it an intimidation method to deter enemies? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ovh5c/eli5_why_would_the_cia_torture_if_torture_doesnt/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmquxw0",
"cmqv1m2",
"cmqvdof",
"cmqvn10",
"cmqw3jr",
"cmqwb9d",
"cmqxcxs",
"cmqxoev",
"cmqyc5e",
"cmqycbc",
"cmqyyx0",
"cmqzym0",
"cmr12nm",
"cmr17a2",
"cmr19xq",
"cmr1mcm",
"cmr39sv",
"cmr3bf5",
"cmr3qkg",
"cmr3txe",
"cmr45kr",
"cmr4jx3",
"cmr4k2u",
"cmr4m0e",
"cmr4qnu",
"cmr4wy8",
"cmr4y5p",
"cmr55cz",
"cmr58nr",
"cmr5hk0",
"cmr5kqi",
"cmr5kvi",
"cmr61ey",
"cmr68s5",
"cmr68ya",
"cmr6n3f",
"cmr6qhq",
"cmr737k",
"cmr7adi",
"cmr7daz",
"cmr85di",
"cmr85il",
"cmr8iqz",
"cmr8wkm",
"cmr90t3",
"cmr9fuc",
"cmr9m5b",
"cmr9ns0",
"cmr9p61",
"cmr9udh",
"cmr9upu",
"cmrak8i",
"cmralay",
"cmrapx8",
"cmravs1",
"cmrax8c",
"cmraxh5",
"cmrb1v8",
"cmrbhy8",
"cmrbmoj",
"cmrbo70",
"cmrbqso",
"cmrbs1h",
"cmrby7q",
"cmrc9s8",
"cmrcd0k",
"cmrcew5",
"cmrcex7",
"cmrcgch",
"cmrclnm",
"cmrcnhi",
"cmrcroz",
"cmrcsy6",
"cmrcxkx",
"cmrcyqy",
"cmrd7a3",
"cmrdcvc",
"cmrdeuj",
"cmrdgy8",
"cmrdl6y",
"cmrdrgq",
"cmrdvqd",
"cmrdvx7",
"cmrdx7g",
"cmre0a4",
"cmre5q0",
"cmrebc3",
"cmrecbn",
"cmrifzr",
"cmrk1tg",
"cmrkgkk",
"cmrlxcn",
"cmrqrmm",
"cmrs5el",
"cmryzdf",
"cmt7aw3"
],
"score": [
2,
403,
27,
17,
36,
126,
67,
94,
1793,
21,
4,
12,
17,
78,
2,
2,
9,
188,
3,
3,
3,
118,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
6,
3,
3,
3,
22,
7,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
17,
3,
4,
2,
7,
4,
3,
3,
3,
2,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
7,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
4,
4,
3,
5,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of people feel that it is not clear-cut that torture does not provide actionable intelligence. The CIA itself has made arguments to the 'ticking time bomb' scenario and the utility of harsh acts in retrieving information rapidly. \n\nIn short, the issue is certainly not settled.",
"I can't give a definitive answer because I'm not in the CIA, but lots of agencies continue ineffective projects to cover their asses. It probably goes something like this: the CIA starts torturing prisoners hoping to get information out of them. They don't get much useful information, but word about the torturing leaks. In order to justify the torturing so they don't look as bad, the CIA says \"it wasn't pretty, but at least it worked.\" Since the CIA has now claimed torture worked, they continue doing it. After a while, the people running the program might even start to think the torture is justified as long as it produces *any* intelligence, no matter how important (from a combination of touting their success and becoming desensitized to the torture). \n\nThis sort of thought process isn't unique to the CIA. There are lots of examples (I imagine you can think of some ones from your personal life) where people pretend something went better than it did to save face and then actually start to believe their rose-colored version of events.\n\nThe CIA can also argue that although the torture hasn't produced any crucial intelligence yet, it may still do so so it's premature to cut off the program early. If in the future the program is able to prevent a small nuclear device from going off in an American city, then it will have been worth torturing a few hundred prisoners. (Not saying I agree, just that it's an argument the CIA could make).\n\nAdditionally, it's possible that some agents and supervisors wanted to engage in torture to get vengeance on people they perceived to be murderers and terrorists.",
"`What should concern people more is that the US has lost any \"moral high-ground\" in condemning other s who torture. And, if a US citizen is tortured by another state, what reason could the US use to protest that?",
"Torture doesn't give good intelligence, but it will provide plenty of retroactive justification for a dubious course of action. Torture someone, and they will confess to whatever you need them to confess. \n\n > \nEG:\nDoes Iraq have a nuclear programme? Shit, no. \n\n---Torture---\n\n > Does Iraq have a nuclear programme? Yes! Yes! YES!!!\n\nObtaining Intelligence is far more effectively done by subliminal suggestion, tells and CSI/Sherlock Holmes analysis. What can't speak, can't lie. The Stasi would get a suspect to tell and retell and retell. Those who sustained the narrative accurately had to be telling the truth. Those who didn't were lying.\n\nThe other problem with torture is that the information you get will be whatever the subject thinks the torturer wishes to tell them. It is impossible to distinguish truth from \"helpful\" lies.",
"The CIA was directed to begin a torture program by higher level officials. The CIA internally abandoned the practices decades before. The torture program was started because politicians though torturing people might work, its really that simple. ",
"Confirmation bias, either knowingly or unknowingly.\n\nTorture's terrible at providing actionable intelligence, but it's great at getting people to give you the answer you already knew you wanted to hear (whether it's actually true or not).",
"The purpose of torture has never really been to extract information. Most people understand that the information extracted under torture is virtually useless. \n\nThe purpose of torture is to SHOW VIVIDLY to the people you rule that you, as their government, are quite capable of torturing people. This has a very powerful effect on a society and in general cow's them quite nicely. America is a perfect example of this phenomenon. It really wasn't very hard at all for the Republicans and Bush's junta to bring the American people to their knees and zip their mouths shut while doing it. \n\nHow did they do it you ask? By making you watch the \"don't tase me, bro,\" kid get brutalized in front of a US senator and a crowd of people who did nothing. They did it by torturing people and putting still others into jail or under gag orders. ",
" > The CIA is supposed to be the most advanced intelligence \n > gathering agency of it's kind. \n\nIf you believe hype and press releases, sure.\n\nIn reality, pretty much from the day they opened for business the CIA has been a *MONUMENTAL* Mongolian clusterfuck. It would be *hilarious* how incompetent they are, if it weren't for the fact that their blunders cause wars, create serious, decade-spanning blowback, and get innocent people killed. It's not unreasonable to say that one of the greatest threats to US national security since the 1950s has been the CIA. President after President has come into office and discovered this, and many have sought to finally put them out of our misery, but none could muster the political clout needed.\n\nIf you want a peek at the whole sordid story, read \"A Legacy of Ashes,\" by Tim Weiner.\n\nIn reality, the CIA consists of roughly three levels:\n\nAt the top are the administrators, the guys who *actually call the shots* and make the decisions. These guys are mainly professional administrators and political appointees, and like all government bureaucrats, are only interested in increasing their budget and clout, and furthering their own careers. These people are frequently *comically* ignorant of what it takes to gather intelligence.\n\nThen you have the case officers. These are the people you normally think of as \"CIA spies.\" In reality, they do very little spying themselves, but rather, they manage \"assets,\" like foreign nationals who have been convinced to spy on their own governments. These people are also typically hidebound government bureaucrats profoundly interested in advancing their own careers. It's fairly normal for a case officer who is the chief of a particular station to not speak the local language, and have little to no knowledge of local history, culture, or customs.\n\nDown at the bottom of the heap are the analysts. These are bookish people who work at a desk, poring over tons of information from both public and clandestine sources, and assemble that into Big Picture reports of what we think is going on in the world. Although these people are frequently quite clever, and might even be bonafide experts on the subjects the study, they don't get to make the rules, they have to produce whatever politically-motivated bullshit their boss orders them to...like a report saying that Saddam Hussein *definitely* had WMDs, despite the fact that that nobody with half a brain ever believed that.\n\n > Why would they insist on using a method that people argue doesn't even provide actionable intelligence?\n\nBecause they are idiots, politicians, and goons.\n\nIn the very early days of the War on Terror, the FBI was in charge of interrogating captured individuals, for the rather logical reason that the CIA had not had any experience in interrogating hostile subjects in decades, while the FBI does it every day.\n\nThe FBI guys used a tried-and-true method: treat the subjects like actual human beings, and just TALK to them. That worked on utterly unrepentant Nazis in WWII, and *was* working on hardcore Muslim fanatics; these guys were just starting to open up and talk to the interrogators.\n\nThen Darth Cheney and his pet lawyer David Addington made torture legal, and the CIA goons burst through the door...and the reliable information stopped flowing.\n\n\n",
"My answer does not take into account morality or ethics.\n\nTorture is not useless at getting intelligence. It can work to find out facts from those reluctant to divulge them. The problem is twofold:\n\n1) You get a lot of false positives; innocent people who will tell you anything to stop the torture may just list some people they know as having been involved. That wastes time and resources, because those leads have to be followed up. But equally, the guilty are likely to feed you false information to waste your time and resources deliberately. \n\nFor example, British agents in WW2 were given plausible sounding information which they could \"finally surrender\" after holding out for long enough to make it convincing. If their security check was to reply \"Andrew\" to the question \"who was your best friend at school\" then they could divulge the question but say that the reply was \"William\". When the Germans got the question over the radio, they sent back the wrong answer and the British knew the agent was caught. Then the British knew that any further information was sent because that's what the Germans *wanted* them to think.\n\n**edit** that sentence got away from me. To clarify: agents could be given questions and answers. London would send a message (encoded and in morse code by radio) asking the question. If the agent's reply (also encoded and sent by radio morse code) gave a certain answer, they were safe. Any other answer would mean \"I am caught\". They also had ways to encode their messages which could indicate that they were caught (making or not making a spelling mistake for example). I went into a lot more detail [here](_URL_0_).\n\n2) Any such evidence can't be used in due process, because courts know that evidence gained using torture is unreliable for the aforementioned reason. It's also a breach of the rights of the suspect (you can't punish somebody who hasn't been found guilty yet). However, this isn't an issue if you do not plan to follow due process or give the prisoner any rights: then the information can be used.\n\nLet's take an example. In WW2, all sides used torture to a greater or lesser degree. The techniques varied, but it was torture by today's definition. For example, [The Cage](_URL_1_), used by the British, used sexual humiliation and other methods:\n\n > While denying \"sadism\", Scotland said things were done that were \"mentally just as cruel\". One \"cheeky and obstinate\" prisoner, he said, was forced to strip naked and exercise. This \"deflated him completely\" and he began to talk. Prisoners were sometimes forced to stand \"round the clock\", and \"if a prisoner wanted to pee he had to do it there and then, in his clothes. It was surprisingly effective.\" Scotland refused to allow Red Cross inspections at the London Cage, on the grounds that the prisoners there were neither civilians or criminals within the armed services.\n\nSound familiar? Anyway, it was effective: just as Gestapo torture was effective in getting the names of other Resistance members. They blew whole rings by using torture after capturing one or two.\n\nThere are, however, drawbacks to using torture. If you get found out (and you will, because people notice when their relatives disappear permanently or come back showing clear signs of torture) then you become unpopular.\n\nJust as seizing innocent French people and torturing them made the French Resistence more powerful, so torturing any enemy makes the rest of the people resist more and be more likely to take up arms against you.\n\n*That* (ethics aside) is the reason that torture is not effective from a strategic point of view, even if you are not following due process: you create more enemies every time you do it. So if your purpose is to defeat your enemies, then you are actually preventing yourself from so doing - unless you are willing to go for outright extermination and totalitarianism such as in the old East Germany or USSR.\n\n*TL;DR* Torture can extract information, but also gives a lot of bad information. It also hardens resistance against whoever is doing it, which is counterproductive.\n\n\n**EDIT** Well, this blew up while I was away. Of all the very good points made by people (thanks everyone), I recommend reading [this post](_URL_2_) by /u/Hurontario, who gives a good third reason why torture is not not efficient.\n\nA couple of people pointed out that I didn't answer the question fully. I challenged the premise that torture \"doesn't work\": it does work - but inefficiently. But as to *why* it would be used if it's sub-optimal is another question.\n\nMy own opinion is that it's a numbers game. As /u/Hurontario says, trained interrogators get way better results. But when you have many more suspects than interrogators, you've got a problem of scale. So less efficient ways are then used. Then consider that only *successes* will be reported. There are huge political demands for results (from politicians but also from the bosses of the people doing the actual work - the pressure gets felt all the way down) and you have to demonstrate some results. So take 1,000 suspects, torture them, and get however many good results. Publish those, but not the failures. The new enemies are hidden away: they aren't going to publicly declare: \"now I have joined the fight against you and picked up a gun or a bomb\". So if you are careful with what you release, it can actually look like you are doing a good job.\n\nSo you get to produce the results which are being demanded, using much fewer resources. With those good results, you justify (or try to justify) the techniques by saying: \"well, we foiled these plots which we uncovered.\" Just don't mention the new plots you've just caused.\n\n\nEdit was made at 617 points on the original post, so those people may not have thought that my edit is correct. Just for transparency :)\n\n**EDIT 2** some people pointed out that the Germans also used better methods. This is true. The Gestapo were seen as bully boys by German Intelligence (the Abwehr). /u/raouldukeesq made a [good post](_URL_3_) on the subject. I would also add the book \"London Calling North Pole\" by Hermann Giskes: head of the Abwehr in the Netherlands. He penetrated and controlled the *entire* Dutch resistence. Newly dropped agents were greeted as friends and debriefed *before* they knew they were in the hands of the Germans. Giskes gets a lot wrong (he thought the security checks of the agents were all intact whereas in fact they were *all* blown - see \"Between Silk and Cyanide\" by Leo Marks, who was decoding those messages). But the point is that Giskes (as much of the Abwher) abhorred the Gestapo and their simplistic and brutal techniques.\n\nMany thanks for all the responses: I simply cannot reply to them all. \n\n**EDIT 3** clarified security checks and added link to overlong post with far too much detail for anybody's good.",
"Institutional momentum is a very big factor. If you're a very senior person who's implemented a controversial idea, you've now staked your reputation on it and it's easy to convince yourself of the virtues of the policy even when evidence indicates that it's a bad policy.\n\nAlso a huge factor is that contractors (who were very recently senior CIA agents) were making a great deal of money out of it. The two agents who did the majority of the interrogation of the high value targets like Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did so as private contractors - and they were paid **80 million dollars** for their services. You think someone who's getting that kind of money is going to say \"actually this doesn't work, please give my golden goose to the FBI\"? The contractors have a very great incentive to exaggerate the effectiveness of their work - and so do those still actually working for the CIA, because frequently they're intending to work with those same contractors very shortly. ",
"Torture is relative. You can put 10,000 volts through someone every 5 minutes until they confess to being the zodiac killer... that is not going to be very effective.\nThere are other forms of extracting information that could be considered torture. Prolonged exposure to complete darkness or loud and unpleasant sounds (as well, I'm sure, as many many other methods) can alter a person's mental state to the point where they don't understand that they are supposed to keep certain things secret.\nIntimidation would not be a reason to torture. In 20th century war, there were clear enemies and the war was won by the side with the most military resources. Today there are no sides, in an every man for himself kind of situation, enemies are not intimidated, their cause is only kept alive by being fearless.",
"According to what I heard on NPR this morning, the whole operation was a massive oversight. Two ex- military psychologists were hired to come up with a new interrogation protocol, but they had no experience in intirrogation, muslim culture, or military intirrogation history. They came up with this crazy shit based on zero data, and made 81 million dollars for their services. The plan was bought and sold. Nobody questioned it because they assumed it was right. Prople whose job it was to say something kept quiet because the culture had turned to fear.",
"Just to add to what I have read so far... my father works in counter intelligence. When he was young, the CIA approached him multiple times because of his success in interrogation and analysis. He turned them down every time because he has never been comfortable with how they run things. \n\n\nGenerally groups like the military or CIA torture because they can. They usually have the information they are looking for, and torture is a stronger way to guarantee the answer they are *looking for* instead of something they don't want to hear. My dad has told me the most effective interrogation technique is honesty: he has interrogated hundreds of people with excellent results and valuable Intel by simply explaining who he works for, what he wants, and what he will give them in return (protection, immunity from conviction, etc.). The honesty comes with its own price however; during the Panamanian war (a ***very*** short war thanks to the intelligence gathered by people like my dad), several hits were put put on my dad and he ended up retiring for a time after the war was over because he didn't want to put his family in danger. ",
"To steal an old Dave Barry joke, \"The CIA, proudly overthrowing Fidel Castro since 1968\".\n\nThe CIA is an amazingly incompetent organization. Their track record through the cold war of overthrowing governments only to create horrible hotspots of violence and instability which usually hurt US foreign policy is just one big facepalm. I'm hardly surprised that the modern CIA is just as useless.",
"It works if you already know the 'intelligence' you want extract beforehand because you made it up, and you just need a way to make it appear legitimate. ",
"Hey remember when the prince was tortured in GoT, and he got the information first and continued to punish him. Yeah I'm guessing it's like that. Suspected terrorists might not be popular with CIA.",
"As someone who lives in Mexico, I find it amazing that torture works when the Mexican military tortures drug cartel suspects into ratting out their safehouses or information on their boss, but when the CIA does it, it doesn't work at all. When cartel suspects get caught, they'd rather talk because they know that if they don't give them something that turns out a good lead, they will get tortured. I'm not saying I agree with it, torture is immoral and despicable, but the Mexican military has had some success with it. It's all \"pandilleros\" in Mexico talk about when they talk about confrontations with the military, that they are afraid of torture. There's so many human rights organizations shedding light into this in Mexico.",
"It works. My little brother stole my $9 I had saved up when I was like 11.\n\nHe wouldn't tell me where it was. I gave him a titty twister, he told me where it was.",
"\"Major General Carl Stiner stated that \"Buckley's kidnapping had become a major CIA concern. Not long after his capture, his agents either vanished or were killed. It was clear that his captors had tortured him into revealing the network of agents he had established.\"[9] According to the United States, Buckley had undergone 15 months of torture by Hezbollah before his death. In a video taken approximately seven months after the kidnapping, his appearance was described as follows:[10]\n\nBuckley was close to a gibbering wretch. His words were often ncoherent; he slobbered and drooled and, most unnerving of all, he would suddenly scream in terror, his eyes rolling helplessly and his body shaking. The CIA consensus was that he would be blindfolded and chained at the ankles and wrists and kept in a cell little bigger than a coffin.\"\n\n_URL_0_",
"The CIA is not a perfectly rational organisation.\nIf they were, they would have directed more funding towards ground intelligence. They would have more agents, learning languages like Farsi.\n\nInstead they are human beings, irrational, prone to having their own agendas, corrupt and prone to bribing. There are people who want massive drone surveillance because they have friends in the drone industry. Friends who do favours for favours. And so on.\n\nThere are people who oversee the torture program because they find it personally satisfying to torture the enemies of America, and dismiss scientific findings about the inefficacy of torture as the sort of study some pansy-assed liberal hippy professor came up with because he couldn't stand to do any torturing himself.\n\nThese people are not concerned that the CIA isn't getting the best intelligence because they have faith in the rest of the apparatus to do the job.\n\nNo one raindrop thinks it is responsible for the flood.",
"Torture does work! It works so well you will admit to something you didn't even do. It really doesn't get more effective than that!",
"This is actually covered in detail in the book \"500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars\", by Kurt Eichenwald. Excellent book, and worth the read, it's a fairly detailed account of the US Government's actions in the 500 days following 9/11.\n\nI'm going from memory, since my copy is at home, so I'll give the very basic overview. In the book he outlines how an armchair psychologist working for the CIA developed a very poorly thought out theory on how to instill \"learned helplessness\" in captives through certain forms of torture, and basically sold his bullshit theories up the command chain in the CIA. The FBI was aghast, in part because the interrogators were flat out committing crimes, but just as much because the FBI had been very successfully interrogating prisoners using standard FBI/law enforcement interrogation techniques.\n\nOnce the program started, basically, they were committed. It was hard to admit that it wasn't working, and whenever they would get something out of someone, they would turn around and hold up it as \"evidence\" that their techniques were working. In several cases, the FBI would work with someone for a few weeks, get information from them, then the CIA took the same prisoner, tortured them for months, and at the end of that, would have a little of the same information the FBI had gathered. But this was proof that torture was \"working\", because \"other intelligence gathering\" had already corroborated the same information.\n\nWorse, the FBI techniques involved building up trust between the interrogator and the detainee, but once the detainees were taken off and tortured, any trust was completely shattered, and thus conventional and much more effective means of gathering intelligence would no longer work, so the only way to get further intel out of someone who was already tortured was to continue torturing them.\n\nTl;dr: Some idiot thought torture would work, and this happened to agree with lots of other idiots' gut instinct that torture would work, so they tried it. Once they did, they pointed to whatever information they did get as \"evidence\" that it worked, even when it was completely obvious to everyone involved that it wasn't working nearly as well as other techniques.",
"I think a lot of these answers are pretty politicized.\n\nI think the truth is most likely that they do so because they can. In other words, when dealing with such high stakes the CIA uses every means they are allowed to gather intel. \n\nA lot of people they deal with probably hold up very well under normal interrogation, and even if torture is rarely effective, there would be no reason not to do so since there are no repercussions.\n\nAlso, the mere threat of torture is probably an effective interrogation tool in many instances, and it wouldn't be a credible threat if they were not actually permitted to engage in torture.\n\nMind you, I say all of this not taking morality or ethics into account because you asked about efficiency. ",
"you're discussing it in black/white terms. There are shades of grey as to the effectiveness. As well, torture would not be the only tool they would use, but one of ",
"Because they can. Because we live in a world that remains governed by fear and hatred. According to the *New York Times*, \"the report said that at least 26 of the 119 known C.I.A. prisoners were wrongfully held, some of them for months after the C.I.A. determined that they should not have been taken prisoner in the first place.\" I bet they didn't start treating them any better despite knowing they were innocent though.\n\nYou're assuming the C.I.A. is rational. You're assuming war is rational. It isn't. We live in a world where people have mistaken brutality for pragmatism—where the litmus test by which people's 'professionalism' or 'realism' is measured has somehow ended up being their ability to demonstrate a total lack of empathy, scruples, or any other 'bleeding heart' qualms about committing atrocities against other human beings.",
"Some power hungry individuals will torture if they think they can get away with it.",
"Because they are sick fucks?",
"Fear. The CIA is fear driven. Fear of the foreign threat. Fear of missing actionable intelligence. Fear of being politically undermined. Fear of being underfunded. And as we see now, fear of being held accountable. Honestly, that is the reason for the CIA. But not unlike many gov't agencies, it has institutional resistance to reform, regarding it as a threat to mission effectiveness. Bear in mind that what's available to the public is a summary, and a highly redacted one at that. We probably will never know the extent of the depravity to which the CIA stooped. But it is a reminder of how good people can do bad things for the right reasons if the circumstances are right.",
"I think it was a method to extract revenge more than anything else. There was a large population who wanted to retaliate for the 9/11 episode and the people in power was no different. ",
"1) If they actually torture, it's because they want a specific result and torture can \"train\" the victim towards that goal. They get whatever confession they want out of it. It's not right but agencies are only about effectiveness - real or otherwise.\n\n2) If they don't actually torture, it makes the CIA look more menacing and the threat of torture can be very effective.\n\n3) Sadists need jobs too and eventually make it to management.",
"When people say torture isn't effective they are thinking in very narrow terms of HUMINT only intelligence, they say that because they are tortured they'll give bad information, and then the captors will action on that bad information (like WWII) or something.\n\nWith the evolution of intelligence even over the last 20, years the nature is different. Read the leaked black budget Snowden gave to WaPo to understand this better. SIGINT/FININT/OSINT/MASINT all of these different disciplines and even the same discipline from several agencies are all congruently being collected. As they are separate entities collecting this information, this lowers the chance of politicization of such intelligence. If the DIA collects some SIGINT and has no clue what the CIA is doing, and the CIA is working on something and that DIA SIGINT supports their analysis, then it's considered vetted and plausible.\n\nOn top of that, analysis technology and software is always being developed to more effectively sift through all of this to form connections, cross check sources, vetting etc. Palantir is a good example of very effective software used across multiple government agencies. So in this day in age, it goes Torture > Extracted HUMINT > HUMINT is analyzed and vetted against all known intelligence holdings > HUMINT is deemed bullshit/legit.\n\nWhether it provides \"bad\" intelligence is based on the detainee and their fortitude, not on the intrinsic nature of torture. If it produces false information, in today's world it's a lot easier to determine, and they can act accordingly. You can of course then make the argument that torture shouldn't have been used on a detainee that was susceptible to it, but that's another argument.",
"An additional problem is whether you are going after the right person to question/torture. The obvious people for interrogation after 9/11 would have been the Saudi Govt or the Pakistani ISI as they had funded the whole shebang. By not doing that we now have ISIS...probably not strictly true, but...",
"There are a lot of good answers here, but there's one I don't see.\n\nThe CIA (and most intelligence operations) suffer from *severe* perverse incentives. This is a major driver of both torture and the drone program.\n\nIn short, the CIA, NSA, and other such organizations are mostly judged based on their per-event successes. If they stop a car-bombing, that's a victory. If they kill an ISIS commander, that's a victory. There's limited attention paid to the success *rate*, and essentially none to wider effects.\n\nIn this regard, torture *works*. You can torture 100 people, get junk information from 49 terrorists, alienate another 50 who weren't terrorists, and get information on one shitty ammo dump from 1 terrorist. You blow up the dump, and list it on your resume as \"1 ammo dump destroyed\".\n\nIf you'd used humane methods, you might have found out about 10 ammo dumps. It doesn't matter, because no one knows that. They just know you blew up an ammo dump.\n\nIf you tortured non-terrorists, you might have radicalized 10 of them. They'll get out (cause they aren't guilty), go home, and tell their stories. In doing so, they'll create another 100 terrorists. It doesn't matter, because no one can measure that. They just knew you blew up an ammo dump.\n\nIn fact, all those externalities can *help* the CIA. Their job is to fight terror, not end terror. If war and terror ended overnight, they'd all be out of jobs. I'm *not* proposing that they're knowingly or intentionally drumming up violence, but there's a vicious feedback cycle of aggressive counterterrorism > more terrorism > more funding and aggression.",
"The REAL answer to this question is that by using torture, you can make the victim agree to, and admit WHATEVER YOU WANT. \n\nNeed an innocent person to take the blame for something, so you can close a case? - Torture a confession out of them. \n\nNeed legal justification to raid or bomb a location? - Torture someone into giving you that justification (e.g tell them if they will admit to having weapons in a certain building then you will stop torturing them). \n\nThis is how the narrative you want the public to believe is justified. After all, why would anyone confess to a crime and choose to receive a punishment for that crime if they are innocent? \n\nThroughout history, torture has rarely been used to extract genuine information. Its purpose is primarily political, that is the real truth. It will continue to be used because gives politicians justification for furthering their own agendas. ",
"My understanding of how they used these \"techniques\" was that they were not used to get information directly but to get the subjects to start being truthful and to make them fear lying. \n\nThey sit in the interrogation room and ask questions they already know the answers to then when the subject lies to them they waterboard them. Then they go back to the interrogation room to try again. Eventually the subject decides to start telling the truth to stop the waterboading. They ask several new questions that they already know the answer to and when the guy starts being truthful consistently they know it. \n\nBUT as I've read, what happened in Guantanamo with certain people was they were lying about things that seemed trivial like whether or not they had ever heard of the guy that turned out to be Osama bin Laden's courier. They kept lying despite the waterboarding and that told the interogators that this trivial guy must be REALLY important if these high level guys crack and reveal other information but keep lying about him. \n\nMy understanding is that this is what led us to follow the courier which ultimately led us to Osama bin Laden. \n\n",
"Can someone with actual knowledge/experience respond to this?",
"They were watching too much \"24\" the TV show. It worked on TV, so it must work in real life.",
"The CIA didn't choose torture because it was the most logical, reasonable choice given the circumstances. The CIA, and the government in general, choose that path because of emotion. After 9/11 there was a mentality of \"we need to nail those guys (the terrorists)\" and we (the government) will do anything, say anything to get those fuckers. Those in the CIA and the administration (who authorized it, explicitly or implicitly) who choose to use torture had no experience in it and had no evidence on its efficacy. But hey movies and tv can't be wrong right?\n\nIt was not a cool rational decision, it was the people involved feeling that they needed to do \"more\" and knowing that the national feeling of vengeance was so strong they were sure that either nobody would find out about it or that if anybody did that their actions would be approved of.",
"You needed to live in fear so that profit could be extracted from the government. The torture wasn't for information or a war. The torture was to show the American Public what happens when you step out of line. Contractors and the CIA needed to make money. You needed to give them that money and fear was the most effective way to achieve that. What have they asked for that they haven't been given or taken? Who gets to tell the CIA \"no you may not\"? You need an enemy to fear so that you can be controlled.",
"Try asking a kid if he ate the candy, if he says no, beat him, then ask again. See how long it takes for him to say yes. There you have it.",
"Interrogation methods are methods used to obtain information. If they have repeatedly been proven ineffective and unnecessary at achieving their goals, they are not interrogation methods, but rather torture conducted under the guise of information gathering.\n\nMany sources have pointed out that the \"interrogations\" never produced any useful information. Throughout the years, all key information the CIA used to counter terrorism were obtained either from alternate sources or from their detainees before they were subjected to the \"interrogation methods\". Add that to the fact that the CIA is an obscure organization almost limitless in resources and knowledge, and saying the CIA was simply misguided/did not know their methods would produce nothing of value is to say USA's INTELLIGENCE agency is composed only of idiots who can't put two and two together or understand a plain statistic.\n\nThe idea is upsetting, but I can't understand it as anything other than torture for sake of torture. Torture because they can and want to.",
"I actually wrote my dissertation on why bureaucracies end up using torture even when it is proven to be ineffective. I focused on the US and France in Algeria. I was really more interested in the process of how that was subverted (I.e. the \"torture memos\") but I came across a fair bit of the why. \n\nLet me start by saying that I had never in all my research, encountered an example of torture being used successfully to gather critical information or time sensitive information.\n\nTo answer your question: \nThe reason why is because although torture is not an effective means of gathering intelligence it is one that can be put in place relatively easily and very quickly. \n\nQuick background, there are three primary ways of gathering intelligence:\n\n* **1. Informants**\n This is gathering information from willing individuals, this is typically for some kind of reward, such as people betraying co-conspirators to avoid prosecution. or a neighbor informing the authorizes on criminal or other illegal activity for money. Running spies also falls under this category. This is the gold standard for intelligence gathering but it takes a long time to develop (agents have to trust you and be convinced to betray their friends) and it is potentially very risky as people are unreliable,\n\n* **2. Interrogation**\n This is gathering information from unwilling individuals, usually by coercion. Torture falls under this category. This is a quick method, if you have a guy you can ask him questions right away, but suffers from the same drawbacks as 1, with the added problem that your source probably hates you and may be actively trying to hurt your investigation. \n\n* **3. Interception**\n This is electronic interception, and capturing information such as documents, maps. etc. This is great, quick, easy if you have the technology, but totally useless if your opponent is not using electronic methods of communication.\n\nLooking those over you would assume that people would focus on 1 and 3. And you would be correct, the US government pours billions of dollars into spy satellites, taping your phones, reading emails, and generally trying to intercept and gather all the electronic information it can. It also develops agent networks around the world and this is the primary function of the CIA. \n\nThe problem is 9/11 and the enemy Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a low tech non-state, tightly knit insurgency organization. Before 9/11 the CIA and NSA were focused almost entirely on spying on other governments. That was what they were designed to do. Al Qaeda is not a government, its a criminal organization that proved resistant to methods 1 and 3 by being small and tightly organized around personal relationships. This is not to say it is impossible to infiltrate an organization like Al-Qaeda, had they wanted to it would have been entirely possible for the CIA to do so, but they chose not to (for a wide variety of reasons) and ultimately they did not.\n\nSo, 9/11 happens, you're in charge of the CIA, the president turns to you and says \"Alright u/spartan210 what have you got for us?\" and you have *nothing* the country has been attacked and your entire agency who is supposed to prevent just such an occurrence has nothing, no leads, no information, no networks to show, nothing. You need information NOW. You can't build a network of agents in 2 days, the enemy barely uses email, your only option is to find them, grab them, and ask them. Which is exactly what happened. \n\nInterrogation was seen as the only method which could be used to gather information, suspects from Afghanistan and around the world were flown to secret prisons where they were interrogated and some information was gathered, but not enough. Over time more and more abusive techniques were authorized with the goal of gathering maximum information. It was inevitable that over-reach would occur and interrogation would become torture. \n\nI can go further in depth and answer more questions if there are any. ",
"This may have already been stated, but if you've read the actual report, a measure of 'ineffective' was 7/39 detainees that didn't give intelligence. Okay, but by standard statistics, 7/39 is low. What about the other 32? \n\nThe second problem I have with some of the comments here is a comparative narrative between Nazi Germany and the United States' actions on Islamic terrorism. The two are not actually comparable situations at all; the game in the defense world has changed. There is a measurable change in the intelligence and defense decisions' 'north star', so to speak. If you're involved in these worlds, you know this. \n\nThird, there's also a lack of consideration of the existence of the torture itself being a tactic. At a certain point in the report, they discuss that the existence of the COBALT facility was in itself a tactic. \n\nFinally - there also must be consideration that government entities are not actually government entities. They are perceived as such by the public, but they're really just made up of individual people with lives, opinions, and biases. They cannot be infallible. So, undoubtedly, a portion of the actions are related to personal bias. In order for these mass techniques to occur, these people must be complicit at some point. In saying \"The CIA is illogical\", you're saying that every individual is illogical and has not exercised their own judgements when being handed orders. That's terribly presumptuous and also incorrect. ",
"Way too late and likely very unpopular but heck why not.\n\nLet's take a brief look at the different methods of interrogating prisoners.\n\nBroadly speaking, you can offer them an incentive or scare them with repercussions (ie carrot or the stick). For fundamentalists, offering a carrot isn't likely to result in anything useful as their country has likely promised them something even greater (72 virgins or whatnot). So what's left is scaring them with repercussions. What form do you have? you can affect them or the things they care about. What do captives care about? Typically their family or friends who are in a foreign country and aren't reachable. So that's out. Basically what it comes down to is that you can only affect them. Torture isn't a great technique for interrogation, it isn't even a good one. But for the vast majority of situations (which is what people are faced with), it is often then only tool that you have available. IMHO that's why it's used (ethics and everything else being put aside...that is I don't think it's right, but I can understand the mentality behind it).\n\nLet the downvote cascade begin.",
"You're assuming perfect rationality on the part of the CIA. In reality, there's a number of reasons why torture is used -- mostly, though, it is politically popular with an uninformed group of the public who think that it does work and therefore demand its use. The CIA is not immune to political pressure from this group and its representatives.",
"Why did the CIA \"experiment\" with \"mind control\" by randomly and unscientifically dosing their employees and laypeople with LSD for years? The insane, illogical, megalomaniacal pursuit of godlike power. It's not about getting results, or even finding answers - it's about exercising the Pharaonic power intelligence agencies have been granted by the empire. \n\nNot getting what you want? Insert more violence. It doesn't really matter if it ever actually produces results, so long as it *could*. Extremely disturbing stuff.",
"The CIA may not have known that their torture program was providing shitty intelligence. I assume that the victims of torture weren't just staying quiet. They were just making shit up to make the torture stop. Now, for the most part, the CIA has no fucking idea if they were making shit up. So the CIA was probably scoring themselves as getting all kinds of great information from torture. At a later date, it may be that a few leads turned out to be false. But, hey, look, even more intelligence! Now, that new intelligence might also be falsified bullshit, but every time something is disproved, there's also more shit to paper over to make it look productive. At some point, the torturers might have felt a need to reassure themselves that what they were doing was for the greater good. Not only to cover their asses, but to protect their psyche against the creeping thoughts that they were just a bunch of psychopaths. \n\nThe CIA was never good at intelligence gathering. Read \"Legacy of Ashes\" for a long fucking exposition on how fucking shitty the CIA was and is. When 9/11 rolled around, the CIA had no fucking idea how to do anything useful. At that point in time, we were living a world of relative peace. The Cold War was over and all the smart people left the CIA. The post-9/11 world saw a CIA that was not only never good at their jobs, but even worse off because THE SMART PEOPLE LEFT. The 9/11 attacks were also giant failure of intelligence gathering. The CIA must have felt compelled to do something, and the CIA saw a giant smoldering hole going to work every day that reinforced how big they fucked up. So they went out and beat the shit out of as many motherfucking brown people they could. Calmer voices were cast aside, and we had to make shit stop. So they pounded heads.",
"They do it because we (USA) as a nation have never actually stood on the moral high ground. We just pretend we do. We are like the Federation in 'Star Trek': we think we're always right. We think everyone should love us, and we think we always act in the best interests of foreign people.",
"Whenever I see films etc and hear reports of torture. I always think why doesn't the torturer threaten to cut his cock off? \n \nI think I could take a few stabs and blows to the head but a precision scalpel taken to my nuts and I'll cave.",
"This is not about intelligence gathering. It's about retribution.",
"Torture has never been about getting information, its about creating compliance.",
"It does work. You've been watching too much Maddow.",
"It's not about the information, it's about sending a message.",
"My answer is, that idiocy rules the world, and some people are sadists eager to take the opportunity. ",
"You people seem to be ignoring one of the primary reason torture is still used by governments around the world: said governments, including First World governments like the U.S., have an extremely disproportionate number of sociopaths in positions of power, who in turn promote other like-minded sociopaths to important positions below them. Sociopaths *enjoy* torturing people simply for the sake of torturing them, much as you enjoy playing computer games, and with even less empathy for the real as opposed to fictional characters.\n\nThe primary reason people are tortured is because the people in charge, and the people who do the torturing, get off on it. They active enjoy the screams, the begging for mercy, the blood, and most of all, the feeling of having absolute power over another human being.\n\nThe CIA is no different from any third-world 'intelligence' agency: they torture because they can, and because it gives the people involved a sick thrill. There's no need to read anything deeper into it, and anyone excusing it is just another government shill on reddit trying (yet again) to paint the powers-that-be in a more positive light.",
"Maybe it's just less ethical to drug people out of their minds and confuse them into telling us the truth? That, or a sedated and doped up confession is counted as less credible than one produced in excruciating pain?",
"so hard to get off the escalator once you're on it huh?\n\n",
"With this kind of \"suspect-terrorist torture\", all the false positives you get are not such a problem, because investigating them does not put anyone at risk, it only costs some of your resources, but imho in these kinds of situations (suspected terrorist), such a huge agency probably does not care about resources spent on investigating that info you got from someone tortured. \n\nIn other words, if by torturing terror suspects you got thousands of false positives which you had to waste your time on investigating and all you get is one real defeated threat, it may very well make sense for the agency to do so.",
"The person you are torturing will say whatever you want them to... It's flat out unreliable for very dangerous reasons... Besides, wtf are we even doing over there anymore... Our military kills people, it doesn't police them to ensure they can vote...",
"I would say there are actually several reasons... all of which have probably already been posted. The one that hasn't is simply that people believe what they want to believe based upon whatever level of basis they deem necessary for belief. All work cultures hold certain beliefs and going against those beliefs usually causes problems for the ones going against those beliefs... correctly or not.\n",
"[Put a centipede into anyone's ear, they'll tell you they're both Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.](_URL_0_)",
"TLDR - Any replies.\n\nHowever, regarding your 'torture doesn't work' comment, I think its worth mention that torture can immediately 'work' but that the long term ramifications for man kind as a whole outweigh any short term benefit. Acute benefits, Diffuse ramifications.",
"I'm actually reminded of a scene in Act of Valor. There is a scene in the movie, where a team raids a terrorist yacht and an officer comes on board to interrogate said terrorist. The don't torture, the officer simply shows him an up close picture of the terrorist's wife and young daughter...communicating that they know exactly where they are. The terrorist becomes worried that they will hurt his family. The officer responds by saying he would never hurt his family, ever. Nor would he hurt the terrorist, he would however incarcerate him for the rest of his life and reminded him of all the things he would miss seeing his daughter growing up. The terrorist sang like a canary after that.\n\nI don't know if this is a true story or not, but there is some logic behind it imo. Like having intel and knowing what button to press can be very effective; more so than torture. \n",
"I'd say the purpose of torture isn't to gather intelligence. The real reasons are:\n\n1) The people that do it are intoxicated with power. Basically, they do it because they enjoy it.\n\n2) It is meant to scare the ever living fuck out of your enemies. Like chopping your enemies head off and putting it on a stake.\n\n3) It is actually meant to create more terrorists. This will ultimately make it so that the American populace as a whole will have to commit to a full scale ground war invasion of the Middle East. As long as Americans don't feel truly threatened there is no way to gain popular support for full scale war. Full scale war is what the powers-that-be want. ",
"Sadly because asking nicely is even less effective.",
"Well, it gives you an answer that you can take to your supervisors, and that they can take up to their supervisors, etc.\n\nThe CIA is just a bunch of people who are at work and trying to impress their bosses.",
"you mean pretty please and mother may i doesn't work?",
"It works to instill fear into all who oppose their powers. ",
"Simple answer: Conservatives are angry, scared little children who wanted revenge and a way to channel that anger towards anyone they could. They already had the intel to track down Bin Laden, on the ground in Afghanistan, and the Bush administration ignored calls for a big offensive at Tora Bora. _URL_0_\n\nTorture was also used widespread in the military at every detention facility like Gitmo, and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was just like CIA, to help the mental state and ego of the angry kids who needed an outlet for their emotions over 9.11.\n\nCIA and FBI experts already pieced together the puzzle and were gaining intel through regular interrogations. The torture was started on orders of the Bush administration, even though this report tries to make it seem CIA was only doing it and going rogue. ",
"I wonder if this has something to do with the metrics used to assess/promote agents. Like, if it looks good if an agent produces a list of names to follow up on, that agent is incentivized to use torture to get the longest list of names possible...",
"Essentially the CIA were following the orders of the Government of the day.\n\nWho effectively wanted any kind of information to justify their invasion of 2 sovereign nations that had nothing to do with the attack on New York 9th of September 2001.\n\nThey did not care for the credibility of this information, just that it existed. Because they knew they would never be giving the detainees a trial, so their treatment while in custody wouldn't be called into question in a court.\n\nAll that they needed from it. Was some intelligence, no matter how unreliable... Just to make a tenuous link, to support their wars. ",
"Torture is wonderful at getting people to say what you want them to say, rather than the actual truth.\n\nI'm sure you can figure it out from there.",
"Torture isn't for information it's for fear and displaying power, many things America did were just to display power after 9/11, and they were very many mistakes.\n\nIf it's information you need it's the FBI that perfected the art of building a rapport to gain the most reliable information and when dealing with the kind of men that twist their fore fathers religion to justify cowardly attacks on civilians it shouldn't be so hard to challenge their flawed reasoning. \n\nI believe in America and hope you as a country learn so that next time you stay true to yourselves and be the good people we all know you can be and hold your government to account for their actions instead of giving them a blank check to war. \n\nEdit:However you need to stop the drone attacks on all young men in conflict zones, that shit is done in your name and would turn me into a super villian if one of my brothers or cousins died innocent this way. You're as a country guilty of a grave crime here and reprisals from which none of you would be innocent. ",
"Torture is power...who doesn't love power?",
"It doesn't get the truth, but it will get the answer they want....",
"the argument the head of the CIA explained was this.\ntorture itself isn't a very good tool for getting someone to talk. But a person is often more fearful of having it available to their jailers, than if it just happened.\nBasically, the fear of being tortured was often enough for people to talk. When President Obama was signing the executive order banning torture, the CIA asked him to add an extra page to the end marked \"FOR PRESIDENT EYES ONLY\". They didn't care if the page was blank. They just wanted it known that there was an extra page and no one would know what it said. It gave the impression that there were exceptions available. He refused.\nThe director stated that more often than not, when they captured a target, they would set him down, come in and say \"do you know who we are?\" The detained person would say \"yes\", and then start telling them want they wanted to know.\n",
"Torture worked well enough to get people to admit to being witches.\n\n",
"Thing is, it is total fiction that the CIA just decided to do this without knowledge and approval of the Executive branch. Six days after 9/11, as Cofer Black put it, \"the gloves come off.\" John Yoo made tortured (ahem) legal argument trying to defend it. No one wants to say any of that because it means the President and Vice President (Cheney has been bitching about Congressional oversight of the CIA since, at least, 1989) of the United States committed war crimes that are punishable under international law. As everyone knows, some people in the US are above the law.",
"The fear of torture has to be effective though. Torture might not be, but the fact that they have that option is always in their head.",
"An ELI5 answer should not be pages long.\n\nSimply put: The CIA used torture because they did not put people in charge that actually knew what they were doing, and those people were mad, scared, and *wanted* to torture people.",
"Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake:\n\n > Ah, oh, no... well, I don't think they wanted me to talk really. I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.",
"like any private or governmental organization, it is run by people..\n\nsome of those people are corrupt, some are sadists, some are driven by hate, some think they found a magical way to solve a difficult problem and do anything to prove themselves right and some are just simply dumb, ignorant fucks.\n\nSadly in politics, military and intelligence there are lots of people in charge that really shouldn't be because they are cruel and addicted to power. But all those sectors are a dirty business which makes them right for the job",
"Torture works perfectly. It provokes blowback so as to justify an increase in budget and powers.",
"Government never wants to do things the most effectively. If it did, communism would've looked a lot better.\n\nThe reason CIA personnel tortured those guys is because they're psychopaths and they found a plausible excuse to do horrible things to another human being.",
"Wait...? You still think the \"War on a Terror\" was intended to be won?\n\nThat's cute.",
"It does work. Its demonized even though it played a part in killing Bin Laden. ",
"Incompetent people (by the CIA and government's own standards) in positions they shouldn't be in that are there due to beauracracy. ",
" > The CIA is supposed to be the most advanced intelligence gathering agency of it's kind\n\nIn reality is the most succesful terrorist organization to ever exist.",
"They want you to think that torture is just about gathering intelligence. If it's just a hard decision between the evil of torture versus the evil of not preventing possible terrorist attacks, then it looks like this moral conundrum that we need to have a solemn debate about. But it's not. Torture is being used for the same reasons it's always been used, power and domination. The US empire will not tolerate any troublemaking of any kind, and to drive that message home, they will use all available methods of brutality.",
"It is my understanding that torture is not the most reliable or effective tool to use. There are more sophisticated interrogation techniques which the CIA was using before the attacks. Now when the attacks happened - and I say this with no intended disrespect - I don't feel there was a very sophisticated leadership in charge. Maybe we should not look for patterns of intent and reason in panicked reactions. \n\nSome think that the torture that was inflicted had less to do with gaining intelligence than it was about getting even. Others hold that it was a clever plan to cultivate an intrenched enemy to justify an ever expanding and ongoing war. I think it was a group inside a circle of power who were simply unaware of better techniques and in a mix of outrage and panic abandoned their morals (assuming they had them) and ordered it done.\n\nEither way, what is done is done. Major respect to America for coming fully out with it. I wish my country could have that kind of courage.",
"Because torture is never about gathering intelligence, it's about intimidation and fear. Always.",
"Short Answer: because it is bad at gathering information.\n\nGoing back to WW2 , it is pretty clear that the only really successful ways to get people to divulge information often involves careful intimidation, manipulation and being nice to people. People NEVER let their guard down in hostile prison situations if you treat them with the torture handbook. Ironically it was something where the US and Britain were far better than Germany at the time because they got significantly more out of their captured assets because of this. \n\n",
"in some cases it works\n\nin some cases it appears to work\n\nsome sick fuckers just like doing that to people",
"The CIA would be out of a job if it didn't constantly create new enemies for them to justify their budget.",
"because torture does work, if your goal is getting a confession. if your goal is getting the truth or reliable intelligence then torture is an abysmal failure. but there's the rub, torture is REALLY good at getting confessions, i could torture you til you confessed to killing JFK...what's worse i could torture you until you actually BELIEVED you killed JFK. that's the thing with torture it give the illusion of working, you are getting lots of confessions, you look good, your superiors look good, it points you more people who you can torture for confessions and they all confess so it all seems to be working...until you learn that they were all just telling you what you wanted to hear, they didn't know anything and you tortured, maybe even killed, innocent people.\n",
"[The Senate Armed Services Committee report gave the answer.](_URL_0_) (long read)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ovh5c/eli5_why_would_the_cia_torture_if_torture_doesnt/cmraleo",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Cage#Torture_allegations",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ovh5c/eli5_why_would_the_cia_torture_if_torture_doesnt/cmr4suh",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ovh5c/eli5_why_would_the_cia_torture_if_torture_doesnt/cmr5xbj"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Buckley#Kidnapping"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/GAli7zy.png"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/12/doesnt-mainstream-media-discuss-torture-issue.html"
]
] |
|
5d9rlp | how does the phone carrier system work in the usa? | Because here where i'm from there is two way either prepaid which you buy refilling cards or and end of the month option. and we have to carrier locked phones | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5d9rlp/eli5how_does_the_phone_carrier_system_work_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"da2tlyr",
"da2z4y9"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The US has many carriers, and two (incompatible) radio systems. Users can choose to own an unlocked phone, get a locked phone at a discount, or use prepaid programs with a spectrum of different offerings. Unlocked phones can be moved from carrier to carrier, within the radio system, but not to carriers that use the other radio technology.",
"So there are currently several variations of how phones are purchased and used in the States.\n\n**Prepaid** service is paying for service in advance. Prepaid services typically require you to purchase a phone at full price, and you pay for set usage up front (eg, your \"refill\" cards). \n\nMost prepaid phones are locked to the carrier they are with because despite paying more for a phone, it's still subsidized to the carrier, much like the Gillette model of razors -- you're getting a \"cheap\" phone, but the minutes are what you'll have to keep replacing.\n\nPrepaid phones also tend to be lower end devices in general, but there's nothing stopping a customer from taking an expensive unlocked phone and putting it on prepaid to control their costs.\n\n**Postpaid** service is almost like credit; where your usage through the month is tallied into a bill at the end to be paid. This type of service comes in multiple models.\n\nTypically postpaid service came in a **subsidized contract** model; where you were offered a subsidized phone (the carrier paid for most of the phone while you paid anywhere from $0 to $200-300, depending on how high end it was) in exchange for agreeing to keep service for a given term (1 to 2 year contracts). These phones are normally locked to the operator due to their investment into the phone and typically upon the end of the term you can request they be unlocked to be used elsewhere.\n\nAmerican operators have realized that not everybody wants to be locked into a 2 year contract model and have instead shifted to **phone leasing**. The phone service is still a postpaid model, however is now on a \"month to month\" basis, with more emphasis towards the phone.\n\nThe actual phone itself became \"leased\" from the operator much like a car lease, where you made monthly payments towards the full cost of the phone or a large amount of the phone, and a \"buyout\" would be offered at the end. This also gave the advantage of being able to trade in the phone at a given point in time, as mobile phone manufacturers are releasing phones faster than the traditional 2 year model would provide."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
63wess | how did the western world became so developed while regions like the middle east and africa haven't industrialized? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63wess/eli5_how_did_the_western_world_became_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfxic7r",
"dfxid8z",
"dfxim0y",
"dfxir3y",
"dfxiy1t"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"What are you talking about?\n\n7 of the 10 fastest growing economies. In the world are in Africa.\n\nIt has massive resource extraftment and production.\n\nIt is important to acknowledge that Africa and the Middle East aren't homogenous, and there are areas that are heavily developed whereas other are still developing.",
"Humans have lived on earth for half a million years, the actual difference in technology between the regions is a couple decades or maybe a few hundred years at most. Things weren't going to develop on the same exact day everywhere but the human race stayed shockingly in step with each other. Like the guy that stood on the moon had a dad that rode a horse to work. ",
"Some countries were we exploited by the colonials...Their wealth stripped and sent back to the old country..This kept some countries poor.",
"America is the youngest super power but without the molding of thousands of years, plus the demographic issue of those people holding certain beliefs limits change, sometimes. this a hypothesis not fact. ",
"Uhhhhh the Trans-Atlantic slave trade halted growth during the age of Imperialism in a lot of Africa. They took slaves and sent them to the Americas. In the Americas they would farm for resources. Those resources would be sent back to Europe. And then they would be turned into goods that would be shipped back to Africa.\n\nIf Europe needed clothing, they had resources coming in from the Americas (cotton) so that they could make that clothing. That stimulated the clothing industry in Europe.\n\nThen, in Africa, if they needed clothing, they didn't need to grow a clothing industry because they would just buy the products from Europe. That halted their industry.\n\nAnd the same was true for almost every industry. Machinery. Weapons. Food. Jewlery. Anything you can think of that was manufactured, almost all of it was done in Europe.\n\nSo, the rest of the world did not need to start to industrialize because it takes more effort to build a factory that will make you clothing, than it does to just buy clothing from somewhere that's already making it.\n\nEurope knew this and kept control of the economy that way. And then when people started getting word of it, they started building their own economy and that just meant that these civilizations began to \"develop\" later than the West."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fecfaq | what happens when people are on "autopilot"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fecfaq/eli5_what_happens_when_people_are_on_autopilot/ | {
"a_id": [
"fjn3wey",
"fjn4r1e",
"fjn4t6a",
"fjn6vtv"
],
"score": [
52,
6,
51,
6
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure if this helps but there is a theory that time expands and memories are created when you are having new experiences/are exposed to new stimuli. When you are doing the same thing over and over again time moves quickly and new memories aren't created in the same way.\n\nMy take is that when you do something you've done dozens or hundreds of times before, your mind perceives it as \"oh I've done this before, no reason to store this memory.\"",
"Autopilot is also called \"going through the motions.\" This generally happens when doing tasks you've done many times before. In the example of your driving, you take the same route, at the same time, in similar traffic, most likely playing music you've heard before, maybe with a morning drink and/or snack. All of this has become \"routine\" and really does not capture your attention to the degree that it needs to seat itself into your memory. You're absolutely watching the road, enjoying your food, and whatever you're listening to, but there's nothing about it that stands out. This is why when there's traffic, you're probably going to talk about it. If you see someone driving completely ridiculously, you'll probably mention it. See an attractive person in another car? You might say something about it. Anything that breaks the mundane early routine will \"arouse\" your interest because it's different. This arousal sparks some emotion that better seats the situation in your memory. For a different example, any time I get out of the shower, if you asked me to explain exactly what I did, I would just say the usual \"wash body, wash hair, shave, lay in the tub and lament over my life\" answers that encompass what I generally do in there. I wouldn't have an EXACT play by play because I was going through the motions. However, if I cut my face while shaving, the experience has a little pain involved, and that emotion would cause a memory to sit and I would be more likely to remember what I was doing before and after the pain as well. So I would know that after I washed my hair I started shaving, nicked myself, washed my body, and then laid in the tub lamenting. \n\nOn a personal note, I try to change up my routine every day, even in the smallest ways. Leave 20 minutes earlier. Have a different drink or breakfast by stopping at a place on the way. Use a different cup holder. Pick a random station, or none at all. All windows up. Two windows cracked. All windows down. Take a slightly longer way to my destination. Take my steering wheel cover off. Does this really do anything for me? Maybe. It's such a slight difference that I'm aware of it, and what I'm doing, but I don't think it completely stops me from going through the motions cause the majority else of the drive is still just as mundane. If anything it gives me that conscious input into my experience. Gives me my \"thing\" for the morning.",
"There are two main modes of \"thinking\" for a standard-issue human. \n\nThe \"first\" is what we usually call thinking. You can take in and pay attention to new information, turn it around in your head, solve problems with it, and decide what it means. It's expensive for your brain to work this way though - it burns a lot of calories. \n\nThe \"second\" works almost entirely off expectations. Over time your brain processes all the things that the first system does and builds shortcuts and simple rules that your senses take in and handle without much significant thought. Your brain can run on this second system all day, because it is much \"cheaper\" to run than the first system. \n\nMastering a skill like driving is using the first system to build the reflexes of the second system up until the complicated series of tasks becomes second nature you don't have to think much about in order to use the skill.",
"I used to drive HGV's at night, between Cornwall and Birmingham (about 200 miles each way). Regularly I would get to Birmingham and have no recollection of the last 200 miles whatsoever! \n\n\nI think the fact that it was night time, and I was tired made it a lot worse. \n\n\nI don't do that job anymore. It felt very dangerous."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1n23m1 | in sports, why is playing defense considered more tiring than offense? | In most sports (Football, hockey, basketball, etc), it is always stated that maintaining offensive possession/control wears down the defense and makes it easier for the team. Why would playing defense require more energy exertion than offense, given that both sides are participating in similar activity? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n23m1/eli5_in_sports_why_is_playing_defense_considered/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccepms8",
"cceqfys"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"In the general sense, you are reacting to another's movement, which means your movement is less efficient. In some instances you exert extra effort to recover from your/your teammates mistakes as well.\n\nIn many sports the difference may not be excessive, but they are there.",
"You have to anticipate a burst of energy at any moment, so you never really get a chance to rest. Even if the play isn't moving at the moment, you're crouched, ready to leap in either direction. It's tiring. That and unless you're great at anticipating, the offense can get the first step and a small but significant lead, when he makes his move suddenly, so you have to work harder to catch up to him and stop him. As opposed to offense, you have to watch for steals and whatnot but you get to set the pace and can wait/rest on your own time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
aqdvcj | why is it that symptoms of anxiety differ so much from person to person? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aqdvcj/eli5_why_is_it_that_symptoms_of_anxiety_differ_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"egfamrd",
"egfb09x",
"egfb1rr"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Everyone has a fairly special mind that is there's and no one else's. So how it acts and how it observes the world are differnt for everyone. ",
"I don't know that I get anxiety very often. Is it the feeling of being afraid of walking over to that cute girl and trying to spark up a conversation? The nervousness you get before walking into your bosses office and asking for a raise? Is that what people mean when they say they have anxiety?\n\nOr are people just chilling at home and are afraid to leave the house because of some random unknown feeling of impending doom?",
"Yeah pretty much what people have said, the stimuli might be the same but the person's reaction is different. Some people might be overly sensitive to a stimuli while others deal with it in a different less exaggerated way. Many mental problems are caused by the way you think and process information, and to change the core of how your mind works is extremely hard, the one habit you form when you are born is the hardest to break"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
f0e2zi | what do the brackets [] mean in chemical formulas as opposed to the parentheses ()? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f0e2zi/eli5_what_do_the_brackets_mean_in_chemical/ | {
"a_id": [
"fgt39bv",
"fgt39yp"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"They mean the same thing, people alternate between () and [] so that it's easier to see what elements are in which bracket",
"It’s just a second set of parentheses. They’re a different shape just for less confusion."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
6jc3xb | why does the space shuttle have to exit earths trajectory on an angle as opposed to just shooting straight up and away? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jc3xb/eli5_why_does_the_space_shuttle_have_to_exit/ | {
"a_id": [
"djd4zkw",
"djd509m",
"djd52x3",
"djd648o",
"djd79zk"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"If a rocket just flew straight up, then it would fall right back down to Earth when it ran out of fuel! Rockets have to tilt to the side as they travel into the sky in order to reach orbit, or a circular path of motion around the Earth.\n\n \n\nThis steering technique is known as a gravity turn, which uses Earth's gravity to help conserve rocket fuel and minimize stress and strain on the spacecraft.This works by rotating the spacecraft until its heavier side is facing down to help curve its flight into orbit.\n\n",
"It is trying to enter orbit. That requires going very fast around the Earth, not straight up. So, go up until the air is thinner and easier to accelerate and then turn to keep speeding up.",
"Because if you go straight up, you just fall straight back down. To stay up, you need to be in an orbit, which just means that you're moving sideways so quickly that by the time you fall X meters back toward the earth, you've moved sideways far enough that the earth has moved away from you by X meters. Thus you end up perpetually falling in a circle around the Earth, which is all that orbiting actually is.\n\nAs a side note, the space shuttle program was decommissioned six years ago. No space shuttle has launched since 2011, and no more ever will. We have various rockets that are launched, but the science that used to take place on the space shuttle now occurs on the International Space Station, instead.",
"Orbit is just the concept of falling back to Earth while moving quickly enough that you miss the planet on your way down. If you go straight up, you come straight down. If you go up and roll onto your back and leave at an angle, you fall back down, but miss and just keep falling and falling and falling all the way around the planet. \n\n[Here's a diagram I drew](_URL_0_). ",
"All my space travel knowledge is from the esteemed Kerbal space program but... \n\nYou could go strait up, but it would require MUCH more force to break out of earth gravity. which means more fuel needed, which means you will weigh more, needing even MORE force, needing more fuel and thrust. its an uphill battle at a 90 degree angle. you cant break gravity, but you can get it to work with you. going at an angle lets you propel yourself into an orbit \n\nnow to go to another planet, you would go into orbit and wait for the right positioning, then break out of orbit towards the planet, since you are in space you will keep going in the same direction until gravity pulls you in. to put it simply, using very complex math, you can plan out the exact angle and thrust needed to break out of orbit from your current planet, and land into orbit around another."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/5SjcU0D"
],
[]
] |
|
7a71ld | how do domestic animals choose a favorite person? how do they show that favoritism? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7a71ld/eli5_how_do_domestic_animals_choose_a_favorite/ | {
"a_id": [
"dp7oo7l",
"dp7ru88",
"dp7rz0f",
"dp7tyln"
],
"score": [
60,
3,
22,
14
],
"text": [
"Animals have personalities just like humans. When you hang out with your friends you like your friends because you share similar interests and traits, like you like sports and tag, or you just happen to be around each other a lot and get into trouble.\n\nOur furry friends are the same way, often a cat will like a mellow person because they tend to prefer to be really relaxed and a spastic person will put them on edge. A dog on the other hand may greatly prefer to hang out with an active person because they love being active and running.\n\nThey can show their preferred individual person favoritism simply by being around them more often. If person A is in Room A and Person B in room B the animal who likes person A more will be in Room A more often than not.",
"Both my cats adore me. They don't fight but they certainly don't like each other and don't like sharing my affection. You'd think they could find common ground with each other.",
"Food. Are you eating food? Do you drop food? Do you know where the food is? That’s my favorite human. ",
"My dog is a rescue and I don’t think he ever really learned how to be a dog... so he doesn’t really ever give kisses. However, if he really wants to show you he loves you he will intently sniff your eyeballs or your ear or he loves to sniff both mine and my boyfriends morning breath and will continue to intently sniff for probably an uncomfortable amount of time. (He’s a weirdo, I know) but, we’ve decided this is his way of showing a really deep affection. He only does it to me, my boyfriend, and one of my best friends who watches him when I’m out of town. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4yk6sa | why are rechargeable batteries a lower voltage than throwaway versions? | So I just bought some rechargeable AA cell batteries. Why are they 1.2V and not 1.5V like a conventional battery? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4yk6sa/eli5why_are_rechargeable_batteries_a_lower/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6obc8z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Simply put\n\nEach type of battery relies on a different chemical reaction, which will have a different characteristic voltage \n\nMore information here\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/battery-technologies",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(electricity)#Battery_chemistry"
]
] |
|
18pucu | why, after both being irradiated by nuclear bombs, are hiroshima and nagasaki densely populated? | Shouldn't there still be heavy radiation in the area for years to come? Isn't it still dangerous to live there? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18pucu/eli5_why_after_both_being_irradiated_by_nuclear/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8gxe0u",
"c8gxhh5",
"c8h02vh",
"c8h0814",
"c8h1ss9",
"c8h3oob"
],
"score": [
44,
213,
8,
27,
4,
7
],
"text": [
"No. The bombs were bombs. They were built to be super destructive for a tiny moment.\n\nYou're associating with Chernobyl, where an uncontrolled accident happened. The bombs in Japan instantly vaporized the nuclear materials, to get all the power from them at once. In Chernobyl, the nuclear materials and radiation is still there, causing damage over time.",
"Nuclear weapons are actually relatively clean. Because of the incredibly fast chain reaction that causes the explosion, fuel tends to be completely used up, or not used at all. Bombs don't leave that many byproducts around to cause radioactivity over the long term -- they cause all of their radiation very quickly. Think of this like lighting off a firecracker - once you do it, all of the gunpowder quickly burns up.\n\nNuclear reactor accidents, however, can be very dirty. Because the reactions run slowly, when a meltdown occurs, many intermediate byproducts can flood the surrounding environment. It is these byproducts that make the environment uninhabitable for thousands of years. Unlike the fuel that goes into the reactor, these byproducts may be radioactive enough to easily harm humans, but decay slowly enough that they can remain for millenia. ",
"Nuclear bombs are designed to release all of their energy very quickly so that they destroy things. The radioactive substances decay within hours, days, weeks, months, or a few years.\n\nNuclear reactors are designed to release energy at a slower rate (so that you can harness it for long-term electricity production). The radioactive substances take years, decades, centuries, or millenia to decay.\n\nWhy do some radioactive substances take longer than others to decay? And what is decay?\n /r/askscience ",
"At the Hiroshima museum dedicated to the bombing, they commented that the deaths from radiation peaked in 1953, then decreased to almost nothing ten years later.",
"The more radioactive a substance is, the shorter it sticks around. The stuff that is still around decades later is the stuff that wasn't that radioactive in the first place.\n\nAdd to that the fact those blasts weren't all that large, and they were relatively clean as far as radioactive materials go, and what remains today isn't any more dangerous that common industrial pollutants.",
"Nuclear bombs can explode when they're high up in the air or down near the ground. If one explodes near the ground all the earth around it becomes radioactive, turns into fine dust (called *fallout*), and is thrown high in the air.\n\nThe fallout is blown far and wide, and when people/animals breathe they can inhale some of it. It also blows into the rivers and onto food crops to be later drunk/eaten. Once fallout dust gets inside a body, the skin can't do it's job of blocking the radiation from damaging the cells, and the person can fall very ill.\n\nBecause the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki exploded in the air, there wasn't so much fallout. So while the explosions themselves hurt a lot of people, less people were harmed later on as there wasn't all this harmful dust blowing around."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ju03c | breast cancer | Why is breast cancer so important to research/cure and why is it given more attention over the other cancer types (skin, lung, prostate, etc.)?
Is breast cancer like the cancer that once cured will pave the way for the rest?
Also stories are encouraged but plz specify it's a story and not an answer. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ju03c/eli5_breast_cancer/ | {
"a_id": [
"clf2npj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's not special. But it is common. Here are two graphics that show the relative frequencies of cancer types in [females](_URL_0_) and [males](_URL_1_). There is no scientific reason why breast cancer should get more exposure than the other types, but there are a number of reasons why people are more inclined to donate money to research about it. (I do admit though that some of these points are speculation) \n1. It's common. \n2. It isn't caused by unhealthy behaviour, like lung cancer. \n3. It often affects middle-aged women, which makes it seem especially grave. \n4. It affects an external organ. Surgery will often leave a mark, which is not the case with tumors of internal organs. Today's surgery and reconstructive techniques are very sophisticated, but still the patient will be a lot more aware that she has lost a body part afterwards. \n5. The breast is a delicate organ. On one hand, it doesn't feel as awkward to talk about as for example prostate cancer, but it is still on an emotional level recognised as special organ. \n \nHope this helps!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/PH/PH709_Cancer/Female_Frequency.jpg",
"http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/PH/PH709_Cancer/Male_Frequency.jpg"
]
] |
|
5y5dpv | what are the vault 7 leaks? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5y5dpv/eli5_what_are_the_vault_7_leaks/ | {
"a_id": [
"dencvnq",
"denghxd",
"deni581",
"denqgc3",
"denqgzk",
"denqp7h",
"denqve0",
"denr7he",
"denrb6k",
"denrx0d",
"denrxfo",
"denry52",
"densaio",
"deojule"
],
"score": [
943,
261,
31,
15,
21,
13,
9,
16,
50,
2,
13,
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Allegedly there were tools and documents, including malware (trojans and the like), RATs, methods of hacking and controlling people's phones, SMART TVs, computers, and other devices that relay through a network (possibly Alexa, Siri, Cortana, etc.) that were used by the CIA and shared with NSA, that were leaked to former intelligence agents. At least one, or of a handful of these agents had transferred the tools and documents to WikiLeaks.\n\nSupposedly, this is only part one of the 'hugest leak' in history, and WikiLeaks will be continuing the Vault 7 database through the month. Considering the amount of documents to go through, I believe it'd be safe to assume they've had these files for months now, considering it's as late as 2016 documents. What is scary is that WikiLeaks mentions that encryption on devices, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, are pointless due to the remote protocols that can take control of your Android or iPhone itself, thereby bypassing the app(s) themselves. Or that a user could have their files uploaded to a server right now, from their phone or computer, without knowledge, and presumably it wouldn't be identified through network mappers such as Wireshark. \n\nLeaks are not a rare occurrence in this day and age, as we've seen from Cellebrite's leak, and the Shadow Brokers' instances. While there are people that see WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange as being allies of Russia, or as being shady (Rex Tillerson, Roger Stone, etc.), there's no solid evidence, AFAIK, but due to this, people see this move as being political to draw away attention from the Sessions controversy, or further administrative actions. It would seem that WikiLeaks has been waiting quite a while to release these documents, so perhaps it is due to U.S. politics, or perhaps it is due to them feeling this to be the right time. People will note the Clinton emails being leaked out during the campaign, and see that as similar to this. This would be bias, and I am only stating that to show how people may and could see the leaks. It might be political, it might not.\n\nAt this point, we should definitely be alerted and aware of this, because if such tools end up in the wrong hands -- with black hats, or even dumbed down for script-kiddies to use, it could be incredibly dangerous, especially with the rise of self-driving vehicles (WikiLeaks cites a tool used to control a person's car, though not much information is given. People were quick to jump to the conclusion that the CIA may have used this in the death of Michael Hastings, though it cannot be confirmed as of now.) I'm sure some of what I've written is wrong, but this is what I've gathered from a quick read of the Vault 7's ToC. Expect more to be uploaded -- over 8,000 pages which means it could take some time to see the true effect this leak will have, as people (if the tools themselves are uploaded), will seek to modify and use the tools for their own personal gain. You wouldn't need physical contact with someone's device, since everything could be done remotely. This is becoming quite scary.\n\nHope that was good enough. I'm sure others could explain with far more insight, but :/ \n\nWhat can we do about the government surveillance? Not much. They're able to bypass encryption, control devices, search through our information (they can see usage data of your device -- meaning they can figure when you commonly use your device, and when you're commonly offline), record your visual and audio interactions, and upload your files to their servers all without you ever knowing. I could be glum and say privacy is dead. ",
"[Vault 7 Explanation -Philip DeFranco ](_URL_0_) \n\nPhil does a really good job of explaining it. ",
"\nRemember when the CIA claimed Russian hacking due to finding \"Russian\" malware on infected systems? From Vault 7: CIA can customize the \"fingerprints\" hacks leave behind and make it look like someone else did it. \n\nThe evidence that we've seen for Russia hacking the DNC is this exact \"Russian fingerprint\" that we now know the CIA had the ability to implement in their hacks to hide their tracks. That fingerprint is now completely shoddy evidence. Not just because the CIA can put a Russian fingerprint on any hack, but because anyone else can too, because the CIA was so Clinton-esque with their security that all the \"fingerprints\" they collected were leaked to hackers and rogue agents.\n\nSo, essentially, any legitimate hacker nowadays could hack the DNC then put Russia's \"fingerprint\" on the hack. That fingerprint is evidence of absolutely nothing, thanks to these new leaks.\n\nThe CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nReading about the capabilities of the CIA in Vault7 should put the Trump-Russia connection to bed. If Trump had any contact with Russia, the CIA would've known, and it would've been made public during the election. #NothingBurger\n",
"Basically CIA decided to create bugs and viruses or expose holes in programming to hack and spy on American citizens with anything from Costco Routers, Samsung TVs, iPhones, Androids, everything.",
"One thing came to mind ... Mariana's web / really deep web folklore possibly being true in respect for the cia and security services.\n\nIt talks in the example of websites that only let you through if you have a certificate installed else it just shows you normal pages amongst all the other data they are pushing about.\n\nStranger things have been true.",
"The CIA is focusing on getting information of foreign countries (non-USA), mostly by using people. The Vault7 leaks contains information about hacking tools the CIA has and uses. It looks like someone copied information from the internal CIA wiki (like _URL_0_), and leaked it to wikileaks (no connection to the other 2 wikis). \n\nThe hacking tools includes \"viruses\" for Samsung TV's, which enables them to listen to conversations close to the TV, even though it appears to be off. It also contain a nice list of weaknesses in Apple and Android phones, Windows and Linux operating system. Some of these weaknesses are not known to anybody else, which allows the CIA to break into most phones (and thus using the mic, camera, GPS etc. to surveil a person or a group). It also mentions where they have the data from (e.g. GCHQ, or NSA, or public). \n\n",
"I remember getting laughed at about 5 years ago on reddit for bringing up the possibility someone else will be able to hack into your self driving car. I swear half of you follow the trend, the other half let other people think for you. Not so farfetched of an idea now, is it?",
"All I know is there better be a fallout reference in there somewhere or I'm going to be even more dissatisfied with the CIA.",
"The CIA's hacker division kept all their notes, tools, procedures, documentations, ideas, etc on a central system (in this case, Confluence, JIRA and Stash). Some one downloaded a backup of the whole system and started passing the backup around a group of former CIA hackers and employees. One of these guys sent the backup to Wikileaks who are reviewing, redacting and publishing the entire trove of documents and tools. ",
"\"Vault 7 was a Vault-Tec vault built before the Great War as part of the Great Vault Experiment. The main purpose of this vault was to observe how long society could last without medical aid and/or personnel.\" (_URL_0_)",
"The CIA spies on people. The CIA continues to find new ways to spy on people, and occasionally kill them.\n\nThe CIA has been compiling methods that allow them to basically use the malware of foreign powers to make it look like a foreign power perpetrated an attack. Keep in mind that, while worrying, this is nothing 'new' as far as espionage goes. Forgery is kind of a big thing that spies do.\n\nAlso, everything connected to a network is vulnerable - but we already knew this.\n\nPeople are speculating that the CIA has spied on US Citizens without explicit authorization but I haven't seen anything actually stating that based on the documents, so if somebody could point me to that it'd be great.",
"Just an FYI:\n\nMany researches believe that Wikileaks has been compromised.\n\nI just feel the need to put that idea out there. ",
"I have to be honest, i find it hard to believe the CIA has these tools to monitor people remotely etc through smartphones at the level being claimed... these fuckers NEVER get anyone they want and i feel like they should be doing 100x the job they are if they could do all this shit.\n\n\nLike the saying goes: \"how do you know the CIA wasnt responsible for 9/11?..... IT SUCCEEDED!\"",
"CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NO ONE IS COVERING THIS!?! \n\nThe only places I can find covering this are far-right publications like Fox and Breitbart. What the fuck is going on!?!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LBl2l76fp0w"
],
[
"https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/#EXAMPLES"
],
[],
[],
[
"wikipedia.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://nukabreak.wikia.com/wiki/Vault_7"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6ks45h | why did most aircraft in world war 2 have a taildragger landing gear assembly, but the modern aircraft have a tricycle gear assembly? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ks45h/eli5_why_did_most_aircraft_in_world_war_2_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"djodv4u"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You have less aerodynamic drag with just two wheels. Most airfields were big big circles and there was gras only, you could always start and land towards the wind.\n\nWith concrete runways, retractable landing gears and higher take off and landing velocities it was more important to control the airplane on the ground.\n\nYou can get that with tricycle gears only."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1xla6y | if i was dropped into the world 200 years in the past, as a modern american with all required vaccinations, what diseases will i be immune to? which ones will i be more vulnerable to? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xla6y/eli5_if_i_was_dropped_into_the_world_200_years_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfcd5qb"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I'm pretty sure smallpox, tuberculosis, influenza and bubonic plague would still be rampant. Polio, though, you'd be good to go."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2w8rpo | what does "dismissing without prejudice" mean in regards to a judge or labor grievance decision? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w8rpo/eli5what_does_dismissing_without_prejudice_mean/ | {
"a_id": [
"cookzx9",
"cool0yx",
"coolkyx"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You are free to bring it before a court or panel again and have the case heard on a clean slate. Nothing from the first case that could bias the second will be able to be admitted.",
"For the most part, it means that the case can be brought back to court if the petitioner fixes whatever it was that caused the the case to be dismissed in the first place. ",
"The court is dismissing the case for reasons other than merit. A key witness may be unavailable, or there may be a technical issue, like filing in the wrong jurisdiction.\n\nDismissal without prejudice means that double jeopardy does not apply, and the case can be refiled once the issues have been resolved."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
365nzo | why does powdered sugar taste so different from regular sugar? if they are chemically/molecularly the same, shouldn't they taste the same? | I'm also wondering if you could mix powdered sugar with water, allow the water to evaporate, and get granulated/regular sugar back. Also, I can make powdered sugar in a food processor; could I make powdered *salt*?
EDIT: I'm surprised and happy that I've had so much response! I've never posted anything but my own comments on other people's threads before, and I didn't know if anyone else would find this interesting. This has been awesome; I feel like a real Redditor now!
ALSO: For everyone saying that it's due to the corn starch or other anti-caking agents, here's the thing: I make my own and I don't add anything to it. Try it, if you've never done it before and you don't believe me- just put regular granulated sugar in a blender, food processor, mortar & pestle, or a clean coffee grinder and beat the crap out of it. And to the folks saying that it's just that I *expect* it to taste different, try putting your homemade powdered sugar into your morning coffee and tell me what you think.
EDIT: I think I've found my answer! Thank you /u/Trees_For_Life. And thanks to everyone who responded to my questions, and to everyone else who just showed up to make dick jokes, too. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/365nzo/eli5_why_does_powdered_sugar_taste_so_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"cray0by",
"cray0di",
"cray1r6",
"cray2po",
"crazvra",
"crb1zbq",
"crb35to",
"crb3qke",
"crb41da",
"crb4cmf",
"crb4sqr",
"crb5dgh",
"crb845p",
"crb9c4y",
"crb9vls",
"crba3xc",
"crbcd19",
"crbci3s",
"crbclej",
"crbglkw",
"crbj8eu",
"crbj9il",
"crbnjli",
"crbp5m5",
"crbpbc8",
"crbplcg"
],
"score": [
131,
2661,
36,
447,
22,
4,
5,
3,
2,
9,
5,
2,
3,
4,
3,
17,
3,
2,
11,
6,
9,
2,
8,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Surface Area\n\nThe higher the surface area, the more you will taste it. So Powdered sugar has been crushed down to a tiny size, this means that more sugar is actually hitting your tongue. Regular sugar, though still small, isn't as small as powdered sugar and has a smaller surface area.\n\nIf you need more info on Surface area then just ask.",
"Powder Sugar has small a amount of cornstarch in it. \n\nWhy it tastes different. Well steak in a blender tastes different than steak on a plate.",
"I know a few of these. The flavor change is likely relates to added anti-caking agents. \"An anti-caking agent is generally added during grinding, typically corn starch, or tricalcium phosphate, at 3% to 5% concentration, to absorb moisture and improve flow by reducing contact between sugar crystals.\"\n\nAlso, you CAN make powdered salt. I have some 'popcorn salt' from the diamond crystal company, from decades ago when my dad worked there. Its extremely fine salt dust. Its still good, I use it regularly.",
"I'm no sensory expert, but have a bit of experience in the food industry. First, powdered sugar likely isn't chemically identical. They use anti-caking ingredients (starch, e.g.) to keep it free-flowing. Even if chemically the same, however, the physical structure difference between regular and powdered sugar may be enough to impact interaction with your taste buds. Powdered sugar may dissolve in your saliva more quickly. Along these lines, Pepsi has a patent where they modify the size and crystal structure of salt, and they claim they can reduce salt by ~25% yet still maintain the same degree of flavor.",
"This has come up before. The reason has to do with the frequency of flavor on your taste buds. When it's ground finer the sweetness per ms is higher so it tastes different.",
"You can make powdered salt, it's called pickling salt I believe, and it dissolves super easily and clumps super easily without some kind of anti clumping agent store bought stuff contain. That's also the reason powdered sugar contains corn starch",
"Be careful when you use the word \"taste\". The main difference between the two sugars is *mouth feel*, not taste.\n\nThere is some cornstarch in powdered sugar but not so much that you'd taste it.",
"You can put sugar in a blender and make caster sugar or powdered sugar. It just won't be as consistent. And yes you could make powdered salt.\n\nAs for evaporation I would imagine after dissolving... Both would be the same",
" > powdered salt\n\nYes, you can powder your own salt. You may have better luck with a coffee grinder than a blender, though. Powdered salt is one of the \"secret\" ingredients that gives popcorn that unique movie theater quality.",
"shapes of foods affects taste\n\nthis is why various kinds of simple breads can taste VERY different from each other - pizza dough is tossed and aerated for its taste\n\npeople who think food in the future will be pills are missing the point, when the flavor and nutrition is only HALF of the actual satisfaction of eating",
"Just the other day I was out of sugar so my friend tells me \"just put 1 cup of sugar in the blender on high for a bit I do it all the time, i dont even buy powdered sugar anymore because i think that way taste better\" and I mean it sort if worked never quite got as powdery as it should have and tasted a little different i guess cornstarch explains why",
"Confirm you can make powdered salt. I do it with a mortar and pestle when I'm making things like freedom fries. I don't want big chunks of salt on the potato I just want it to be salty. Works great on low liquid things like salad too.",
"the finer the powder, the more the surface area. the flavor profile changes because the sugar coats your tongue with its massive surface area, flooding it with flavor. \n\nalso, the mouthfeel contribution creates a different taste *sensation* even though the taste may be the same.\n\nfinally, the cornstarch thing.",
"Powdered sugar has added agents to stop it from sticking and forming a hard mass known as caking. Those differ the flaver. Also we taste things based not only on smell and chemical identity, but largly on the look of the food, the surrounding we eat in and our own expectations of the taste of the food in front of us. Thus powdered sugar will be sereved, eaten and expected to taste differently than crystal one, so it does.",
"Have you ever tried powdered salt? Have you ever seen powdered salt in a store? There's a reason. I used to work at a cracker factory on the saltine line and whatever salting machine moves back and forth which crushes some salt into a powder. Eventually that powder builds up and falls on some crackers so we remove those. We would sometimes dare each other to eat them for shits and giggles. Now I can eat salt by itself, I like the taste it does not bother me but oh my god do not ever eat powdered salt. I still can vividly imagine it.",
"powdered sugar contains high amounts of starch to prevent caking. thats why it tastes like corn starch ",
"The smaller particle size of powdered sugar means it dissolves faster in your mouth and delivers its sweet flavor in a more concentrated rush. This results in a different perception of the taste.\n\nA similar thing happens when using kosher salt vs table salt.",
"Taste depends on many things, not just the substance itself. For example temperature, texture and... The presence of air. The air allows the aroma to spread more easily. That's why a fluffy cream (achieved by introduction of air through beating or gas) is much tastier than simple flat cream.\n\n Also a block of a food has a lot smaller surface than the same food when chopped finely. Try this: make half of open sandwich with a slice of some semi-hard cheese. The other half - use the same cheese but grind it on a grinder. Very different taste. ",
"Want a good way to ruin your morning? Try to sweeten your coffee with powered sugar, instead of regular sugar. ",
"They're identical substances. The difference comes down to texture. Texture actually has a big effect on how you perceive taste.",
"Imagine you have a block of wood. Now cut it in half. These two blocks of wood have more surface area (combined) than the one block of wood; they have 2 more surfaces together. Now powdered sugar is essentially ground up sugar, meaning that it has more surface area. The more surface area that touches your tongue, the more you taste it.",
"Great questions op! I've wondered the same. You made me realize I never found out.Never stop asking. ",
"Somewhat related: meats taste different depending on how it's sliced. The same piece of fish will taste different depending on how it's sliced and how thick it is. That's what a good sushi chef adds to the equation. Same with prosciutto. Slice it paper-thin and it melts on your tongue. Slice it too thick and it's just raw dead meat.",
"Isn't it because it covers more surface area on your tongue?",
"if you put the same volume of powered sugar (without anti caking agent) as normal sugar into coffee, it'll be sweeter because there's more sugar per volume because powered sugar has a higher packing factor",
"Related question: all my life, we've made buttercream frosting with powdered sugar. It seems in the past few years (decade or more), the frosting comes out grainy and tasting a bit too much like powdered sugar. I've tried all kinds of tricks (warming the milk and butter, mixing the living fuck out of it, sifting, etc.). I'm not the only one who has noticed it doesn't seem to be possible to make buttercream frosting like we used to make. Am I hallucinating, or has something about powdered sugar changed?\n\n*(yeah yeah yeah I should use confectioner's sugar, but first I have to find some, then buy it so I have it on hand.)*"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3srgut | matched betting. | What is it?
How do u make money off of it?
How is it legal? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3srgut/eli5_matched_betting/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx01u34"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The idea is that you take advantage of offers such as sign-up offers (Free £10 bet when you deposit and bet £10 for example).\n\nYou place a bet with a bookie, and then you bet against that result at an exchange. If the odds between backing and laying (betting against the result) are very close, then you make a small loss overall. If the bookie bet wins, you lose the money at the exchange, and vise versa. There are calculators that tell you how much money you should use for the lay bet.\n\nYou take a small loss whichever way it goes. But what this allows you to do is get access to the free bonus. So say you made a loss of 50 pence. You now have £10 free bet in your account. So you do the same process. You make a profit because the free bet is basically using the money from the bookie, not your own. Depending on the odds you used (there are places that provide good matches), you'll make a certain amount of profit.\n\nSo you make a small loss, say 50p, and then you gain back maybe £5-8. £8 minus 50p is £7.50. There's your profit.\n\nIt's legal because you are just taking advantage of offers from the bookies. However, the bookies don't like it so they have a variety of ways of trying to work out if you are matched betting (as your betting patterns will be different to the average gambler). They'll often restrict your accounts if they think you are matched betting, or not give you offers.\n\nThe main thing I'd say, through my experience, is that you generally need a decent amount of money to begin with to make a decent profit. This is because when you are laying off the bets, it often takes a big sum of money in the exchange.\n\nSorry if this isn't ELI5 enough - it's my first proper attempt!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3qlgbb | if i'm caught by police committing a crime but have zero id on me, and refuse to give my name, what happens next? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qlgbb/eli5_if_im_caught_by_police_committing_a_crime/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwg6s4x"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
" > Can they put a nameless person in jail?\n\nYes. You can be found guilty of a crime even if they don't know your name.\n\nFurther, if you go to court and refuse to identify yourself, the judge can find you in contempt of court, and have you jailed *indefinitely*, until you finally choose to identify yourself.\n\nContempt of court is different from normal imprisonment, because you have the metaphorical keys to your cell in your own possession: as soon as you comply with the court order, you'll be free to go. Thus there is no limit to how long you can be imprisoned for contempt of court."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8cgucz | why does running sometimes make you nauseous? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8cgucz/eli5_why_does_running_sometimes_make_you_nauseous/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxetwjy",
"dxf4nhm"
],
"score": [
23,
2
],
"text": [
"It activates your sympathetic nervous system (activates squelettal muscles, dialates pupils and bronchioles) while supressing your parasympathetic nervous system (supresses digestive system, among otuer things). \n\nWhile you run this system change also changes where the blood flow is prioritized. So prioritize your muscles rather than your stomach. If you have food in your stomach and your system is no longer prioritizing digestion you may feel nausious because your body is redirecting its resources. \n\nThis is simplified. ",
"In addition to these answers, as your body performs any intense physical activity, it produces lactic acid. When too much of it gets into your system (especially when you’re on oxygen debt), you get nauseous."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
30bxl5 | is natural selection in plants a thing? if so, are there common ancestors for trees or grasses or flowers, etc.? | This legitimately makes me wonder. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30bxl5/eli5_is_natural_selection_in_plants_a_thing_if_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpqzm0n",
"cpqzpu9",
"cpqzud1",
"cpqzvu2"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes. Plants, just like animals, mutate. Some mutations are more viable than others. Boom. Natural selection.",
"Absolutely. Not only are there common ancestors for plants, but *all living things* share a common ancestor. At some points, all of the various kingdoms of life diverged from the same organism. ",
"Of course. We take advantage of this in agriculture. One of the best examples is bananas. Wild bananas are small, green, sour and have tons of seeds. We have artificially selected for plants that produce the large, fleshy, yellow and relatively seedless bananas that you buy in the produce section. \n\nAnother great example is the different plants that live in different climates. If you go to the desert, you'll see mostly cacti, which have been selected to be able to retain water for very long periods of time. ",
"Yes, natural selection is absolutely a thing for plants. Plants that have some sort of defense mechanism (such as poison, repulsive odour, etc...) would survive and thus be able to propagate. The ones that did not would succumb to natural selection and become extinct over time. These plants all do share a common ancestor as they have descended from plants that evolved and adapted so that they were chosen through natural selection."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ztq20 | why the comcast/tw merger is bad for users | First, let me say I dislike US cable companies as much the next guy, and I think they should be common carriers. But for now, this merger seems to be a more imminent concern.
I see why the ATT/T-Mobile merger would have harmed users. People would have three national carriers to choose from instead of four. Clearly, the market would have been less competitive.
But Comcast and TW are geographical monopolies. No one has a choice between these two companies for cable service. You either can get Comcast or can get TW, but never both. So while it might prevent peering disagreements and encourage economies of scale, I don't see how a merger will actually reduce customer choice. No one will have less choices than they did before. Competition would be ideal, but I feel like one big monopoly is marginally better than many small monopolies. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ztq20/eli5_why_the_comcasttw_merger_is_bad_for_users/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfwvj25",
"cfwvl7q"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Here's a good quick explaination along with a graph of it. There is growing concern over the power that these companies have. This merger gives Comcast control over more than half the cable subscribers in the country. This means they have more power to control rates and you have less power to approve/disapprove of content on their networks.\n\n_URL_0_",
"I'm sure someone will come along and explain it much better, but the primary reason is that after their merger, comcast would control 70% of the US market. We have comcast and specifically TW telling people \"Oh, our customers DON'T want better internet, they are happy with what they have.\" But when google fiber popped up, areas that became eligible for google fiber magically got speed increases, reliability increases and at no increased cost. It made it very apparent for people that actually pay attention, how much comcast and TW had been screwing their customers. In the 90's these companies for something to the tune of billions to upgrade infrastructure, and increase service range. However they did as most large companies do, took the money and didn't use it how it was supposed to be used. \n \n To the best of my knowledge (haven't been following this close at all) Al Franken is the ONLY person speaking against this merger, and loudly. He has brought up the point of what the companies did in the past with the money, how they have failed to fulfill their contracts and improve service. How comcast and TW run the market, is they don't compete with each other, they mark their prices competitively but that does no good, when you can only get access to one. \n \nIt's the equivalent of all the highway road crews not updating their equipment/methods over the years. Imagine that all current road crews don't have the equipment/knowledge to handle concrete/asphalt and only know how to repair a cobblestone road. They would increase costs because they don't have the resources to repair the road, but promise that \"with XXX increase in funding, we will learn how to repair concrete/asphalt and update our equipment to handle it.\" Now they get the money, and DON'T update anything. The government is out money, people are getting taxed more so the roads can be repaired, but nothing is getting fixed. That's what these companies did with the government money, and now they want more market control. That won't be good for anyone. Look at how comcast is handling netflix, do you want them doing that to all your internet traffic?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/14/alarming-charts-show-just-how-much-power-comcast-will-have-over-cable-industry-if-time-warner-deal-stands/"
],
[]
] |
|
6gfcif | can you connect to the internet without going through an isp? | Like could you, with sufficient funds and contacts in the networking world just connect directly to the rest of the web allowing for unlimited speeds and the only limitation to this being your hardware? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gfcif/eli5_can_you_connect_to_the_internet_without/ | {
"a_id": [
"diptxpo",
"dipu3ai",
"dipuh27",
"dipumjr"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. It would probably take some weird software and hardware hacks to get it to work properly but you could do it. Just plugging in some CAT5 isn't going to work, there's a lot of abstraction going on between what you see on your computer and what's going on in the wires and major web servers\n\nHowever, the ISPs own basically all of the wires everywhere (except for some between continents, which I believe are owned by various governments) and you'd have to get permission from them to do it. And if you're plugging into some random server somewhere, they're most likely getting their internet from an ISP. \n\nSo you'd probably still be going through an ISP in some sense.",
"With sufficient funds and contacts, sure. However, it would essentially lead to you running an ISP yourself with only one customer. It would not lead to unlimited speeds, because there is a limit to how fast a link other ISPs would be interested in giving you. Your network still needs to be linked to the other networks of the world, and the speeds you get are dependent on the speeds others allow you to connect to them at. I think you'd have to cash in on some serious favours with your contacts to get it through, though.\n\nThere's practically no situation anywhere in the world where this would be preferrable to negotiating a deal as a customer with an existing ISP. You would have to lay down new cables anyway if you wanted to be your own ISP, and if you were going to do that, you could instead use that high-speed connection to connect to an ISP as a customer. You might not find readily available information about this on their web sites, but if the ISP deals with business customers, there's probably a way to do it if you contact them, and tell them you'll be paying for all the work necessary to hook you up.",
"Yes, there are internet exchange points, at which you could connect.\n\nBut getting in there means you're absolutely huge in size. This is something done by ISPs, CDNs like Akamai or CloudFlare, services that produce enormous amounts of traffic like Netflix, or companies like Microsoft or Google.\n\nAlso it's extremely unlikely you can get there as a single person. There are going to be contracts, service agreements and so on. They'll want you to have techs on call at any time of the day, just in case your stuff happens to break something at 3 AM.\n\nAnd it wouldn't help you all that much, really. Extremely high end hardware still has limits, and smaller companies are going to be limited by their connection. Your connection to Netflix is going to be amazing, but whenever you go to a page served by a 5 Mbps connection, you're going to get 5 Mbps. Such a connection is of great benefit if you want to serve millions of people, or crawl the entire web, but doesn't give you all that much if you want to browse the web like a normal person.\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"Yes - At the heart of internet is just a bunch of interconnections between major telecoms like AT & T, Orange, etc. One of the best places to connect is MAE-EAST or MAE-WEST\n\nIn these rooms are different cages, each cage has equipment and connections from each telco. Running overhead are interconnections between cages. So if you rented a cage and negotiated deals with different telcos, then that is as close to core of internet you can get."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ouqrd | how did neanderthals communicate? | Did they have a language? Could they communicate with 'us'? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ouqrd/how_did_neanderthals_communicate/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3k6v74",
"c3k8boq",
"c3k8xrx",
"c3k9p6c",
"c3kbj2k"
],
"score": [
16,
43,
19,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"yes. \n\n_URL_1_\n\nThey communicated babies into us, that's for sure.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"The truth is, we simply Don't Know. From bones (Hyoid and other throat structures, as well as facial features) we can tell that Neanderthal was capable of some forms of verbal communications, allow how that figured into their culture and language or lack thereof is still unknown to us. Realistically, we CAN'T and WON'T ever know, because spoken language is perishable, obviously. The things we do know about their culture is that they had complicated stone tools (Mousterian Industry/Levallious flakes), used fire, wore clothing, created art and trinkets/jewelry, and buried the dead with some ceremony.\n\nAs far as whether you could successfully communicate with them, and this is purely speculation, yes. You could most likely understand what they meant, with the same difficulty as an English speaker attempting to interpret someone speaking Japanese. You do not have the required basis for understanding their language, but through other cues (facial gestures, charades, hand gestures) you could probably get the gist. However I have no clue if Neanderthals could understand a modern English speaking human, I would assume not.\n\nSo essentially, and ***tl;dr***, we can't tell if they spoke, but we do know they had developed culture, so it is largely assumed. They certainly had more sophisticated communication than chimps or bonobos, but not as much as anatomically or chronologically modern humans.\n\nSource: I'm an Anthropology major, so I know a bit about early humans\n\nPS: I left out any reference to interactions with anatomically modern humans unlike Vini, because while the interbreeding theory is plausible, it is one of many and is equally likely to be true or false. We aren't even possible if interbreeding would be possible. If anyone wants me to go into Neanderthal/Homo sapiens sapiens interaction theories, I can.\n\nPPS: sorry for the wall of text\n",
"Through YouTube comments.",
"Many here pointed out we don't know much, but let me add something: Language is the tip of the iceberg. Sure, it gives us the ability to communicate accurate information and abstract thoughts, but for most situations in human society, those are expendable. Sounds and voice modulation, mimic, gestures, all the stuff we use to communicate emotions and raw information (pointing at something and shouting \"AH!\")... That was there for sure, whether they talked or not. ",
"Not exactly what you are looking for. but I think you will find [THIS](_URL_0_) interesting. Also, it's funny as hell"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_admixture_theory",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior#Language"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o589CAu73UM"
]
] |
|
4ugmam | what's at the bottom of quicksand? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ugmam/eli5_whats_at_the_bottom_of_quicksand/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5pjyz5"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"Either an underground spring or non permeable soil. If you are thinking about the wet kind."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4goqxo | math! if something has a one-in-a-million chance, how likely is it to happen at least once in a million chances? | I can't figure out a way to figure this, or other probability questions with big numbers, out using normal math. So what am I missing? What are the principals of sorting out a question like this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4goqxo/eli5_math_if_something_has_a_oneinamillion_chance/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2jcnz0",
"d2jmr8x"
],
"score": [
41,
4
],
"text": [
"The basic idea is to take the chance of it NOT happening x times in a row, and subtract it from 1. The chance of it not happening is 999,999/1,000,000. So the chance of it happening in 1,000,000 tries is 1 - (999,999 / 1,000,000)^1,000,000 = 0.63. There's a 63% chance it will happen in 1,000,000 tries.",
"You can ask Wolfram Alpha a lot of questions in english and get mathematical answers back... For example, let's say you wanted to know the odds of flipping *at least* 10 heads given 15 flips of a coin:\n\n[What are the odds of 10 successes in 15 trials given 0.5 chance of success](_URL_0_)?\n\n- Less than 10: 84.91%\n\n- 10 or less: 94.08%\n\n- more than 10: 5.923%\n\n- 10 or more: 15.09%"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+are+the+odds+of+10+successes+in+15+trials+given+0.5+chance+of+success"
]
] |
|
5sgye1 | if a presidential candidate was born in a state before it was a part of the u.s. but it is now, would they be eligible to run? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sgye1/eli5if_a_presidential_candidate_was_born_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddeykkz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Literally ANYONE can run for president. It's getting sworn into office where the laws apply. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
fbhz9o | why is the technology of digital cameras limited to the exact problems as we did with film cameras? (iso, shutter speed, etc | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fbhz9o/eli5_why_is_the_technology_of_digital_cameras/ | {
"a_id": [
"fj4ds69",
"fj4du0a",
"fj4ekef"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the only thing that has changed is the film. We use electronic film now.\n\nOf course the rest works still the same.\n\nAnd ISO noise (probably the problem you are talking about) is just something that is almost impossible to circumvent if you want to make an image out of light hitting something.",
"They aren't \"problems\". They are configuration settings according to which you can get pretty much whatever outcome you desire. I guess the answer to your question is: because cameras aren't mind-readers. Yet.",
"Because light and lenses don't care what kind of camera you are using, they always work the same way.\n\nShutter speed impacts how much light reaches the detecting surface and how susceptible it is to motion.\n\nISO is the sensitivity of the detecting surface.\n\nf-stop is how much of the lens is being used to focus, less lens, the sharper and dimmer the image."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ydb03 | why i have to wait ten minutes to post another post on reddit. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ydb03/eli5_why_i_have_to_wait_ten_minutes_to_post/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfjgd70",
"cfjgdch"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Reddit throttles new posters. This means that (until you've built up some karma) you will have time limits posting multiple times.\n\nThis is to discourage people from making a new account and using it to spam the site with posts.",
"This is not an ELI5 question, but I'm nice so I'll answer.\n\nThe wait time is to prevent spam. If there was no limit, people could just continuously post, flooding the subs with terrible, terrible posts (or worse, automated 'bot' posts, such as ads)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
p9t19 | how socialized medicine in america would lead to better care? | Ok, a lot of people on reddit like the idea of socialized medicine in America. They keep repeating that it will make everything cheaper, and more available to everyone. I haven't heard a word about better care. There are 50 million uninsured Americans. Wouldn't the influx of people,who can now see a doctor, essentially clog up doctors offices? Also doctors would get paid per capita, and not by treatment. Wouldn't this just lead to less thorough exams in hopes of seeing more patients?
I just want an answer to how it would actually make doctors perform better. I'm not looking for "Well everyone should have medical care" logic. So please, none of that. I just want to know how socialized medicine will lead to better care. Regarding quality, not quantity wise.
Edit: I meant for the individual. Would health care be better Now or under socialized medicine? So if money is not an issue would you have better care now, or under socialized medicine? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p9t19/eli5_how_socialized_medicine_in_america_would/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3nnha8",
"c3nnjq3",
"c3nnp3q",
"c3nolbf"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The current system is equally weighted for quantity. Quality is ensured by the potential for malpractice suits. However Doctors are in the business to help people. They don't need to be threatened to give good care, they get threatened by hospital administrators to give 'less thorough' care to keep cost down. \nThe system would have to re-balance after an influx of people that can now see a doctor. DAs and RNs would be in higher demand and be given more responsibility.",
" > I just want an answer to how it would actually make doctors perform better.\n\nAt least in Britain GP are assigned patients and they are encouraged to emphasize preventative care. Advising patients on nutrition, controlling their chronic conditions like diabetes and helping patients cut down on risky behaviors leads to lower costs for the government and fat bonuses for doctors. \n\nA socialized system changes the game from patients served to how much better your patients quality of life is. The incentives lead to them performing better. ",
"First up, you'd remove profit from the system - this cuts out a lot of costs. You'd toss out insurance companies and the entire bureaucracy involved in billing & negotiating payments, again cutting costs. You stop the drug companies from spending millions of dollars a year advertising drugs to make old men's dicks hard.\n\nThis alone could save a *shitload* of money.\n\nDoctors wouldn't be paid by the head or by the treatment - they'd be paid for being a doctor, flat rate. At the same time, we'd probably have a lot more non-emergency walk-in clinics staffed by Nurse Practicioners and other less expensive personnel to treat minor and common issues. This would not only cost less but make services much more accessible with less wait. We could reserve the doctors for situations that actually require their advanced medical knowledge (another cost-saving measure).\n\nOnce everyone has care, we can make sure that people get preventative medicine, preventing simple issues from escalating into major expensive issues.",
"Currently the largest burden of American healthcare rests on the backs of American businesses. It's very difficult to start a small business for this reason and even more difficult to be self-employed. Additionally, large American businesses struggle to compete internationally in terms of operating costs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
za5a2 | can someone explain quantum mechanics? +- | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/za5a2/eli5_can_someone_explain_quantum_mechanics/ | {
"a_id": [
"c62t2b6",
"c62t4q1"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"question too big.\n\nalso search first.",
"\"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.\" -Richard Feynman"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1pwb2h | why do designer clothes and accessories cost so much? | I have no personal issue with paying substantially more money for quality. But I'm just wondering what separates a $20 Timex watch from an IWC that retails for $11,000. Or what separates a $200 Alfani suit from a $3,000 Ermenegildo Zegna suit. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pwb2h/eli5_why_do_designer_clothes_and_accessories_cost/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd6pco2",
"cd6q2j7",
"cd6q4b1"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Because people are willing to pay that much for them. This is the answer to nearly all \"what does X cost so much\" questions, honestly. \n\nIf sales dropped significantly, prices of a given label would likely drop. But the demand is high and people will pay what is asked... ",
"So everyone can't wear them and therefore they become a status symbol.",
"I'll talk about the watches, it's something I'm a bit more familiar with. The $20 timex will be a quartz watch where the time keeping and movement is done electronically. This means they are very cheap to build and extremely accurate. The IWC is a mechanical watch, there are no batteries and it keeps time through either manually winding the watch or through the movement of the wearer in the case of automatic watches. Anyways, mechanical watches are actually extremely complex given their size. [Here's](_URL_0_) a picture of what an IWC watch looks like without the case. As you can see, they are extremely intricate, hand made objects and the parts cost a ton due to the high degree of precision necessary. As for the reason they cost 11,000, I think it comes down to the thousands it costs simply to produce the watch--labor, materials, etc. and since the market is significantly smaller, an added increase to cover the company's overhead since they aren't getting many benefits from economies of scale. Watchmakers such as IWC aren't seeing insane profit margins per unit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp273/monochorme/monochrome/IWC/cal5011.jpg"
]
] |
|
yv5ub | why do people claim that patent disputes like the apple/samsung case hurt innovation when they are actually in trouble for copying, not innovating? | They also say things like 'this will mean fewer options for consumers' well if they ban 10 cell phones for infringing on patents, then didn't they ban cell phones that had more similar features?
If a cell phone maker instead focuses on making NEW things that don't violate patents, isn't that MORE innovative than copying an existing design or feature? Thus forcing innovation rather than duplication? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yv5ub/eli5_why_do_people_claim_that_patent_disputes/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5z3hf2",
"c5z4jq9",
"c5z4ylh",
"c5z509p",
"c5z694l",
"c5zaxc1"
],
"score": [
19,
6,
3,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the patent system allows incredibly patents, on incredibly general concepts, with incredibly high fees for fighting even a quickly unsuccessful claim against you.\n\nTogether, these things mean that it's realistically impossible to make something new that doesn't infringe one of these vague patents, and as soon as anyone is remotely successful their competitors can and *will* sue them. So it really isn't possible to innovate without infringing another patent enough for someone much richer than you to take you to court, even if they can't realistically win.\n\nIn this case, a big furor has been made about two particular features apple claims infringe on their designs; big screens and rounded corners on rectangular phones. But many people would say these things should simply not be patentable in the first place. It doesn't *matter* whether Samsung innovated elsewhere, their phone is attacked for incredibly general features which arguably couldn't be any other way in a modern phone. Does it really help innovation that no phone can have a large screen with rounded corners except an apple device?\n\nAnother example would be apple's lawyers (if I remember correctly) claiming that a competitor's 'tap to unlock' was covered by their 'swipe to unlock' patent on the basis of a tap being a zero length swipe. As above, these things are arguably both trivial features that shouldn't be patentable, but even if the feature is worthwhile, innovative and unique, samsung's *different* feature was still similar enough to be part of a patent case. Any smaller company would really struggle to fight such cases, regardless of how easily they will win, because of the costs alone.",
"It stifles competition if the patents are broad enough. Some of these systems that are patented are so general and vague that it would be incredibly difficult to create a competing product without violating them. \n\nIt'd be like Coca Cola having successfully prevented any other cola maker from entering the market. ",
"The human condition has always been one to make small improvements on the idea's of other men. The mechanic who adds a part here or there to a car to improve it's performance. The janitor who gets tired of toilets that constantly fill and thinks of a small gasket to seal it with. The reverse engineer who takes an iphone and makes it open source for development.\n\nEven with duplication, we see these small improvements. Over the history of man, this is how tractors and the like have become the way they are. The same goes for new age technologies.",
"Certain features may be unique and others may be built upon what was already done.\n\nAs a comparison, operating systems. To say that Windows and Macs in no way are similar is incorrect, but to say that they are exactly the same is incorrect also. In this case, each operating systems uses innovation and features from its competitor to make a new and better product. \n",
"Like your 5?\n\nImagine everyone at school had to draw a picture of a house. And your classmate claimed you copied off him. He used blue first!\n\nAnd the teacher said to you, well he did use blue first, and you DID use blue in the sky! You could have used some other color instead.\n\nWould you feel that would encourage you to draw better pictures instead of copying off your classmate?\n\nIn this case some of the things they claimed to have been copied were pretty simple things like shapes and sizes of things. There are times when it doesn't make sense to say \"you can't do something similar to anyone else\".\n",
"Patents are supposed to be on inventions -- on *how* you do something. For example, I can patent a particular car engine, and nobody else is allowed to use my exact materials and my exact design to build a car engine.\n\nBut they are still allowed to power a spinning shaft with internal combustion and pistons.\n\nThat's the *what*. You aren't supposed to be able to patent *what* something does, you're only supposed to be able to patent *how* something does it. What would happen if my engine patent meant no other engine anyone could possibly design is allowed to spin a shaft with internal combustion and pistons?\n\nBut that's what's happening in software patents. You patent *what* your user interface is (for example pinch to zoom), and nobody else can do that thing, no matter how differently they implement it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
76mh54 | what is an amber alert and why are they only used in america? | I recently heard an American friend of mine (I live in Ireland) talk about an Amber Alert appearing on their phone and when I googled it there were no results on any Irish sites so I’m curious to know what it is, who is it shown to and why it is shown? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76mh54/eli5_what_is_an_amber_alert_and_why_are_they_only/ | {
"a_id": [
"dof4994",
"dof4lga",
"dof4vs5",
"dof54tm",
"dof5x5d",
"dof8ytt"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
7,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"An amber alert is issued when a child goes missing. It gives basic information about where the child was last seen. I live in Texas and we tend to all get them sent to our phones at roughly the same time.",
"An Amber Alert is an emergency broadcast sent through news agencies, law enforcement, and sometimes city owned electronic highway signs if they have them. It's used only if the child is believed to be in imminent danger of harm or death such as a violent kidnapping, suicide threats, or a known life threatening medical issue.",
"FIY: it's an Amber alert because they developed the system because of a girl who went missing named Amber (not because of the colour).",
"AMBER officially stands for **A**merica's **M**issing: **B**roadcast **E**mergency **R**esponse, though it was named following the abduction and subsequent murder of Amber Hagerman. It is a nationwide communications platform used to inform the public of recently abducted children. When a child has been determined to have been kidnapped, the local AMBER Alert system sends out a text message to phones in that area to let people know what to look out for and who to contact if they see anything suspicious. It also interrupts television and radio programs with a brief message.\n\nIn order to be eligible to use the AMBER Alert system, some criteria must be met:\n\n* Law enforcement must confirm an abduction has occurred\n\n* The child must be at risk of serious bodily injury or death\n\n* Law enforcement must have sufficient descriptive information about the kidnapper and his/her vehicle\n\n* The child may be no older than 17\n\n* AMBER Alert data should be entered into the National Crime Information Center\n\nThe AMBER Alert system is used throughout the United States and its territories, as well as in 22 other countries.\n\nTL;DR: AMBER Alerts use TV, radio, and cell phones to send out an alert about a child kidnapping. It is used internationally, [including in Ireland](_URL_0_)",
"[Ireland do have the equivalent](_URL_1_) system, and they are part of the EU-level [Amber Alert](_URL_0_). When the police believed a child is under imminent threat, any channel available, including electronic road sign, social media, tv & radio broadcasts, text to anyone (law enforcement and civilians) in the area will be utilized. The alert will be [canceled](_URL_0_cat/alertnews/) when the kid is rescued, confirmed to be deceased, or for other reasons.",
"We actually use this in the Netherlands under the exact same name, function and alert criteria."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://ie.globalmissingkids.org/about/age-progression/"
],
[
"https://www.amberalert.eu/",
"http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=9318&Lang=1",
"https://www.amberalert.eu/cat/alertnews/"
],
[]
] |
|
9bg29t | what do steroids do to the body and why are the so effective at treating poison ivy / so many problems? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9bg29t/eli5_what_do_steroids_do_to_the_body_and_why_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"e52ryat"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Steroids mimick natural steroids called glucocorticoids. These have an anti-inflammatory function in the body. When you have an autoimmune disease or an allergy, your body is mounting an immune response on itself which is bad. The steroid stops the immune response, so you can stop the disease. The symptoms of the disease are related to your body's reaction, the poison ivy or pollen or whatever doesn't actually do anything bad to you. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1jawiz | how video and audio encoding works. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jawiz/eli5_how_video_and_audio_encoding_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbcvm1l",
"cbcvrt5"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Not my field so I won't hazard an explanation myself, but I'll just recommend [_URL_1_'s Digital Media Primer for Geeks](_URL_0_), one I found quite interesting and reasonably easy to follow.",
"I have done some work with audio encoding, so I will explain that, but keep in mind that video is done in a similar way.\n\nThe aim of audio encoding is to reduce file sizes while preserving the integrity (quality) of the audio. There are a few ways this is done. For MP3s, one of the most important steps is what is known as the psychoacousitcal model. Human hearing is not perfect, and we know it's imperfections, and can exploit them. For example, if there is a really loud tone, it will mask other tones with a lower volume. The encoder can figure this out and say \"Hey, humans cant hear this tone, so I'm not going to worry about preserving the integrity of it because it wouldn't matter anyways\" and then is able to reduce the file size by not worrying about what humans cant actually hear. When we change the encoder settings we are telling it how much it can ignore. If we dont really care that much about the file size, it will only work with stuff it KNOWS that we could not possibly hear, sound above 20 kHz for example. The smaller we want the file size, the more it has to cut out. \n\nThere is a point where it starts cutting out stuff we can hear in order to hit the target file size. Some people can tell the difference between something encoded to 192 kbps and 320 kbps, and some cannot. Some people say that you shouldn't use the psychoacoustical model at all and nothing should be removed. \n\nEncoding is actually VERY complicated and if you are really interested in it, [Audio Signal Processing and Coding](_URL_1_) is a book written by the guys who wrote [this paper](_URL_0_) which is one of the most referenced papers on the subject."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml",
"Xiph.org"
],
[
"http://www.mp3-tech.org/programmer/docs/audiopaper1.pdf",
"http://www.amazon.com/Signal-Processing-Coding-Andreas-Spanias/dp/0471791474"
]
] |
||
146nem | how did people drink liquids before cups? | I just tried using my hands and it was quite ineffective. And I can't really imagine us sticking our tongues in the water like dogs. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/146nem/how_did_people_drink_liquids_before_cups/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7abpsk",
"c7adkf2"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"When hands are your only way of drinking, you learn how to do it well enough, just like anything else.\n\nAnother early way of drinking was out of bags made from animal skins, or even animal bladders (after all, what's a bladder's main function?)",
"you must have comically small hands."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
47rqmy | how do scientists calculate the speed of the galaxy? | If we're traveling with the galaxy the nearest thing to measure our speed against is also likely traveling. What is the benchmark? How is speed through space measured? Is this a pointless question because everything is moving and speed is relative? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47rqmy/eli5_how_do_scientists_calculate_the_speed_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0f51pe",
"d0f8h28"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
" > Is this a pointless question because everything is moving and speed is relative?\n\nPretty much, yep. There is no absolute reference frame. You can only talk about your motion relative to something else's motion.",
"The speed is measured to our frame of reference (as in our galaxy has velocity = 0).\n\nYou measure the speed of galaxies by simply looking at them, through a phenomenom called red shifting. This works as the Doppler effect, but with light instead of sound. The frequency of the light emitted by a galaxy will shift to a lower frequency if it is moving away from us, and a higher frequency if it is moving towards us. This means that galaxies moving away will be more \"red\", and galaxies moving towards us will be more \"blue\". "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1tbb0n | is it possible to take the president (or any other important person) to court? are they legally obligated to respond/show up in court? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tbb0n/is_it_possible_to_take_the_president_or_any_other/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce681f5",
"ce68sz4",
"ce69xe9"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I always wondered how the president/famous people/royalty handle things like the DMV. Certainly they aren't in line with the rest of us peons are they?",
"Any individual can attempt to take any other individual to court - we have that freedom. They are not obligated to anything until you can find a judge who will believe your case and deem it worthy of a trial. Then they must show up, and are given a Summons. \n\nWhen a formal charges are brought against an officer of the government for crimes committed while in office, it is called Impeachment. In these cases, the legislative body acts as judge and jury.",
"In the UK, you cannot take the Queen to court, as courts are \"In the name of the Queen\" - as in her. She can be impeached by parliament, but she can just choose to dissolve parliament. This would cause mass chaos though.\n\nShe also doesn't have a passport, because they are issued in her name - _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Queen%20and%20Commonwealth%20Visits/Queenandpassport.aspx"
]
] |
||
3zt98s | what is the "well regulated militia"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zt98s/eli5_what_is_the_well_regulated_militia/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyoujkb",
"cyoulme",
"cyowtno",
"cyoy1pz"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The second amendment says: \n\n > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\n\nThe militia, in present day America, is called the National Guard. Each state has their own national guard, and most of the time the national guard follows the orders of the governor of that state. The president can, by law, take over command of the national guard of any (or all) states. ",
"Assuming you're referring to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has deliberated the wording (of each Amendment) ad nauseum.\n\nWith regard to \"well regulated militia\":\n\n > In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that \"[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.\"\n\n-- _URL_0_\n\nBasically, they've determined that it only refers to a properly trained group of individuals armed for the purpose of defense of a place. Taken out of context, anyone can claim that they thus have the right to \"defend\" a \"place\" with a firearm whenever they wish. That is, as stated, out of context, but it doesn't pertain to your question.",
"\"well-regulated\" means something like \"in good working order,\" that is, well trained and well supplied.",
"If you read the original version of the amendments that was submitted by James Madison it becomes obvious what was meant. The original version contained one more clause saying that a person could not be forced to bear arms if it violated their religious convictions. \n\nAt the time the amendments were being discussed the US did not have a standing army. The idea was that in times of need the militia made up of citizens would be called to defend the nation. A standing army was established in 1792 known as the Legion of the United States, but that was limited to a single brigade. State militias were still planned as being the primary fighting force for the US. Which is why 13000 militiamen were mobilized in 1794 during the Whiskey Rebellion. \n\nSo if anyone tells you the second amendment is about fighting against the government they don't know what they are talking about. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
esf7p0 | why is nitrogen present in tanks of scuba divers? | I learned today that tanks of scuba divers has a mixture of gases. Helium is present to reduce bends due to nitrogen. Helium is present about 11% and oxygen about 32% and rest is nitrogen. What is the purpose of nitrogen when we can fill the rest with oxygen? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/esf7p0/eli5_why_is_nitrogen_present_in_tanks_of_scuba/ | {
"a_id": [
"ff9jgud",
"ff9joqq",
"ff9lqjq",
"ff9n1v9",
"ff9tqwo"
],
"score": [
7,
22,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Too much oxygen can easily become toxic - the diver needs to breathe *something* that isn't excessive oxygen.",
"For standard diving, the tank is compressed air with all the constituent gases present in air present in the tank.\n\nThere are specific scenarios when you do alter the % mixture of various gases when diving to achieve different goals. \n\nAs one example, more oxygen/less nitrogen gives the ability to stay underwater longer due to lower levels of nitrogen being absorbed into the bloodstream. The catch however is it somewhat limits the depth you can dive to as higher oxygen concentrations become toxic under greater pressures.\n\nOn the opposite end of the spectrum, for very deep diving trimix (oxygen/helium/nitrogen) can be used. Lower oxygen percentages reduce the risk of oxygen toxicity, lower nitrogen percentages reduce both absorption into the bloodstream and hallucinogenic effects of nitrogen under pressure, and helium acts to both ease breathing due to lower density and replace nitrogen with something that gets processed out of the bloodstream faster.",
"U/msaskin is correct. Regular scuba divers use normal air in their tanks, so the tank mixture is 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, 1% other various gases, just like you’re breathing right now. When you dive under water the pressure on your body increases, that pressure causes the gasses you’re breathing to have strange effects. The deeper you go the stronger the effects. Oxygen under pressure becomes toxic, so you can’t “just fill the rest with oxygen” because it would severely limit your depth. For example, pure oxygen is toxic at about 5m/15ft of depth. Nitrogen becomes an anesthetic, so it basically makes you feel drunk which can be very dangerous at depth. The helium is used because it doesn’t have any severe effects, so it can replace nitrogen as a filler gas. Specially trained divers can alter the gas mixtures to allow longer dive times or deeper depths. \n\nSide note: The mixture you mention seems a little odd; helium is usually only used for deep diving, and 32% oxygen is way too high for deep diving so I think those numbers are off. \n\nEdit: clarified, a lot.",
"The air you are breathing right now is mostly nitrogen and most normal scuba diver will use normal compressed air without any problem. \n\nWe can't breath pure oxygen in normal condition, since this lead to hyperoxia. Basically, too much oxygen pressure is toxic to the human body. Depending on the pressure and duration of the exposure it can cause problems in your nervous system, eyes, lung, etc. Only in specific situation and with training does drivers will use higher level of oxygen in their tanks. For example, astronaut in extra vehicular activity will breath high level of oxygen, because the breath at low pressure. For scuba diver, when they operate in deeper where the pressure on their lung is higher, they need an higher pressure of oxygen.",
"Your question has been answered in detail but here is a very quick ELI5 recap.\n\nThe air in a standard diving tank matches (or closely matches) that which we breathe on the surface. When your breathe Nitrogen but the pressure underwater stops it from leaving your body tissue, you can develop nitrogen narcosis (getting 'narced') which impedes reaction time and decision making. Breathing in too pure of oxygen though can cause its own issues, often worse than too much nitrogen.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSo short story short, the air in the tank, for most uses, matches the air we breathe."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8zdk59 | why do you feel like you're being stabbed in the chest when gasping/panting for air in the cold? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8zdk59/eli5_why_do_you_feel_like_youre_being_stabbed_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2hyans",
"e2i5lm0",
"e2ibcce"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure that everyone feels what you are describing. I don't that I can recall, and I run during winter.\n\nIs the pain on your left side? Exertion in the cold puts extra stress on the heart.",
"Your body needs to warm up the air before it reaches the lungs for things to work correctly. If the air is too cold and you inhale quickly, the air will reach your lungs before being sufficiently warmed. Cold air in the lungs will trigger spasms, similar to asthma.",
"It doesn't happen to everyone, but I get it.\n\nLast explanation I heard is that the cold air is too dry for your lungs. Humidifier or a quick shower may help, but you can't do much for outdoor air."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
25jt07 | what is "genderqueer" | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25jt07/eli5what_is_genderqueer/ | {
"a_id": [
"chhumkc",
"chhwgme",
"chhx04c",
"chhxfje",
"chhyped",
"chhyrn3",
"chhz7fz",
"chhz9bh",
"chhzews",
"chi22j8",
"chi2q15",
"chi40cr",
"chi49gl",
"chi4osr",
"chi79sq",
"chi7awd",
"chi7g30",
"chi988q",
"chi9qu4",
"chidlsp",
"chjfdu8"
],
"score": [
22,
11,
330,
3,
3,
33,
6,
13,
8,
4,
6,
6,
7,
9,
5,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Genderqueer is a catch all people who do not identify solely with their birth ~~gender~~ sex.",
"First, it's important to know that gender is not determined by anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal features. Gender is a social construct that sorts people into groups (usually male and female) according to their biological features (sex), and assigns them certain social roles and traits (gender) according to those groups. Some people identify with the sex/gender they are given when they are born (these people are called cisgender), and some do not (some of these people are transgender, some are genderqueer, and some prefer other labels). What this means is that a person with a penis and testicles is not necessarily male, and a person with a vulva, uterus, and ovaries is not necessarily female. Intersex people (i.e. people born with anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal features that aren't what we would typically call male or female, or are ambiguous) are not necessarily genderqueer. Some may identify that way, but many do not, and identify as either male or female.\n\nWith this in mind, genderqueer has two commonly accepted meanings:\n\n* A gender identity that isn't exactly male or female, but could be somewhere in between/a mix of both, or neither male nor female. This will mean a slightly different thing for each person who identifies as genderqueer, and only the individual can tell you exactly what it means for them. For myself, it means shifting between masculine (but not exactly male), feminine (but not exactly female), and non-gendered/neutral identities (this can also be called gender-fluid). \n\n* An umbrella term used to refer to anyone who doesn't identify as exactly male or female. There's a lot of debate over whether it's a good idea to use it as an umbrella term in this way, because there are a lot of people who identify as something other than strictly male or female but who don't consider themselves genderqueer. For example, some cultures have more than two genders, but the other genders are not necessarily considered genderqueer identities.\n\nMore info [here](_URL_1_) and specifically [here](_URL_0_).",
"In brief genderqueer is someone who does not ascribe to a binary gender.\nSex being the anatomical sex you are born with gender is the way society expects you to be as a member of that sex. The way men and women are expected to behave based on the fact of them being men or women. Such as men don't shave their legs but women do (simplified example).\nThese two genders are are called the gender binary.\nGenderqueer people feel they do not fit into this binary and do not want to be one or the other gender.\nSo you could be perfectly happy being in the male sex but not the male gender or any other variation. Hope that explains it.\nSource: I'm genderqueer.\n\nEdit: This kind of exploded when I went away from the computer, sorry for derailing it with an overly simplistic answer, thanks to everyone who gave fantastic answers in my absence :)",
"It's a para-scientific word to describe people who think they might be a different sex than they actually are. ",
"I had a coworker who was at first glance (and several following glances) a totally normal, long haired, bearded hetero. One day after work he ha put on lipstick and mascara, as well as sparkly gold shoes. I asked if he had some drag party he was going to. He said no.\n\nSo I guess, that guy is genderqueer.",
"A new word for the old word: [Androgynous](_URL_0_), but with a slightly more specific definition as to how it applies to self-identified sexuality.",
"ELI41...I have never heard of this word and learned something interesting today",
"As I imagine it, gender queer is a great term for those that don't care to identify as either. Whereas Trans people identify specifically as one, just not the gender they were born into it. \nIt doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation, although, I imagine you'd have to consider yourself as pansexual to be attracted to someone who identifies as gender queer.",
"Ok, I'll preface this by saying- genderqueer is a term initially meant to be empathically descriptive and respectful, but has been co-opted by all manner of armchair SJWs for all manner of malicious or discriminatory purposes. As a result, you'll have a lot of hostile response to this both by those who've been targeted by such audiences, and those who don't believe in thoughtful/person centered language and prefer hard empirical and/or group centered language. It's also specifically regarding gender as a psychological label/social construct and not as describing physical parts, as one would in anatomy and harder sciences.\n\n\nIt helps to grasp this if you think of both sexuality and gender (**IN PSYCHOLOGY and not physical anatomy**) as separate but related attributes, sort of like each one is an axis on a graph. Sexuality predominantly deals with which groups a person is attracted to. Gender has more to do with how someone individually feels and identifies as male and/or female relative to the society they're in- modern psychology treats this more as a gradient (or an axis on the graph) that leans toward one or the other, INSTEAD of just describing it as 'male' and 'female'.\n\nHere's why this approach is the popular one: the things that qualify as 'male' and 'female' personality traits, if we were to try and empirically categorize them, would be based on society's subjective opinions (sociology) so instead it's become a popular notion to treat gender as something purely personal and to cease trying to predict it to the most precise detail empirically. We rely on others to tell us how they feel about their gender, how they identify it, something admittedly subjective, because even if it is totally opinion, it's still a more 'worthy' or 'reliable' source of data than asking society at large (still subjective, cultural barriers, a major anthropological thing)- it's an ethical matter, personal identity priority versus that defined by larger society.\n\n If a person feels like they've always been male or female, or lean enough toward one end of that gender gradient, they identify with that gender. While sexuality is fundamentally different, sexuality can also influence someone's gender perception too. \n\nSo if someone doesn't feel that they lean enough toward one gender to truly feel comfortable calling themselves one or the two, genderqueer is a word to describe that. Transgender being a wider label for someone who's gender identity is opposite than it used to be, and/or has physically changed sex (again- not necessarily the same thing, but definitely related), genderqueer seems more specifically to deal with not really being comfortable having a preference. Since it's not so empirical a word, lots of other similar words have become the norm to describe both gender and sexuality. Genderfluid, for example, is meant to describe someone who feels like they identify more as one gender one day than another, as opposed to the kind of consistency genderqueer implies.\n\n*So short, summarized version: try to see gender and sexuality as describing fundamentally different ideas that are related to each other, and both as having their own gradient (scale) instead of just being 'male' or 'female'. Because we all sorta get 'gender' as a psychological idea, but can't so reliably empirically categorize it at all times, the best path tends to be trusting the person identifying honestly as the gender they feel. 'Genderqueer' is rising social/person centered word to describe one self if they're not comfortable using the words 'male' or 'female' alone to describe themselves.*",
"For those that are asking about non-binary genders, take a look at the Samoans with their [Fa'afafines](_URL_1_) and the Albanian [sworn virgins.](_URL_0_) Maybe the most famous example is that of Eunuchs in ancient Mesopotamia. By getting castrated, they were allowed to act in a different cultural space than either men or women. \n\nThere's also a fascinating history of spirituality connected with androgyny and the transcendance of traditional gender roles. ",
"it seems to me were mixing some semantics in our descriptors... should it be :\n\nmale/female = biological \n\nman/woman (masculine /feminine) = societal/gender identity \n\nheterosexual /homosexual = sexual preferences \n\nexample: i am male (penis) /gender queer(eschewing traditional gender roles) /heterosexual (prefer females sexualy) \n\nis this correct? ",
"Hello I am a genderqueer individual! It is an identity that falls under the transgender umbrella although some individuals may not feel they are transgender if they have no plans to transition at all, socially or physically. Genderqueer, like genderfluid, is a non-binary gender identity. It means we don't like to fit into the sex and gender boxes assigned to \"male\" and \"female\" people. There are also agender people and bigender people, either feel they have no gender (think like Gods and Spirits) or vary within the gender binaries (today a boy, tomorrow a girl) respectively. \n\nI think of myself as genderqueer because I do not fit into the gender boxes of male or female, boy or girl. I'm not really either. Personally I want to look more like a man (I will be starting hormones soon), but often relate to womanhood as I grew up surrounded by sexism and have fought with internalized misogyny my whole life (hatred of women and femininity, within myself and the gender I identified with at the time). \n\nIt's just a different identity than the more common \"boy or girl\" identities you usually see in everyday life. Everyone has an identity regarding their gender, most people don't really question it. \n\nIf gender roles and expectations did not exist and there was just the sex spectrum then I probably wouldn't want to transition. But I get constantly misgendered, people look at me differently based on how I look (masculine vs feminine) and I just don't feel comfortable when people see me as only a girl. \n\nWhen I say sex spectrum yes I mean sex, there's not a true binary even in sex of humans. Secondary sex characteristics, (hair, voice pitch, muscle mass), genitals and chromosomes do not come in a binary. There are hairy people with vaginas and people with penises with large butts and people who have genitals that aren't really a vagina or penis and people with chromosomes other than xx or xy. \n\nYou can also always poke around the comments in the genderqueer subreddit to! People ask over there all the time. ",
"There are some good answers here already, but it is helpful to understand some of these terms in a slightly larger context. A useful way to think of it is that gender/sex is really a combination of 4 distinct but interrelated ideas: \n\n1. **Biological Sex**: The equipment under the hood, chromosomes, genitals, other secondary sexual features. Not a binary, but a continuum from male to \"intersex\" to female.\n\n2. **Gender identity**: Who you think you are, how you view yourself. A continuum from man to genderqueer to woman. This typically coincides with biological sex, but does not have to. A transgender man, for example, might be biologically female but identifies as a man in how they view themselves.\n\n3. **Gender expression**: How you *demonstrate* who you are, they way you dress, behave, etc. A continuum from masculine to androgynous to feminine. This is independent of sexual orientation, despite the stereotypes. An effeminate man might or might not be gay, a gay man might or might not be effeminate.\n\n4. **Sexual orientation**: Who are you attracted to? A continuum from heterosexual to bisexual to homosexual.\n\n(From [The Genderbread person](_URL_1_). In fact, even calling these things a continuum isn't quite right, see [The Genderbread Person 2.0](_URL_0_)).\n\nEach scale is not merely a simple binary yes/no. Each of these scales is also *independent* of the others.\n\nSo to answer your question in the above context, someone who describes themselves as \"genderqueer\" has a \"non-binary\" view of their own gender identity: they could view themselves as *neither* man nor woman, or perhaps *both*, or somewhere in between, or perhaps it changes over time or depending on the situation (*gender fluid* is sometime used as a synonym). \n\nAgain, that self-identification may have *nothing at all* to do with their biological sex, or their gender expression, or who they are attracted to.\n",
"The rules for this subreddit say \"Only give explanations from an brutally *unbiased standpoint.* Full stop. If you cannot avoid editorializing, soapboxing, debating, flaming, or arguing, do not post.\" (my emphasis) The problem with trying to answer this question while following these rules is that the word \"gender\" as it's used in this context is inherently subjective. It only refers to personal experience, so how can one be unbiased?\n\nThat said, here's my attempt to describe the phenomenon, and please correct me if I'm off-base: \"trans\" and \"genderqueer\" are modern Western concepts used by people who are experiencing intense dissonance between their own natural inclinations / desires / abilities (sexual and otherwise) on the one hand, and the expectations that parents and others have of them because of their sex. Choosing to identify yourself as \"trans\" is one rather radical and risky way of bucking those expectations, attempting to adopt instead those of the opposite sex. \"Genderqueer,\" then, would be something you'd choose to identify yourself as if you feel you must reject the expectations that accompany both sexes in your society. The problem with these terms are that most people in society don't accept them, or even know them. So at this point, it's only a successful strategy within that segment of the population who's open to it. Whether that is going to change, only time will tell.\n\nSide note: a common assertion from the genderqueer and trans people that I know is that if we had more than two gender identities available (e.g. Thai \"ladyboys\"), then overt rebellion from these norms, i.e. being \"crazy\" (as many of the commenters have stated or implied genderqueer people are) wouldn't be necessary, because there would be ways of being that work both for the individual and the society. It could be argued that \"gay man\" and \"lesbian\" are becoming a third and fourth \"gender\" in Western society currently, with their own sets of expectations for behavior.\n\nTLDR People who identify as \"genderqueer\" pretty much don't quite seem like dudes but don't quite seem like chicks either, so they're trying to find a third way.",
"Someone who doesn't self-identify as exclusively a male or a female. Since gender is an identity thing, they are outside the gender binary and face discrimination for it. Non-binary means the same thing. For some people gender roles can be a part of it but some fit gender roles.",
"I feel like we've been creating so many new words lately purely for semantics. What's the need to categorize everything? Why not just do whatever you want?",
"\"gender\" and \"sex\" are manmade concepts that don't work for every individual on the planet, so some people call themselves \"genderqueer\" to show that they are a part of that minority.",
"You might get a better answer over at /r/askGSM ",
"Jumping in to talk about some of the (ELI5 version) neuroscience here because a whole lot of people seem to think that it's a choice. Not exactly related to genderqueer folks, but it can be extrapolated to them. also female/male = sex, not gender.\n\nYou know how you can go to the hospital and get into a fMRI and get an image of your brain activity? There have been loads of studies testing males with dicks vs females with vaginas and have consistently shown differences in a variety of areas during a variety of tasks. Note that this doesn't mean that one sex is any \"better\" than the other - it just means there are some pretty basic, fundamental differences between them.\n\nRecently there has been an upsurge of studies testing males with dicks vs males with vaginas vs females with dicks vs females with vaginas at all stages of hormone therapy with some pretty interesting results. Even before getting on HT transmen and cismen are way more similar in regards to patterns of activation than transmen and ciswomen. and vice versa.\n\nPretty fascinating stuff imo. you can just search \"transgender\" and \"fMRI\" or \"PET\" on pubmed and get a shitload of articles",
"It's about talking about ideas that are important for people to be talking about if we want social progress. Of course the language and everything surrounding it isnt perfect but thats not the point. The point is to get these ideas into peoples heads, to have them realize that literally everyone is unique and we need to recognize and respect everyones view of their personal self. ",
"it's just some tumblr social justice bullshit, the point is if you are born into the gender you identify yourself as, you are a sexist cis asshole, but if you identify yourself as the opposite gender from the one you were born as, you are still a dirty rapist sexist scumbag cis-wannabe \n \nif you identify yourself as something else than male or female, you're genderqueer which means you are okay and not an oppressor"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://genderqueerid.com/what-is-gq",
"http://genderqueerid.com/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/03/the-genderbread-person-v2-0/",
"http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2e8acl | is there an appreciable difference in the water quality of the h2o pouring out of different appliances in my house/apartment? | Assuming that I live in a relatively normal, relatively clean structure in a major metro area, is there a difference in the water being pumped out of my kitchen sink, bathroom sink, showerhead, toilet, etc?
Is there multiple sources of water coming into my dewlling, or just one source? Is that water then filtered at different levels throughout the house, or is the water flowing into my toilet the same quality as the water coming out of my kitchen faucet?
TL;DR My old roommate used to brush his teeth in the shower. Was he gross or efficient? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2e8acl/eli5_is_there_an_appreciable_difference_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjx03ff",
"cjx094f"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"it's all the same. ",
"There's a little bit of dependency on the condition and usage levels of your pipes, but usually it's pretty much the same quality unless you're passing it through a filter. If you have a rarely used bathroom that a guest takes a drink of water in, they might see some more grit and rust, but bad things usually don't grow in water pipes and they should be cool if they run the water a bit before drinking.\n\nThat being said, still suggest you don't drink from toilets though.\n\nAnd your friend might have been being a little gross. Plastic shower heads grow lots of greebles inside them because they're quite often damp for long periods and have lots of holes with little air flow, making them very unsanitary (stainless steel is a lot cleaner). So your roomie was likely getting a little extra bacteria and stuff in his Crest (not to mention spraying his mouth-bacteria all over your shared shower... ew). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
9unik5 | why are vets so quick to euthanize race horses over what the general public would perceive as a minor "injury"? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9unik5/eli5_why_are_vets_so_quick_to_euthanize_race/ | {
"a_id": [
"e95itjl",
"e95itt1",
"e95ivcq",
"e95iw21",
"e95ixqh",
"e95kgfb",
"e95kl02",
"e95mp02",
"e95n4nl",
"e95niil",
"e95ob7o",
"e95p5if",
"e95pbh2",
"e95pg6e",
"e95pt6b",
"e95pywc",
"e95qgwe",
"e95r91p",
"e95rn5k",
"e95t1p2",
"e95t9jk",
"e95u1ex",
"e95ub4x",
"e95uzj4"
],
"score": [
79,
662,
209,
1040,
21,
89,
4,
10,
7,
3,
42,
9,
3,
8,
16,
7,
6,
2,
8,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Horses don't deal with fractures or breaks well at all.\n\nTheir bones tend to shatter far more than ours do. More slivers means more difficult healing. The bones also deform before breaking, making it even harder to heal properly.\n\nBreaks also mean that leg is out of commission for at least the length of the healing. Trying to use only 3 to support its weight leads to a lot of inflammation and pain for the horse that keeps building. And lying down for long periods is also painful for them too.",
"Horses are not animals that deal with skeletal fractures well. If a horse can not stand up and walk around, then said horse will generally not survive long.\n\nHorses weigh a lot, and laying down for long periods can cause issues with blood flow and nerve damage to the parts that are on the ground, simply due to the pressure their weight puts on their body.",
"For horses it's not a minor injury. They put extreme amounts of stress on their legs and shoulders. If it is a stress fracture or simple fracture, then it can heal slowly and normally be okay. If it if a split fracture or compound fracture it normally comes with a ton of other complications and can't heal correctly. Vets know this and rather than putting the horse through a lot of pain, they put them down to ease their suffering.\n\nSome people will keep the horse alive if it a champion line and sell the sperm. ",
"For a horse to recover from a broken bone you basically have to immobilise the horse for a couple of months for it to heal.\n\nHorses do not like being restrained at the best of times so when they're injured and in pain they can reinjure themselves very easily.\n\nIt's often just in the animals interest to end its suffering. ",
"Your average horse weighs roughly 500 kg, which is so heavy that if they lie down for more than a few hours they can damage their lungs and their muscles on their down side become crushed, which releases a pigment that damages their kidneys. With an animal his big, a leg amputation really isn't an option the way it would be in a cat or dog. To heal a fracture, you need to splint the broken bone, however the shoulder cant be splinted in animals because of its shape and location. You could potentially work around that by making sure the animal was confined and didn't put weight on the affected limb while it heals (generally takes ~3months), except that a horse can't stand on 3 legs and it can't lie down for long periods of time, so that's not really feasible either. There's really not many other options when it comes to shoulder fractures I'm afraid",
"The main issue is that horses can't simply stay off their broken bone while it heals up. A horse's body is huge, thick, and dense. It's only really built for standing position long-term. If they spend any real amount of time laying down or on their side, the more elevated half of their body slowly crushes the organs and tissues in the less elevated side, while their blood starts pooling in certain places and not flowing to others. This is especially a problem with their lungs, which get crushed and constrained by weight and pooled blood and can't expand properly. They also suffer nerve damage, joint damage as they try to stand again, and all sorts of other issues. \n\nThis is why a foal/baby horse tends to sleep lying down a lot, when they're small and light with thinner less muscular bodies, but as they grow up they sleep lying down less and less and start going into a restful state while standing more often instead.\n\nA horse *needs* to be in a standing position most of the time. All of those things happening causes tremendous physical pain and the horse will try desperately to resume standing. If it *can't* stand, because it can't put enough weight on a leg, because a cast or other device on one leg prevents it from going through the range of motion necessary to lift itself up, etc, the horse becomes extremely distressed. Horses are prone to panic and it's very upsetting to see how terrified and distressed a horse can become in this kind of situation. Remember that horses are skittish at the best of times and their instinct is always to run from danger; if the horse not only can't run but can't stand to turn around and keep an eye out, it feels incredibly vulnerable and scared.\n\nIf the horse is injured in a way that makes it unable to bear its own weight while standing, or have a decent range of motion, and it's going to take a while for that injury to heal, there's typically not much you can do. Sometimes it's just impossible for the horse to live through the healing process and sometimes it's possible but likely to involve months and months of intense distress and pain. For your dog three months in a cast is a weird inconvenience it quickly adapts to, for your horse it's a harrowing nightmare that likely results in its painful and suffocating death.",
"dumb question on this topic folks... cant the horse go into a frame and harness sort of arrangement?\n\n\ni know nothing about horses.....",
"All the above regarding complications of skeletal fractures. Plus relevant to this particular case a horse’s shoulder itself isn’t actually attached to the rest of the skeleton- it’s slung in place with muscle and ligament. I imagine this further complicates any effort to stabilize a fracture. ",
"I am going to add a very unsettling thing to the others saying that it is not a minor injury for a horse.\n\nIt is not always possible to get the full insurance payout if the horse is not euthanized. ",
"This seems counter to evolutionary forces. Is the some aspect of this because of the way humans have bred them? Like thinner bones make for a faster racehorse?",
"Hello, I’m a vet student. If a horse suffers a fracture (break) of any part of any leg, unfortunately it’s basically game over. This horse’s fractured “shoulder” (exactly which bone they’re referring to is unclear) conjures images of a human shoulder - if fractured, this is certainly survivable. The issue is horse anatomy: for a horse, the shoulder is a weighbearing joint, crudely analogous to the human hip. Horses simply must have all four legs working. They can’t rest a broken leg to allow it to heal, they’re bloody heavy and they don’t listen to medical advice. It’s a real shame but it is ultimately a quality of life issue and despite what people may think, veterinary professionals always act in the interest of the animal’s welfare. Sometimes euthanasia is the most appropriate treatment.",
"You have to remember Humans are very different than most animals. We deal with injury and shock very well. As long as we dont have a major organ get damaged we are pretty good at healing. A horse have been know to die from the shock of breaking a limb. ",
"Horses have lighter bone mass and, when a break occurs, the bone shatters, making it difficult to repair. Even if the bone does mend, there is a risk the bone will be deformed and will be unable to bear weight – and the horse is likely to suffer severe pain. ",
"A dog can do fine with three legs, but a horse can not. If a horse has to take weight off one leg, the other legs end up sustaining stress-related injuries as the body tries to compensate. This ends up with a spiraling set of complications that almost always results in an immobile horse, if not a dead one.\n\nEfforts to immobilize or restrain the horse for more than a few minutes usually results in the horse trying to get up or move on its own, which can cause the horse to worsen the existing injury or create new injuries.",
"The public generally doesn't understand large animals, and thinks of injuries in human terms. For a human, a broken shoulder is relatively minor. For a horse, it removes about 30% of the horse's ability to bear weight. \n\nSince the horse's legs and hooves play a vital role in their circulatory system, that level of imbalance can cause major issues with blouse in their feet, and can cause laminatis, which is extremely serious and causes the tissue around the hoof bone to swell and disconnect from the hoof wall. This is excruciatingly painful for the horse and in serious cases euthanasia is the kinder choice. In addition to laminitis, keeping horses immobile can cause complications with their gut functions, and these can also be incredibly painful and fatal. \n\nEven if a fracture like this heals, it often causes balance and weight bearing problems for life, mmaking laminitis and other future complications more likely. \n\nFinally, the idea of there being places for infirm horses to go is kind of a myth. Horses can live four thirty years, and a horse like this, even if healed, would cost as much or more to care for and keep healthy than an uninjured one. There are exceedingly few homes that can afford to care for horses that can't be ridden. I've worked for years at a non profit dedicated to finding homes for ex racehorses, and the homes are just not there unless the horse is useful/comfortable and \"sound\". Keep in mind there are way more horses out there than you might think, thoroughbred racehorses are a distinct minority. Other breeds make up the majority of horses in this country and all of them are fighting to find good homes too. As it stands now tens of thousands are shipped to Mexico and Canada for slaughter each year. There's just not enough homes. \n\nSo it's not only the kind thing to do for the horse, there's also a real logistical and economic issue here. Horses do not understand \"i may feel better in a year\", they only understand how they feel right at that moment. If this was my horse, even though I love him very much and raised him from a baby, I would absolutely euthanize him, as the attempt to fix him would be unfair and unkind to him (especially since he's used to living outside and hates being in a barn - he'd likely injure himself further and be extremely stressed out if we had to confine or immobilize him). ",
"In addition to what has been said here, I'd like to address the wording of the question. Nobody is quick to do it. 'Animal rights' protestors like to think race horse owners do it without hesitation but the truth is them and their jockeys are usually devastated ",
"Horses have heavy bodies and light leg bones. Humans have muscles and a bit of tissue below the knee that helps stabilize a broken bone while a horse has no muscle or any other tissue besides tendons and ligaments below the knee.\n\nAlso compared to dogs or other animals, horses cannot stand on three legs, their leg cannot be amputated, they also tend to stand all the time, they barely lay down. This makes chances of re-injury very high which is very stressful and painful for them. \n\n",
"The injury *is* that far gone for a horse. It’s not like a dog that’s less than 100lbs having the same injury, it’s several times heavier and can’t get up without the use of all four legs. \n\nLiterally a death sentence without months of constant care. ",
"I had a horse when I was younger. He had a tendon strain across the frog of his hoof (the human equivalent would be straining a tendon across the arch of your foot I guess). Two vets suggested putting him down for this. \n\nI didn’t want to do that, for obvious reasons (I was 15 at the time) and luckily we had insurance. He had an MRI, electromagnetic therapy, daily pain medication, and was on stall rest for 30 days. After this it was 1 minute of walking a day, increasing by one minute every week. For the first couple weeks, we had to give him a tranquilizer for the walks because he was so fired up. \n\nHe’s all good now, living out the rest of his days on a hobby farm. He’ll never be an exceptional athlete, but he’s alive! \n\nThe point I’m trying to make, is that given the amount of effort that went into saving a horses life due to a minor injury, you can imagine how torturous it would be for a more severe injury. On a daily basis I wondered if it would have been more compassionate to put him down. He absolutely hated being on stall rest and was clearly distressed. He’s part draft horse, so the drive to work is strong! So, as hard as it is to see and as cruel as it may seem, in any sort of catastrophic injury I really do believe it’s the most humane thing to do. ",
"Horses live on their legs. They even sleep standing up most of the time. They're not like dogs, in that they weigh too much to consistently use only three legs to hold their weight for long periods of time. \n\nTo heal a broken bone in a horse, you have to keep them restrained in what is essentially a very large hammock. Most horses fight that. And you can't sedate them for six to twelve weeks while they heal. \n\nIf a horse injures a bone that is required for weight support, it's usually best to put them down. Especially a race horse (thoroughbred specifically), as they tend to be hot blooded and short tempered, and most absolutely will NOT tolerate being restrained without further injuring themselves. ",
"Long time nationally competitive equestrian here-horses are so fragile. I am a hunterjumper (but I only compete in jumping). Our farm at the time had a mare that was kicked in the shoulder, fracturing it pretty bad. This was a $200k horse so the trainer and owner tried to rehab her. She had to be immobilized, stuck in a stall for months on months. The poor girl was so miserable. I was so sad for her.\n\nShe didn’t recover very well. I believe they just retired her because she was still lame. It’s tricky when it comes to horses. They are pretty much made out of thin glass. \n",
"To add to most other top level comments, one of the few ways horses can survive fractures is to be suspended in [what amounts to a horse-sized kiddie pool](_URL_0_).\n\nThis allows them to be in a \"standing\" position, but this method is expensive and still isn't that great on the horse. ",
"While everything others have said about the physiology of horses is correct, it is simply a cost/benefit analysis. Horse racing is a business. Big business. The business model is to breed a lot of babies, get them to the racetrack as young as possible as you have less invested in them at that point and discard the ones that are too slow or break down. This horse will never race again. So from this point on, it can no longer bring in income, only incur expenses. If it were a stallion and had big enough wins to make it lucrative as a sire, they would have tried to save him as Barbaro's owners did. Theoretically, he could be adopted, except there is a glut of ex-racehorses, actually a glut of horses of all breeds. In 2007, the slaughtering of horses for meat was banned in the US. Since that time, the number of OTTBs (Off The Track Thoroughbreds) looking for post-racetrack homes has exploded. Most people want to adopt a horse that is sane and sound. The cost of keeping a horse through a rehab is prohibitive for most owners. Unfortunately, OTTBs are started racing as two-year-olds, while most other horses have not even had a rider on their back until they are four, and are not pushed hard physically until they are six or older. Even if an OTTB appears sound at the time they are retired, most have leg \"jewelry\" or not-so-obvious long term damage to either soft or hard tissue that will limit their useable lives as riding horses. Then there is the psychological damage of putting a baby animal under the extreme stress and unnatural surroundings of a race track -- both in the barns and on the track. While most people feel that race horses are living a luxurious live, most come out with some stereotypy behavior such as wind sucking, weaving, pawing, stall walking -- much like other animals in cages. Eighty percent have ulcers. Since even the best OTTB is \"broken\" in some sense of the word, one that is truly broken has no chance of finding a home.\n\ntl/dr: It's just business.",
"What the horse was doing right before the break makes a big difference on IF they can recover. \n\n A horse that steps wrong as it's walking along will likely have a simple break or fracture. Much more likely to be fixable.\n\nRace horses going at full speed put tremendous forces on their legs. And when a leg breaks, especially a foreleg, the bone shatters into many pieces and is ground down. The muscles, tendons, blood supply are pretty much pulverized. There's very little left to put back together. It's pretty horrifying and it makes sense that the most humane thing to do at that point is euthanasia. \n\nBarbaro was one of the few horses that was able to survive a break on the race track. That's because it happened to a back leg, insmall bones in his pastern (long bone breaks tend to be more devastating), it happened right after he broke from the gate (hadn't gotten up to full speed) and his jockey immediately realized it and was able to pull him up before he took too many more steps. \n\nEven so, it was a very difficult attempt at fixing him and it ultimately failed (he developed laminititis - painful inflammation of the hoof capsule on his other leg, which often results in losing that hoof. Not being able to use either leg is unsustainable). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://two-views.com/images/celeb-barbaro-pool.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
bdg0uw | why can we "hear" some silent videos/gifs? | I've often had a "sound" going on in my head triggered by the motion in a silent video, be it a mechanical marshmallow making machine or one of those animated gifs of a pylon jumping, where a distinct "thud" can be experienced. What causes this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bdg0uw/eli5_why_can_we_hear_some_silent_videosgifs/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekxunkf",
"ekyfqpy"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Your brain basically is filling in many gabs like blinking and moving your eyes on its own. It trys to make sense where no sense is found and so it fills in sounds where a sound should be even though there is no sound.",
"So hearing and vision are super interesting things. Your brain uses a lot of information and memory to try and predict ahead of time what it *thinks* you're gonna see and hear. It'll often use that prediction to fill in details instead of the actual information. This is because it takes less energy, and your brain is always looking to be more energy efficient.\n\nThe more you expect something to be there, the stronger this effect is. So if you see a gif of someone banging a drum, for example, you've got a strong expectation of a specific sound, so you're highly likely to actually hear a drum, even though your ears aren't telling your brain there's something going on. If you see a gif of a giraffe moving it's mouth, most people wouldn't know what a giraffe cry sounds like, so they wouldn't be as likely to hear something."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
194v5b | why is it so hard to force myself to take a shower even though i know that once i'm in i don't want to get out? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/194v5b/eli5_why_is_it_so_hard_to_force_myself_to_take_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8kty06",
"c8ktz59",
"c8ku2n4",
"c8kueii",
"c8kv873",
"c8kwm9z",
"c8l0vwf"
],
"score": [
34,
3,
2,
22,
11,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The most difficult part of performing a task is starting it, it's like overcoming the initial inertia or static friction.",
"I think of it as a problem with change and transitions. Once you're doing something, you don't want to switch to doing something else. ",
"I will take my hug if you take your shower. ",
"because your all warm and snuggaly in your clothes/bed, and you will need to get all cold and horrible to get in the shower.... then you're all warm and relaxed and clean in the shower, but have to get all cold and goose pimply and wet and horible when you get out. :( ",
"You treat the current you, as, well, you while you treat the future you as somebody else entirely. \"That guy\" is gonna deal with it. But not you. You're not that guy yet. Since you're comfortable where you are now, you don't have much of a reason to be that guy. ",
"For me it's because of post shower time investment. I have thick heavy hair and I know I have to set aside a block of time post shower to deal with it. I'm a woman, society expects me to do something with my hair, yet doesn't allot me an extra hour a day to accomplish what they expect. \nI lost my thought in bitterness. Damn. ",
"Pro Tip: If you don't want to get out because you'll be cold just dry off in the shower. It helps, a lot."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7cu8bk | why do grey hairs appear to be very thick and strong, aren't they dying? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7cu8bk/eli5_why_do_grey_hairs_appear_to_be_very_thick/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpspgk5",
"dpsq3q1",
"dpsxoa4"
],
"score": [
14,
39,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't know why they sometimes appear thicker, but they are not dying. I mean, no hair is alive but the cells that produce them may still be going strong even if the pigment production is turned off.",
"No they are not dying. Grey hairs have simply changed pigment and are just as alive as any other hair on your head. ",
"This is not a thing scientists agree on. Some say it's because the cells that produce the hair strain are damaged therefore the pore that it comes out from is misshaped. Others say that together with greying, the cells don't produce as much oil as they should, making the strain coarser and more breakable. And some recent researchers are noticing that the grey and white hair strains have Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2), which is a byproduct of metabolism byproduct, making the hair bleach itself. The research on that is recent and focused on other effects of H2O2 on you. In fact that might also be the reason people have vitiligo."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7os3s9 | where does water go when we drink it, how does our body seperate water from other food\drinks, and how does it reach our bladder? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7os3s9/eli5_where_does_water_go_when_we_drink_it_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsbsvbu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It leaves your intestines through their permeable lining, which permits water but not large solids through.\n\nIt leaves your blood through another membrane in your kidneys, which turn this water (and various waste products that also get through) into urine.\n\nAhoy, fellow redditor. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: How does my stomach separate liquids I drank from my stomach acid? ](_URL_4_) ^(_5 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How urine is separated from blood in the body. ](_URL_3_) ^(_57 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How does the human body separate solid from liquid in the stomach? ](_URL_5_) ^(_3 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How does the body separate fluids from solids when processing food/sustenance? ](_URL_1_) ^(_5 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: When you've eaten food and drunk fluids,how does your body separate solids into your bowel and liquid into your bladder? ](_URL_0_) ^(_11 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How does my body differentiate between food and drink? ](_URL_2_) ^(_5 comments_)\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58encd/eli5_when_youve_eaten_food_and_drunk_fluidshow/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66rzxb/eli5_how_does_the_body_separate_fluids_from/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cvfwu/eli5_how_does_my_body_differentiate_between_food/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39s1tg/eli5_how_urine_is_separated_from_blood_in_the_body/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1eix2l/eli5_how_does_my_stomach_separate_liquids_i_drank/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4j9e9i/eli5_how_does_the_human_body_separate_solid_from/"
]
] |
||
7cpen9 | why did the boats used by american’s on d-day have a front hatch? why didn’t they use side/ back hatches and use the front as cover, instead of running head first into machine gun fire? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7cpen9/eli5_why_did_the_boats_used_by_americans_on_dday/ | {
"a_id": [
"dprmsfm",
"dprpk3q",
"dpsa662"
],
"score": [
11,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Doors on the front let you unload into shallower water, ideally straight onto the beach. Remember these guys were carrying a lot of weight, if they got into water over their head they were going to drown, there was no way to swim and many soldiers did drown after going over the sides or leaving boats that couldn't get close enough\n\nUnloading from the rear is no good, you don't want people getting into the propeller as that might damage the boat and block a section of the beach\n\nIf you're landing thousands of soldiers on a beach you're going to have heavy casualties. The best way to reduce them is to end the battle quickly, the best way to do that is getting as many men on the beach as fast as possible. That means quick egress and the safety of the boats are paramount even if it results in higher starting casualties",
"To add to the above they also had vehicles as well. Hard to drive those out the side and up the beach. Far better to dr8ve straight out.",
"To add to the other answers, with how many boats were landing next to each other, it was likely quite impractical to have people run out the sides or the back. They had to get on the beach, do it quickly, and do it in large numbers, and unfortunately there was no better option to do it.\n\nFellow CoD WW2 player, I presume?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4sd4f9 | what would happen if the president-elect died or became incapacitated or stepped down before inauguration day? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4sd4f9/eli5_what_would_happen_if_the_presidentelect_died/ | {
"a_id": [
"d58cr4g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The incumbent president's term ends at noon on Inaguration Day (typically Jan. 20th, although Congress can move it a little bit for convenience). At that time, if the president-elect is not available to serve, the normal succession rules apply, and the job would devolve into the Vice President. Note that the VP is inaugurated first, so it would be the newly-elected VP.\n\nIf neither the president-elect nor VP-elect are available to serve, the job continues along the line of succession. Next up would be Speaker of the House and, then, President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The incoming House and Senate are sworn in on Jan. 3rd, and the election of officers is done the same day (within the first several minutes IIRC), so there should be people in those offices to take over.\n\nIf not, then the next several steps in succession are Cabinet officers, starting with Secretary of State. Executive officers continue in their offices until they retire or are relieved by the president, so most or all of the outgoing secretaries would still be in office until after the inauguration of the new president. As such, they'd be available to take the presidency, even though they would be political allies of the outgoing president, who could be of a different party than the new one.\n\nIf you can get through the VP, House and Senate officers, and over a dozen Cabinet officers without finding anyone able to serve, you've got bigger problems."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
dkdwem | how can some medicine (for example tilidin) give me nightmares as side effects? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dkdwem/eli5_how_can_some_medicine_for_example_tilidin/ | {
"a_id": [
"f4dljpw",
"f4dqp1m",
"f4e23u8"
],
"score": [
5,
23,
9
],
"text": [
"Just like LSD causes people to see and hear things that aren't happening in the real world, some chemicals can affect your brain in a way that scrambles the process that creates dreams.",
"Let's use the analogy of food. Pizza (drug) for instance would solve your desire to satisfy your hunger (condition). You eat the pizza and feel full (desired effect). You eat pizza for a few days and notice that you have upset stomach from too much acid building up (side effect) but you still feel full (desired effect). To make more sense, another analogy, So sometimes meds can affect the regions of the brain that are part of the highway of neurons (brain cells) to give the intended effect, but, that highway down the road has an exit for dreams too.\n\nHope 5 year olds know what highways and acid are haha",
"While you may think sleeping is like charging your phone, it's actually more like restarting your phone. Your brain has a lot of work to do while you're asleep, and whatever affects you awake affects it in sleep. Chronic alcoholics suffer from sleep deprivation because even if they spend half of their lives passed out, they spend very little time sober enough for their brains to work a sleep cycle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4p3e5v | what happens to blood glucose levels when a diabetic on metformin consumes sugar? | Say a metformin-taking diabetic eats ice cream for dinner, what would their blood sugar levels look like two hours later? How would that be different from a non-diabetic's BG after eating ice cream for dinner?
What's the difference in how their bodies process the excess glucose? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4p3e5v/eli5_what_happens_to_blood_glucose_levels_when_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4hqe33"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It would go up just like it would when you consume any food item, all be it slightly higher as it has more easily accessed glucose. This part is no different than how a non-diabetic responds. \n\nIf their medication is properly balanced they should have no major issue processing the sugar from the meal. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6cpbx2 | when to use past vs. passed. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6cpbx2/eli5_when_to_use_past_vs_passed/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhwc65n",
"dhwc9ef"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"Past when you are talking about time. Passed when you are talking about objective or distance.\n\ne.g. \"It is *past* my bedtime!\"\n\ne.g. \"I *passed* the test!\"\n\ne.g. \"You just *passed* the exit.\"",
"Past is a noun referring to a time previous to this time. Passed is a verb telling us that something happened in a previous time. (E.g. In the past, I had no responsibilities, but sadly that time has passed.)\n\nEDIT: Past can also be used as a preposition like beyond in the example from /u/sinderling: \"It is past my bedtime.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
13tou3 | what does the president's chief of staff do? how does he/she influence the presidential agenda | From a practical day to day perspective, what does the chief do for the president. Is he/she the second most powerful person in the White House? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13tou3/what_does_the_presidents_chief_of_staff_do_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"c772n8r",
"c772ppa",
"c774106"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The Chief of Staff runs the President's White House staff. He also usually controls access to the oval office, and may negotiate with congress on behalf of the President. So he is definitely a powerful person.",
"Chief of Staff is sort of like a Fortune 500 executive, a Barnum and Bailey circus ringleader, a very fucking serious charity organizer, and likely has the working knowledge of a sitting military general or some similar rank. They direct the hoards of presidential staff and their daily affiliates (congressional, private, etc) and offer advice to the big guy.",
"The CoS is the gatekeeper to the president. Anyone who wants the president's times has to go through the CoS.\n\nHe is also in charge of everyone who works in the White House in governmental capacity (as opposed to the guy who mows the lawn).\n\nHe is often, but not always the most influential person in the White House. VP Cheney, for example, was not the CoS, but probably functioned a lot like one."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3w08qn | what is the difference between the "gang-stalking" phenomenon and having paranoid schizophrenia? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w08qn/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxs8q14",
"cxs90rd"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"There isn't one.\n\n\"Gang stalking\" is an invention of people with severe psychiatric disorders.",
"A quick look online makes it look like the \"gang-stalking\" community is a bunch of paranoids & kooks. It's a bunch of low-budget, unprofessional websites that all look like they're copying each other's content & making pretty outrageous claims.\n\nHowever, if it was real, the fundamental difference between paranoid schizophrenia & actually being targeted is that in one case *you're actually being targeted*. As they say, \"you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you\".\n\nBut, I must reiterate that it's in all likelihood **not** a real phenomena. It sounds exactly like the sort of self-important, delusional crap that the untreated mentally ill babble on about. It relies on the victim, for no apparent reason, to be the target of shadowy forces. These forces can pull in unlimited resources & manpower. They can infiltrate *all* walks of life and still maintain total secrecy among the people they're working with. Yet, for all of these strengths, they're still leaving clues as to their existence all over the place, as long as you know \"the secret\" behind them.\n\nUnfortunately, the Internet, by allowing everyone free access to information & publishing, allows these groups of sick individuals to share their delusions & build communities egging each other on. If you go look, you can find communities of people that endorse anorexia or cutting as well.\n\n[Here's a local news story about it](_URL_0_) - at the end, we get some shrinks saying \"yeah, these guys are nuts\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/05/17/gang-stalking-and-electronic-mind-control-community-spreads-online/"
]
] |
||
1e4h8o | how do tv series create the opening montage for the pilot episode? haven't they only shot a few episodes by that point? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e4h8o/eli5_how_do_tv_series_create_the_opening_montage/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9wpu17",
"c9wt4de"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"There usually is no opening montage in a pilot when it is shown to a network. That comes later, when it actually airs. By that time the show is in full production and there's a lot more material to work with. The pilot is altered significantly in many cases before they air it.\n",
"When a pilot episode is shot, that's almost certainly the only episode that exists. They won't be shooting any more until a series is greenlit.\n\nSo, if it's an actual pilot (IE a demonstration of the show to come made to get a network to buy a series) then it probably doesn't have an opening montage. If it does, then it's likely the series has already been greenlit for whatever reason and the \"pilot\" is really a public preview of something.\n\nAdditionally, if the pilot you've seen with an opening montage was an extra on a DVD release or something, it's likely the opening sequence was edited in later to make the pilot look nicer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
9biybr | why is it that non parasitic bugs swarm around my head? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9biybr/eli5_why_is_it_that_non_parasitic_bugs_swarm/ | {
"a_id": [
"e53calf"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Without knowing the bugs it's hard to tell, some are attracted to heat, some to sweat, others sound, but if they are mostly around your head they might be attracted to your breath as we exhale we breath out carbon dioxide and some bugs use it to find food or navigate "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3srak1 | why do oled screens burn in? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3srak1/elif_why_do_oled_screens_burn_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwzs2xk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_ \n_URL_1_ \nAs my two primary sources of information.\n\nSo OLEDs basically rely on a layer of compound under the screen that reacts to certain charges to light up a specific color, though some OLEDs have an always-on backlight. Each pixel is supplied a separate current than the next, obviously. Over time, the compound degrades and molecules become either too sensitive to charge, or the molecule is always charged and can't release itself from the forced state by the electric current provided. \nThis ends up creating image burn-in/ghosting/etc. on OLED screens.\n\nThe more \"ELI5\" explanation would be like having the electricity be a house key and the pixel be the doorknob to the front door. You put in a specific key for a specific color on the pixel/doorknob, and turn it to give the doorknob/pixel the required charge to display that color/open the door. \n\nIf you did this for a long time, either your key is going to break or the doorknob's locking mechanism is going to break, which means the doorknob gets stuck. A.K.A. your pixel can't really change from its last charged state."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_burn-in",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED"
]
] |
||
2zzc3i | why are there hostage negotiators? has any criminal ever actually walked away scott free with their demands met? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zzc3i/eli5why_are_there_hostage_negotiators_has_any/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpnphv6"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"A Negotiator turns a life-and-death situation into a court trial.\n\nThey might not get away scot free, but they also don't get a sniper bullet to the brainstem."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
24kuw8 | why is rape in prison such a common thing, and why isn't it simply controlled? | I dont understand why prison rape can't be avoided rather easily with cameras or security guards. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24kuw8/eli5why_is_rape_in_prison_such_a_common_thing_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch83yo0",
"ch84i5l",
"ch86lg7",
"ch888gw",
"ch8ebqq",
"ch8f3ax",
"ch8i81x"
],
"score": [
36,
2,
372,
7,
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"It really isn't nearly as common as television and movies would have you believe. \n\nA United States Department of Justice report, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, states that \"In 2011-12, an estimated 4.0% of state and federal prison inmates and 3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.\"\n\nSome reports say that as much as 50% of the attacks are done by guards and prison staff.",
"It's more about control/domination than sex. Also, a lot of prison guards view inmates as scum/subhuman so they see no reason to give a fuck.",
"Rape is not nearly as prevalent in prisons as popular entertainment makes it out to be. I'm not citing a study or quoting anecdotal evidence. I'm speaking from personal experience- having served 8 and a 1/2 years in prison, from when I was 19 until just before turning 28. \n\nRape happens, but rarely. How rarely depends on the prison and the population it contains. A facility full of people serving 20 years or more will have more instances of rape than a facility full of people serving less than 10 years. When it does happen, it's almost never as a means for sexual gratification. It's about power and dominance. Owing money for drugs or gambling, starting fights with gang members, getting caught stealing are situations a person can put himself in to risk that kind of retribution. Even then, rape is the farthest from likely consequence he'll have to face. \n\nThe simple reason for this is that there are plenty of people in prison willing to grant sexual favors for several reasons- prostitution being the most frequently occurring. Sometimes guys actually fall in love with each other. Some people take the attitude that it's not gay while you're locked up. Whatever the motivation, there are plenty enough gay and bisexual men locked up that a person doesn't need to expend the energy of rape to have sex. It also isn't just inmates that prostitute themselves. Some female civilians and correctional officers (though admittedly few) will make themselves available for the right price. Others will develop genuine feelings for inmates and risk their jobs to build a \"relationship.\" \n\nAlso, and this is a factor people don't often consider. Most people don't get turned on by the prospect of raping someone, and that holds true for people in prison, too. Most people just take it as a matter of course that rapists are not respected in prison, and that- along with pedophiles- they're given a hard time. Why, then, would there be an abundance of men willing to rape while in prison? \n\nPrison is not easy, and it is not comfortable, but it isn't the sensationally dismal place it's made out to be in pop-culture, either. In fact there's nothing sensational about it at all. The biggest problem the vast majority of people have to deal with is the soul sucking boredom. Are there exceptions? Of course. But it's the same kind of exception that people living in the suburbs who are victimized by crimes face. It's not likely, but it can happen. \n",
"Its a matter of numbers, constitutional rights, and budget concerns. I recently started working as a corrections officer and I can tell you that putting a camera in every cell is unreasonable when you work in a 1300 offender institution or more. Also because of PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act any and all complaints have to be fully investigated by either us (inmate on inmate) or by the state police (staff on offender). Also despite what you might think these guys are *smart* they know where the camera blind spots are and who they can lean on for sexual favors without getting caught.",
"Come to a South African prison. Rape, rape everywhere. Otherwise they simply kill you then rape you anyway.",
"Those on the outside probably feel the prisoners deserve it and hence they don't protest against it. In South Africa prison rape is rife and the high prevalence of HIV exponentially compounds the consequences. They even use HIV infected rape as a form of punishment for inmates who don't toe the gang line - it is called \"giving someone a slow puncture\". \n\nRape in prison is so common, that alcohol companies use it in TV ads aimed at reducing DUI. When a semi famous muso was incarcerated recently, the spokesman for the justice department expressed his satisfaction with the judgement and then he tweeted: I hope he has got enough vaseline (or something to that effect). Make a mental note: YOU DO NOT WANT TO GO TO JAIL IN SOUTH AFRICA. ",
"There are many disturbing perceptions surrounding prison rape. The one I find most difficult to process is all the people who like to comment on a news story about a crime and indicate their desire to have the convicted criminals already in the prison rape the justice into a person who has not even gone to trial yet. It is not possible to rape justice into a person or situation. The urge for vengeance always brings out this type of comment. I think it makes us very barbaric to think like this. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
r4agl | great britain. is england part of it? is someone english and british? | Always been confused by this, and even more confused by wikipedia. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r4agl/eli5_great_britain_is_england_part_of_it_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c42s5py",
"c42s9z8"
],
"score": [
56,
41
],
"text": [
"**Great Britain** is the island, the big one on which England, Scotland and Wales are situated.\n\n**The Kingdom of Great Britain** was the union of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. It is historical, from the 18th century. It does not exist any more.\n\n**The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland** is the sovereign nation that includes England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Note that Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. Someone is **British** if they are a citizen of this sovereign nation.\n\n**The British Isles** are the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. Note that Ireland the country is not the same as Ireland the island, because Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and not the Republic of Ireland.\n\n**England** is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, however, it is not sovereign (you can sort of think of it like a state or province). Someone is **English** if they are a citizen of England. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people are not English, but they are British.\n\n**Northern Ireland** is a country, like England, that is part of the United Kingdom. It is also not sovereign.\n\nClear as mud?\n\nEDIT: this [map](_URL_0_) may help. Note that \"British Islands\" and \"British Isles\" are distinct - for British Isles, the whole thing would be green.",
"[Watch this video.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.cryonie.com/en/world/images/great-britain-united-kingdom.png"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10"
]
] |
|
dxdxsu | how do different animals and insects get caught in amber in such lively positions? also, did they die and eventually got caught in amber or was amber the cause of death? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dxdxsu/eli5_how_do_different_animals_and_insects_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7p7v9f",
"f7pazci",
"f7pbg8g"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'd guess they get caught in boring positions too but they dont get shown off as much\n Watch out for fakes too. Theres a big market in fake fossils in the middle east where they will make the coolest looking critters.... that never existed:(",
"The tree sap seeps out fairly slowly sticking the legs in place first and then building up covering (drowning) the insect. In the case of the mantis which you probably saw earlier it is likely that the mantis was on the underside of a branch and was upside down when it was covered in tree sap.",
"Amber is fossilized tree resin.\n\n If you ever have been in contact with pine trees that have some damage especially when they grow in the spring you have noticed that is it sticky and that the trees can produce quite a lot of it. When it is produced it has relatively low viscosity and can even drop down from trees but when it starts to dry out is get quite hard.\n\nIf an insect gets in contact with they can very easily get stuck and then covered completely when more resin leks out. I have seen ants that get stuck and can't get away when just one or a few legs get trapped in it. So in most cases they likely get trapped in it alive but if there is a dead animal where the resin leak they can be encapsulated too.\n\nIf you never have been exposed to it your self you can compare it to a thick syrup that is less viscous then the resin when released from the trees. It is sticky like fly paper. When it dries out is is more like crystalized sugar\n\nThere is a reason that amber looks a lot like some types of resin glue like Epoxy. They are chemically quite similar and the synthetic resin used in glue has got their name from tree resin. Natural resins have been used as glues in the past."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4gaph1 | why dogs like the shiba inu do the tapping thing with their feet? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gaph1/eli5_why_dogs_like_the_shiba_inu_do_the_tapping/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2fzrgj"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Shiba Inus are pretty high energy dogs. The taps you see in vines, like the one with the dog tapping his feet and spinning while waiting for his food bowl to be given to him is just something many high energy dogs will do when not having enough outlets for it. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
25lgiv | how do materials 'absorb' energy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25lgiv/eli5_how_do_materials_absorb_energy/ | {
"a_id": [
"chicch4",
"chicmz2"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on the type of energy. If you're talking electro-magnetic (light), electrons are pushed into higher \"shells\" around the nucleus. Heat energy is absorbed by the individual atoms or molecules moving more energetically. Kinetic energy by a change in momentum. There can be lots of crossover as well.",
"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. When an energy source is applied to a thing, that thing will react in some way. Maybe it bounces, maybe it moves. It might be something you can see, like an explosion pushing a very large metal thing (rockets). Or, it might be something [too small to see with your eyes](_URL_0_). You're stove for example, is using an energy source, like electricity or gas, and transferring that energy to a pot of water. The result is hot water. That's the water \"absorbing energy\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBh467tgnxM"
]
] |
||
380kvx | why does the russian goverment still dislike the united states? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/380kvx/eli5why_does_the_russian_goverment_still_dislike/ | {
"a_id": [
"crro1nh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is just me but the U.S. has a very arrogant position on WW2 and how we saved the day once we joined in the war. In reality Russia suffered millions of more casualties with America being around 500 thousand I think, the Nazis ravished half of Russia and the only reason they didn't completely annihilate them was because of the unfamiliar cold terrain and Russian citizen began to fight back in terrible battles. The battle for Stalingrad being the first I think, I might be wrong. Also most countries governments don't get along with the U.S. because we're an asshole of a country sad to say. Just my personal thoughts and opinions, I'm sure their are plenty of other reasons I don't know of."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1xam7g | why do i cringe at the sound of styrofoam rubbing together? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xam7g/eli5_why_do_i_cringe_at_the_sound_of_styrofoam/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf9nfhr",
"cf9ngeq",
"cf9o3b9",
"cf9ogyb",
"cf9oiwq",
"cf9oonz",
"cf9oskw",
"cf9pbmc",
"cf9pmch",
"cf9pwz0",
"cf9px3s",
"cf9q5qw",
"cf9qfwd",
"cf9qm96",
"cf9qvx3",
"cf9rikl",
"cf9svsv",
"cf9uo53",
"cf9vepw",
"cf9vyhd"
],
"score": [
156,
53,
13,
4,
19,
6,
2,
4,
2,
4,
2,
10,
6,
5,
3,
2,
11,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well the effect is kind of like fingernails on the chalkboard... one explanation is that it is an evolutionary aversion since the sound is actuually similar to primate warning calls. Another explanation is that the sound resonates in the ear canal, making it \"sound loud\"\n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"When I say cringe I mean clench my jaw and shiver. Not the definition used by /r/cringe",
"Oooh and does the same hold true for rubbing balloons? (shudder)",
"Oh my god, I thought I was the only person. I simply cringe whenever I'm pulling something new out of a box...uhh I feel sick now...\n\nOther things that make me cringe, the sticky part of an envelope, and a pencil eraser worn down to the metal rubbing on paper.",
"I can't back this up, but perhaps it can contribute somewhat. I heard somewhere that the sound is supposed to be a reflex against destroying your teeth, since it's similar to the sound of teeth getting grinded down. Your teeth won't grow out once they're worn down, and therefore you need to take good care of them. Our aversion to the sound is supposed to be a protection against that. But as I said, can't back this up.",
"Is it only the sound that bothers you or do you cringe when you actually touch the texture as well?\n\nI know I can't stand the thought of touching it, so the sound reminds me of holding it in my hand and I just can't stand the idea. I get the feeling that it's in my mouth, under my tongue... totally revolting.",
"I have this problem without the sound about scratching newspaper... if I even think about someone scratching newspaper, even accidentally, my whole body gets goosebumps.",
"Because it's the devils violin music. ",
"I don't know if anyone else has this issue but when someone pushes a marker against a piece of paper super hard, that noise just like destroys my ears, and the crine cant last up to like a minute.",
"Fingernails on chalkboard, styrofoam rubbing together, squeaky markers. None of these things bother me in the slightest\n\n The thing that has been my bane for as long as I can remember is someone scratching velvet or similar materials.... Even the thought drives me mad. \n\nDoes anyone else have this?",
"Or ice scraping off of a windshield or chewing on yarn.",
"The thing similar to this that bothers me the most is rubbing cotton swaps between my fingers. I can't even remove the cotton from a pill bottle, I need somebody else to do it. (I'm glad they don't use that as often anymore.)",
"Sorry to hijack, but why do I cringe at the sensation of cotton balls, or felt, rubbing on my molars?",
"I read somewhere here on reddit about something similar... \"why are sounds painful?\" \n\nSomeone linked a really interesting article that seemed legit in it's explanation and now I can't find it!\n\nThis isn't it, but it's similar _URL_0_",
"I don't have a problem with styrofoam rubbing together, but green beans rubbing on my teeth make the most annoying sound and feeling.",
"I have the same problem, except at abrasive metal on metal sounds. I even have problems SEEING it happen. or THINKING about it. omg. stop. \n\nIt just happened to me at the chow hall, cook dude was scrapin off the skillet thingie with the metal spatula. my god.\n\nThe worst tho, is when you take a knife, and try to cut into the tines of a fork. that abrasive, jaggedy catch and grab, then release thing, really slowly, absolutely drives me to mini-convulsions. I start to get the shakes, hair stands on end, i get chills... ughhh",
"Touching cotton balls, watching others touch cotton balls. Seriously the worst thing out of everything listed here. ",
"A metal fork scraping on a plate. I've been known to lose it in a restaurant. ",
"I pay extra for the eggs in the cardboard cartons because I hate the sound of Styrofoam so much.",
"I get that feeling when I bite down on those marshmallows in Lucky Charms."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_of_fingernails_scraping_chalkboard"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/10/cover-your-ears"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3t66pu | how does an air compressor work and what makes it so loud? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t66pu/eli5_how_does_an_air_compressor_work_and_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx3edoi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A piston forces air into a low pressure air tank and the motor driving the piston has to cycle in a way that compresses the air past the valve further increasing pressure. A pressure regulator has to talk to the motor to tell it when it has reached pressure and stop pumping the air into the tank.\n\nAir compression is done so with energy being converted from gas or electric power to turn or cycle the piston. Its usually very loud because the pressurized air being forced into a metal cylinder storage tank echos with each burst of air. This is why many companies store air compressor tanks outside while the pumps are inside which produce significantly less sound with function. \n\n "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
89jq28 | how are visa and mastercard not the most valuable/largest companies in the world since so many credit card transactions are subject to their fees? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/89jq28/eli5_how_are_visa_and_mastercard_not_the_most/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwreuco",
"dwrfd01",
"dwrifkc"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"the fees they collect are licensing fees.\n\nthey don't process credit cards, they don't issue credit cards, they don't loan people money. all those fees are collected and managed by others.\n\nVisa and MC are in the business of marketing their brand. (to some degree they support their brands by developing security systems for their cards too.)\n\notherwise the only time they get a fee is when you see their actual logo (on a card or on a sticker on the storefront or on the capture machine.)\n\n\n\n",
"Two things; most transactions aren't done via credit card. Most are done directly through banks, especially large ones. \n\nSecond, there are a lot of companies that are a lot more crucial than credit cards. ",
"Lets say they increase the fees to start taking a bigger cut. The thing that happens is that the other one just doesnt change and customers flood to the one that didnt change. \n\nWorse yet, if you do start blowing up in value, competitors show up to fill that gap. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3xl596 | why has it been decades since the last "classic" christmas song or movie? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xl596/eli5_why_has_it_been_decades_since_the_last/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy5jfkj",
"cy5jniu",
"cy5k462",
"cy5kkm3",
"cy5kp66",
"cy5kxqn",
"cy5l5r7",
"cy5l7ab",
"cy5l7oj",
"cy5lfiw",
"cy5lxau",
"cy5lxfc",
"cy5mo8a",
"cy5n1ln",
"cy5n286",
"cy5nk56",
"cy5o23s",
"cy5o31w",
"cy5o39k",
"cy5o67j",
"cy5oack",
"cy5ojxr",
"cy5ooma",
"cy5owlu",
"cy5oy34",
"cy5p90g",
"cy5qm5o",
"cy5r1tc",
"cy5rnky",
"cy5y0a5",
"cy5yur3",
"cy5ztub",
"cy60zqe",
"cy63yk4",
"cy641oy",
"cy64d50",
"cy64on1",
"cy67emh",
"cy69o08",
"cy6anol"
],
"score": [
44,
1001,
512,
2,
13,
7,
138,
60,
50,
10,
3,
15,
2,
2,
63,
4,
22,
46,
56,
35,
2,
94,
27,
4,
5,
7,
4,
5,
4,
5,
8,
3,
9,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Enough time hasn't passed to make the new movies classics. We remember the classics because they were the best at the time. I'm sure there were tons of flops that we don't hear about.",
"Relative appearance of tradition is a function of population age.\n\nWhat I mean is that new traditions appear when most people are young and when the economy is doing well. Most of our traditions surrounding Christmas come from either the 1920s, 1950s, or 1990s.\n\nWhen Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer first aired, it was at a time when there were lots of people with young kids and spare change, so they could afford to buy it (or the products it promoted). Because a lot of people were exposed to it all at once at a young age, they started to associate it with Christmas, and it became a new tradition that they passed on to their kids.\n\nWhen either of these factors is missing, new traditions can't form. If we're in a generational gap where few people have young kids, then they aren't going to make impressions on young people that will become traditions. If most families are poor, then they're barely managing to follow traditions and have no disposable income to try to embrace new ones. If Elf comes out and no one can afford to see it, it doesn't become a Christmas Classic.\n\nRight now though we're beginning to enter a new period of tradition-building. The oil boom is bringing money back to America and a lot of millennials are starting to have kids. Probably in another 2-4 years we'll get another new Christmas song and movie for that new generation.",
"Some of what makes movies \"classics\" is the commonness of their showing... it's only when movies get older that it becomes cheaper for TV networks to show them more often, and then help them become classics.",
"Don't worry, in 30 years Bieber's Christmas CD will be considered classic music. Your family will go caroling to a karaoke versions of classics such as [Drummer Boy] (_URL_0_), with your teenage grand daughters wishing they could have been born in the golden age of music.",
"Lots of great factors mentioned. One not mentioned is the lack of musicals for adults. A lot of popular Christmas hits like bing crosby's were in movie musicals. Sappy adult musicals that lend themselves to crooner style songs have not been a popular genre for a while. ",
"The embodiment of '50 Christmas tradition is the 1954 film White Christmas and it's title song written and performed by Bing Crosby. Personally I find the movie very cheesy but it's defiantly a classic that captures the spirit of chistmas in post war times.",
"One huge factor has to be the fracturing of our mass media into a mosaic of subcultures and micro media made possible only by the Internet. In the 20th century radio and television was a one size fits all truly MASS media that swept up everyone all at once. Yesterday I heard someone call the Beetles \"the first pop band\" ever and I think that might be true in the sense that media whipped a larger number of people into a frenzy like nothing anyone had ever seen before. Today such a phenomenon occurring on that scale seems less probable for the same reasons that I think relate to your question. \n\n\nSome other reasons could be postmodernism, an increase in cultural diversity and a general trend towards secularization. Mostly, America just isn't as culturally homogenous as it once was, which has its own benefits and drawbacks. But I would never guess that it's the end of original Christmas classics. Creative and talented humans never fail to amaze me with what they can come up with.",
"Elf came out in 2003, yes? Pretty recent and a timeless classic that shall endure longer than the earth, I suspect.",
"Hmm. I thought the most recent Christmas tradition was Elf on a Shelf? Or are you strictly speaking to music and movies?",
"Elf is already a classic. I've seen it on tv already several times and know many older folks that like it",
"New media becoming popular and reaching it's peak in those days (radio, movies, and then television) allowed for earlier shows to be classics since there was nothing in those genres to come before that. As some of those become classics they endured through the years and prevented new ones (not easy to replace someone's \"classic\"). Then add in the fact we now have so many sources for entertainment that collectively we don't share the same entertainment sources like we used to. In the 30's to the 60's mass media was limited so a much larger percentage of the population watched the same things and allowed for huge classic movies, shows, and songs. Now even the most popular media is only seen by a small percentage of the population. Finally, classics take time. Often they are built from nostalgia born from seeing or hearing something when young. Baby boomers that grew up in the 50's and 60's are still a large portion of society and prevent later works from being considered classic.",
"I will always consider [\"Wizards of Winter\"](_URL_0_) to be a modern classic Christmas song.",
"Part of the music side is really that original Christmas songs aren't released as singles so the general population never hears them. There are a ton of Christmas albums that come out every year by successful well-known artists, each of which usually contains at least 2-3 new original Christmas songs. But only those artists' fans will ever hear them.",
"I've always liked the energy of this one:_URL_0_",
"Grandma liked Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. She played their Christmas songs for mom as a kid. Mom grew up hearing them so it's what she assosciated with Christmas. I came along and mom played them for me so I associate them with christmas. Now my daughter listens to them and says it's not christmas until she hears certain songs by those same artists. You really just don't want to hear anything that you didn't grow up with because it doesn't feel like Christmas. Even hearing classic songs by new artists doesn't feel right. If I hear The Christmas Song by anyone but Nat King Cole I skip it. Gene Autry has to sing Here Comes Santa Claus. ",
"There is no money in singles. Mariah Carey is of the last generation who made serious money from record sales alone. Today it's about touring and merchandise. \n\nInterestingly, Carey now makes a ton from Christmas concerts built in that song and her ability to sing anything and everything well. Today Taylor Swift is less incentivized to record Christmas Music because the sales won't justify the effort. She can as easily perform covers and make her money that way. \n\nThere's no money in publishing in the streaming era. Spotify and Pandora just don't pay. ",
"As far as 'All I Want for Christmas Is You' is concerned:\n\nAt the time (1994) Mariah was the biggest artist in the US and was jut getting more famous. More importantly, she had huge crossover appeal. This is very important for having a Christmas song be popular, it needs to appeal to everyone and Mariah had that market appeal.\n\nAlso, when she released Merry Christmas (the album with AIWFCIY), it wasn't typical for an artist of her popularity to release a Christmas album like it is now. At the time, Christmas albums were mainly being released by older artists outside of their prime. The market wasn't saturated with Chrismas albums and songs by pop stars as it is now. Mariah's success started the trend of every artist releasing a Christmas album and trying to make the next 'staple'.\n\nThese two factors are the main reasons for AIWFCIY and her album being the staples that they are is now. Mariah was the right artist at the right time to break into the Christmas scene.\n\nIt would take a massive artist with huge crossover appeal to break into the scene again. Someone like Adele has the kind of popularity and crossover appeal I'm talking about.",
"In our family we wind up throwing on \"Love, Actually\" and \"Die Hard\" after the kids go to sleep.",
"Isn't Die Hard considered a classic Christmas movie?",
"Elf, Bad Santa, and Love Actually in the same year. In terms of christmas hits thats crazy that they all came out together. ",
"Cause Obama has been declaring war on Christmas. The damn liberal media and it's lies... smh.",
"It has to do with the huge diversity and availability of movies and music we've had in the last 20 years. If you were growing up in the 50s and 60s, unless you were living in a major city, you had maybe 4 to 8 TV stations, and a dozen radio stations. You'd have maybe one or two stations that you listened to or watched. As an example, everyone would see the Rankin-Bass Rudolph animated cartoon, Charlie Brown Christmas etc. They'd be huge hits because you'd have most of North America tuning in to those few shows, on the one night they would play. No VCRs, one night events, meant millions would make it an important date. I remember the days leading up to the Charlie Brown Christmas special was as big as getting a Christmas present before the 25th. After it first aired, it's all us kids talked about for days.\n\nToday despite our population we couldn't even come close to the numbers of viewers watching the same shows as they did in the 60s. Hundreds of channels makes that impossible. Same with music and radio. Radio listening is a shadow of what it once was per population, so even if you rotate a new Christmas song to death, it doesn't stick like the days when you had fewer choices. I may be wrong, but I think these days it would take popularity the size of Star Wars proportions to stay timeless.\n",
"Did you not see Bad Santa? That shit is classic af",
"Holiday classics have been released in the last couple of years, you just won't know it for another 15 years.",
"I'll probably get down voted to hell for this but...\n\nColdplay - Christmas Lights. Came out in 2010 and, while its by no means a 'classic', I do now hear it several times a year at Christmas in all manner of places. \n\nThat said, I can't name much more in the last 15 years!",
"Chiron Beta Prime never took off like it should have. I don't know why it isn't more popular.",
"How the grinch stole Christmas came out in 2000. \"Where are you Christmas?\" From that movie is a really popular Christmas song that I hear all the time every year. \nSo it's a little newer than Mariah. ",
"Love Actually is a classic Christmas movie. I don't love it. But I don't love a lot of the other ones either. ",
"I watched The Santa Clause the other day. 1994 or something? Felt very Christmassy, very 'classic'.",
"Lack of classic Christmas movie? Have you not seen Bad Santa?",
"Seriously; who the fuck is Parson Brown?",
"Wait,... holy crap! \"Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer\" is nearly 40 years old??!! ",
"\"All I want for Christmas Is You\" by Mariah Carrey is widely considered a Christmas Classic, despite being relatively new when compared to some others. ",
"I know this comment will probably be buried, but this isn't entirely true! The UK has a different roster of popular Christmas songs that hail from the 70s-90s.\n\n[Relevant XKCD.](_URL_0_) - most popular Christmas songs in the US categorized by decade of popular release.\n\n[A few years ago I replicated this graph, comparing US and UK data.](_URL_1_) You can see that the most popular UK Christmas songs are from later decades. \n\nI'm British but live in the US now, and it really struck me to learn that our Christmas songs just aren't big over in the US, and that the US ideal of Christmas is much more old-fashioned. ",
"I was about to say that \"Bad santa\" could possibly be considered a classic, but it was released in 2003 as well",
"I'm looking forward to the movie Krampus surpassing Elf as the next classic Christmas film. ",
"in my opinion, everything this day and age is made to be a quick cash grab, which sacrifices all authentic appeal. throwing bullshit at target audiences simply because the industry knows they'll eat it up -- that kind of thing. that's my opinion, at least.",
"I'd say love actually is a newish xmas classic, no?",
"I was born in 85 and my favorite Christmas movies are:\n\nA Christmas Story\n\nChristmas Vacation\n\nChristmas With The Kranks\n\nElf\n\nHome Alone\n\nHome Alone 2\n\nI'll Be Home For Christmas\n\nJingle All The Way\n\nTrading Places",
"I think a lot of people are just generally sick of Christmas and the non stop commercialism of it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=txpdpWyY2xg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFRduK3Txe0&feature=youtu.be&t=4s"
],
[],
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2SzjDOk_u9I"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://xkcd.com/988/",
"http://imgur.com/fy7p8aM"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
16tq37 | why is the department of homeland security separate from the department of defense? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16tq37/eli5_why_is_the_department_of_homeland_security/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7z9uj2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"(Loosely) The DoD manages the military (Army, Navy, etc.; foreign and domestic military bases; etc.), the DHS runs security inside the country to protect citizens from terrorism and other threats.\n\nTraditionally, the military of a country fights other countries' militaries. They can also fight terrorists, but after the September 11th terrorist attacks, it was decided that a different department of the government would be able to better prevent terrorism than if anti-terrorism and security inside the U.S. was added to the military's already long list of responsibilities."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5tmo82 | why things visually appear brighter when you're hung over | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tmo82/eli5_why_things_visually_appear_brighter_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddnln4h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When you are drunk, your pupils dilate and they also respond slower to changes in light level, this lets more light into tour eye, and things appear brighter. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9qxy59 | how can your voice be transferred over the phone and sound exactly like you in real life ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9qxy59/eli5_how_can_your_voice_be_transferred_over_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8ckzc6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"\"Exactly\" isn't really true, obviously. They are close enough that you can regocnize them, but they cut many corners to get the size of your transmission down. \nAnd you shouldn't think of it as \"your voice being transfered\", your voice and your speech in general are just pressure waves, which patterns you've learned to pick up and decipher. \nSo all you need is a device that can pick your voice up (A microphone) a device that can play sounds (A speaker) and a way to transport the picked up information and transfer it to the speaker. Which are mobile networks now and were landlines a few decades (years) ago."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1g0ns9 | what does this math symbol mean, and how do you solve an equation inside the symbol? example: |4+-3| | I recently took a college placement test and this showed up on the math portion. I've been out of high school for 6 years and have no idea what it means, or how to solve the equation inside of it. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1g0ns9/eli5_what_does_this_math_symbol_mean_and_how_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"cafpo1x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It hasn't been mentioned, but absolute value is the distance that a number is from zero. Therefore, the answer is positive because that's the number of spaces you would have to move in order for you to get from a number within the symbols to zero. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5ywnu2 | what exactly is gentrification, how is it done, and why is it seen as a negative thing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ywnu2/eli5_what_exactly_is_gentrification_how_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"deth00f",
"deth0d0",
"deth0g3",
"detjdw6",
"detkkmo",
"detkx6k",
"detlgcr",
"detptkv",
"detq8f6",
"detqd9s",
"dets63f",
"dets68m",
"dettdz6",
"dettuyy",
"dettzmj",
"detuccn",
"detvl4w",
"detvmhb",
"detvqg9",
"detw2mo",
"detwcgx",
"detweax",
"detwqbw",
"detx12m",
"detx6f3",
"detxe11",
"dety29x",
"dety5cx",
"detydpj",
"detyfsk",
"detygqx",
"detz0z7",
"detz20e",
"detzbj5",
"deu05bj",
"deu0i8a",
"deu0itu",
"deu1qiv",
"deu3fof",
"deu49mb",
"deu4fgr",
"deu5z8m",
"deu7672",
"deu7ji0",
"deu84xm",
"deu9jfc",
"deub3kw",
"deud03a",
"deuesk9",
"deug3pd",
"deuh01m",
"deuhzf2",
"deui4gt",
"deuibn9"
],
"score": [
98,
6,
32,
6458,
5,
5,
226,
7,
10,
5,
78,
7,
219,
4,
2,
994,
14,
56,
6,
6,
15,
58,
3,
3,
11,
512,
2,
7,
10,
12,
3,
3,
98,
2,
2,
6,
6,
868,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
4,
7,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Gentrification is the practice of upper middle class and upper class people buying property in poor neighborhoods and improving said property. That sounds like it would be a great thing, but when you do this you drive up property values in the region very quickly, which drives up tax burden, and rental costs in the region quickly. There is a point where the native population that is living there, often for generations, is no longer able to afford to live there and they are pushed out of their homes and businesses to relocate to new cheap areas. ",
"Gentrification is term used to describe an \"revitalization\" of an area. A less-than-ideal community or property is improved by new construction, which may create a desirable neighborhood to live/work. Many gentrified areas may be initially kicked off by a single large development or set, which leads to improvement of surroundings.\n\nGentrification is often opposed because it drives out a lot of the current population, from offers to buy property, massively increased property taxes and rent, or difficult living conditions due to the new residents.",
"Gentrification is basically the process by which middle class / high-income folks flood into cities because that's where the jobs are, causing all the rent prices to go up, food places to get more expensive, etc and driving out the people who already lived there.\n\nThere's also usually a racial connotation to it (the people coming in and taking all the housing tend to be white) and a cultural / political connotation (there's a stereotype of it being a bunch of college-educated liberals putting in their expensive vegan restaurants and stuff).\n\nIt's bad because it displaces a bunch of low-income people who don't have much options to live elsewhere. The problem is that everyone but them sees it as a good thing (\"Oh, the city got much nicer now!\"). It's also kind of an insult because the gentrifiers are people who come there because they like the interesting, authentic, diverse environment of the city but are actually taking all that away from the city.",
"Gentrification is when lower cost, lower income neighborhoods are taken over by those with higher income, which raises real estate prices and rents and forces many of the previous residents out. It often also forces existing businesses out and sees them replaced by higher end and/or chains.\n\nThe typical pattern is that low income but trendy people, ie. the cliche starving artists, or unknown musicians, etc. will discover an area's cheap rents, loft spaces, bars with cheap booze. As they move in, so too do the coffee shops, thrift stores, record stores, and edgy restaurants that cater to these types (think vegan diner, no frills ethnic places). Middle income creative types (graphic designers, architects) discover these areas when attending some live music event or restaurant and notice the nice bones of the older, worn real estate. They start buying buildings and rehabbing them. Landlords start fixing up apartments to charge higher rents. Un-savable and ugly buildings get torn down and new buildings go up.\n\nThe minority businesses there before the artists can't afford the higher rents, so the ethnic salon or bodega close. Starbucks, cocktail bars, and Dr. Martin open stores. Even longtime home owners have trouble staying as rising home values mean property taxes outpace their income. A farmers market starts up, the local park gets rehabed. Yuppie families who can't afford homes in the upscale areas of town start discovering they can get more space in the gentrifying area, plus it makes them look cooler. Boutiques and baby stores pop up, as well as trendy furniture places. The vegan diner close, and Chipotle opens in its place.\n\nIt'd both good and bad. It cleans up rough parts of town and expands the amount of nicer areas that people with more income want to live. But it's bad because it displaces others who cannot afford to stay, and who see their community broken up. Often those who helped get the ball rolling by making it somewhat safer (cleaning parks, neighborhood watch) then cannot stay to enjoy the benefits of their efforts. Also, it's most often wealthy whites forcing out poor minorities, so there is the perception of the strong fighting the weak. And too often, independent businesses are put out of business and replaced by generic chains.",
"When low income neighborhoods are \"developed\" so that they cater to higher income people at the expense of the original residents. Like closing the sack n save to put up a whole foods, creating a de-facto food desert for impoverished residents. Or putting a new paint job on your apartment complex and raising the rent by like $500 per month. I have had to move at least four times since I started college because I suddenly couldn't afford the apartment I was living in. They keep building these trendy college-y apartments all over the city and it gets harder and harder for me to find a place to live every year. ",
"Slightly less poor white people move Into really poor area because cheap rent. More and more do so until it's less likely that u will get shit there because less poor thugs live there. Place becomes safer to live and drives prices of rent and tea estate up. Poor people who used to live there can't live there anymore and soon the slightly less poor white people cant either. ",
"TL/DR; Gentrification is when property values increase to a point that people cannot afford to live in their homes anymore. The key feature that makes gentrification \"bad\" is that at a certain point (A-3 below) people don't have a choice but to sell their home and move. It is a result of market forces of property value, but it also follows racial lines with white/asians forcing blacks/hispanics out of their houses.\n\n===\n\nGentrification is a result of three things:\n\n1) The value of a property goes up when the neighborhood around it is nicer;\n\n2) The taxes you pay for a property go up when the value of the property goes up;\n\n3) If a property owner is paying more in taxes, they will charge more in rent to cover the cost.\n\n...so if enough buildings in a poor neighborhood renovate, then the price of all buildings in the area go up. This has several outcomes:\n\n\nA-1) People who own property in the area are more likely to sell. The increased value of their lot means that they get more than they paid for it. Why not move to another neighborhood and pocket a few thousand in profit?\n\nA-2) Because more people are willing to sell their property, more property is bought up, renovated, and then sold/leased. This starts to attract real-estate investors and developers who greatly speed up the process. This creates a cycle of increasing value, increasing taxes, and increases in rent.\n\nA-3) For people who don't want to sell their house, the value of their property increases as the buildings in the neighborhood are renovated. This means that rent prices increase, and for property owners there are more taxes to pay. At this point, many people don't have a choice about moving out; they can't afford to live here any longer.\n\n-\n\nB-1) Businesses and local economies collapse. As higher-wage individuals move in, they don't buy the same products or shop in the same places as the lower-income individuals who moved out. Local businesses have to pay higher rent for their location, and also have fewer customers.\n\nB-2) As businesses move out, their locations are bought up by businesses that cater to the new, slightly higher-income residents. They sell different products, and so the culture of the location changes.\n\nB-3) As old businesses close down and move, they have to fire their employees. If these individuals can't find work at the new businesses then they are forced to sell their homes, feeding the cycle.\n\n-\n\nNow on one hand all this can be explained through market forces, but on the other hand American economic strata follow racial lines. There are more blacks and hispanics in poverty, and more whites and asians in the middle and upper class. So as gentrification progresses, a neighborhood typically goes from black/hispanic to asian/white.\n\nIt is also important to note that the only people who benefit from gentrification are the people who own the property in the first place. Property owners typically make money by either selling their property for more than they paid for it, or by charging higher rent. For the poorest people in the neighborhood - those that rent or in government subsidized housing - they are forced to move out because of the increased cost of renting, but they don't have anything to sell. They are just kicked to the curb. Disproportionately these are minorities, elderly, or mentally disabled people.",
"Imagine finally owning your home outright after 30 years of paying your mortgage. You retire 5-10 years later and are now on a lowish fixed income. But what's this? Suddenly demand for property in your neighborhood is rapidly rising and so are house values and subsequently property taxes (which on a lowish fixed income you of course cannot keep up with). You're forced to sell your property or lose it(guess you never really owned it in the first place, it was actually the government all along renting it out to you). Motherfucking fuck residential property taxes. (And yes I guess it could be argued that with rising values you would likely see quite the return on your initial investment, but grandma and grandpa weren't really looking to move were they?)\n\nQuick edit: I'm in california so we don't see these problems because of prop 13 thank god, we just have to deal with shitty NIMBYism",
"Gentrification is when poorer neighborhoods get overrun by more affluent populations. This drives up the cost of everything and makes it hard for poorer people to live, so many end up leaving. \n\nAs far as it being good or bad, it depends on your perspective. I see it as a natural pattern of human migration. People have been migrating for a better life while pushing out others for millennia. ",
"IMO Gentrification is to put the blame on the middle class and artists instead of blaming the speculation (etc.) on real estate. Instead of seeing the whole picture, the blame is put on the easily visible part (sometime with a beard). \nSomone needs to take the blame for the exclusion of the poorest I guess. ",
"Gentrification, and its opposite concept *white flight*, are two sides of the same coin where white people can't do right. If you move away from an inner city location, it's white flight and you're a racist. If you move **in** to an inner city location, you're gentrifying the neighborhood and unsurprisingly, that is also racist.",
"I think gentrification can be a good thing. There are shitty places in Seattle that are now livable in because white people have moved there. This kinda expands the livable areas that u can live in Seattle without the high risk of crime. ",
"A lot of these answers are describing natural gentrification - where affluent people naturally migrate to poorer areas, bringing up prices.\n\nIt's also important to focus on planned gentrification, such as in Brixton and other areas of London. This involves the government and/or local council making beneficial changes to an area's infrastructure in order to tempt affluent people. In the case of Brixton, this has upset people in two ways. Lots of businesses have been asked to close for several months, whilst the government improves the rental buildings that they are in and lots of adult-offspring can't afford to now live (buy a house) in the area that they grew up in.\n\nIt is worth mentioning that pre-gentrified areas tend to have higher crime rates and unemployment, but this is often forgotten or viewed with 'rose-tinted' glasses when people reminisce about the 'old days'.",
"Taxes. It all boils down to taxes. \n\nYou are poor, and you live in a small, house/apartment in a shitty neighborhood. \n\nOne day, the assholes next door move out, and a new couple moves in, and starts taking better care of the place.\n\nThis continues everywhere in the neighborhood and old, falling down buildings slowly get replaced, by people seeking lower cost of living, but generally taking better care of their surroundings. \n\nAs this is happening, your own property values are going up. \"Yay, I have more net worth now!\"\n\nExcept now your property taxes go up. (Or your landlord's do, in which case, so does your rent)\n\nYour income hasn't gone up. It becomes harder to afford living there.\n\nThis, in effect, forces you out of the neighborhood. \n\nThis is great for people wanting cheaper, but still nice, places to live, but bad for people already living on the edge of homelessness \n\n\n\n",
"I've lived most if my life in a great area close to city, beaches, bushwalks etc. adjacent to a \"rich area\". My suburb was considered undesirable due to a large number of state housing, indigenous and migrant working class population. What I think of just as normal people.\nAs house prices have risen significantly in a relatively short period of time people have realised the potential of this area and we now have trendy cafes etc.\nWe have lived in this particular house for 16 years (couldn't afford to buy it now though it is nothing special). 16 years ago it was unusual to see a stay at home mum in her thirties pushing a pram. Now they stream by daily......\n.....I call this the \"milf. Index\" as a proxy determinant for gentrification.",
"A lot of people are talking about urban gentrification, so I'll touch on my experience with rural gentrification.\n\nI live in a village with a majority elderly working population. People are very poor, and they are being driven out from their homes by these outsiders looking for a nice holiday home in the heartland. The government's response is that this is a good thing, and they offer no benefits for the village to ease this transition.\n\nWe don't buy houses here. We inherit them. You're born in the house, you grow up here, you move to the nearby town or one of the larger villages for work, and when your parents are too old to go to work you move back into the home you grew up in, and when your parents die it becomes your house. \n\nNow when parents die, rich city families swoop in. The vultures buy out the property and set about turning it into their holiday home. I can't say I'd be upset if this happens to me: I've got higher aspirations for my life than living in rural England for the rest of my days. But this threatens the village community. \n\nThe city folk don't enrol their children in the village school, they send them to a private academy about thirty miles away. The school is going to close in a few years because there's not enough children. The city folk bomb through the village at high speed, and during the school run they try to muscle people out of the road with their America-sized Range Rovers. They don't take part in the village politics unless they are complaining about something, like the Yewtree in the churchyard dropping quills and berries on their softtop, the farmer \"trespassing\" when he closes their gate to stop his cows from going in when he drives them through the village, the constant smell of muck in the air in spring, the farmers going to work at five in the morning, the Army marching through the village on training, or the children walking home from school for lunch (that's now a thing of the past unfortunately).\n\nUsed to be a time when you knew your neighbour. Used to be a time when you'd just walk round your neighbours if they were having a do in the garden and provided you brought a bottle you'd be welcome. Used to be a time when if your hens or ducks or rabbits went into their garden, you could just hop over the wall and get them back. Used to be a time when you could speak your mind without some soft skinned city sod squalling about racism or sexism or bigotry when it doesn't exist (best example: we're apparently racist for the Gurkhas living in a separate housing community than the rest of the village. It's not our decision where the Army builds their houses).\n\nOur families have lived here for a thousand years. These outsiders only live here a few weeks a year, a couple of months in the summer at most. This village is our home, not some rich boy's hobby. Bankers driving beemers and Audis are not welcome here. \n\nHow do you think it makes us feel when people with more money than sense or decency walk around our home, looking down on us for being too poor to own a car when they have three?",
"Its seen as a negative thing to some because all the poor people living there will see higher taxes and eventually may not be able to afford to live there anymore. However it also lowers crime and helps the city become nicer. Cities that havent really recovered since 1968 (using Trenton NJ as an example) are slowly becoming nice again because of gentrification.",
"I'm from Buffalo, NY and am experiencing both sides of gentrification. As you might have guessed, Buffalo is not the nicest place in the world. But the city has seen a real resurgence in the past few years, especially on our West Side. I bought a double in the West Side two years ago, for two reasons. One, I knew the area was improving and it would make a good investment. Two, it was the only place I could afford to buy. I know gentrification is often looked upon poorly, but I think it's just a constant cycle from one area to the next. People are already complaining about gentrification, because a 3 bedroom apartment is $500 a month now. Nationwide, that's still pretty damn cheap. \nI think gentrification really becomes an issue in higher density cities, like NYC, where finding housing is a legitimate issue. ",
"It's most often done with property taxes. Raise them and houses, rental properties, and store fronts become unaffordable and the poor move out. The wealthier move in, and have the extra tax money to create pretty parks and murals. They then pat themselves on the back for raising taxes to help \"the community\" which of course is now them. ",
"Columbus Ohio is one of the best examples of Gentrifaction going on as we speak. It is in reverse \"Great White Flight\".\n It amazing to see the city growing,one of the fastest in the nation. It is very sad to see minority owned businesses be taking away by large Chains and Condos. What happen in the Short North Neighborhood is insane and is Quickly already starting to happen in my Franklinton neighborhood. And our large artist and large gay community make it easy for this once undesirable areas to become the coolest place to be in the city. People of section 8 housing our being pushed to our outer city suburbs and crime is on the rise. Our Downtown neighborhoods seem much safer then before and much cleaner. Really interesting and sad to see right before my eyes.",
"Seems like people are just all about the evil of gentrification. No one mentions the drop in crime when a neighborhood is revitalized. ",
"Btw if you think it doesn't happen to working class white neighborhoods you're dead fucking wrong. Try looking for a place in South Boston. Yeah, you know South Boston, that tough neighborhood from all the movies? Good luck walking down L street and finding anyone *that actually grew up there.*",
"Gentrification is a natural process where a city cleanses itself of economically uncompetitive subcultures. It saves lives by lowering crime, it improves the lives of everyone everywhere by cramming as much talent into a smaller space. The intelectual churn leading to innovation. ",
"It's globalization under a new name, with only bad things attributed to it and overblown, and the good things ignored \n\nIt's done by money being pumped into a low income neighborhood, which goes into making it better and a more desirable place to live. Streets are clean, crime goes down, stores open up, the value of homeowners houses in the area increases, schools typically get better.\n\nIt's seen as a negative thing because people don't like change, don't like \"outsiders\", and there's a bizarre belief in the last few years that \"preserving the culture of the less fortunate\" is somehow humane and just, even though it just leads to larger stagnation and reduces opportunity to nil for the people who already live there. Because somehow a triple murder being a horrible local event is worse than that being the neighborhood's average Saturday night. It also increases *Rent* prices, which is why you typically get a completely different opinion on it if you rent or own your house.",
"It isn't just an urban phenomenon either. Property tax rates are fairly high in Texas, and in the rural area where I grew up outside San Antonio, what's happening is that the city has grown and what used to be a rural agricultural area has now become a desirable area for upper middle class homes. Property values have gone through the roof. As a result, property taxes go up along with them. A 20 acre piece of property my grandparents bought many years ago for $1500 an acre, which was left to my parents, recently appraised for $650,000. Property taxes would be (and this is a rough estimate) nearly $15,000/yr. There are some families out here who have farmed and ranched property for three or more generations, own the property outright, but can't make enough money to cover the higher property taxes every year and so are forced to sell or have their property seized by the state for failure to pay taxes.",
"Wow, I woke up to a variety of informative responses! Thanks guys! A common factor, it seems, that effects the poor is taxes. I'm young and don't have a house, but I honestly forgot about property taxes. Holy crap, how is that fair? A couple makes it their goal to purchase a home and raise their family and once they buy their house they have to pay an enormous amount in annual property taxes. Why?! That's just crazy to me! Does one get any of that back when filing their taxes? Do people who are past retirement age have to still pay those property taxes? A state like Sourh Dakota, who has no property taxes, how do they recoup that loss or is it just an altruistic motive by the state? ",
"What are some specific places that have been improved by gentrification and some that have suffered from it?",
"Because the middle class is almost always under attack, it's hard for them to find somewhere *affordable and reasonably safe to live. This results in the middle class having to buy property in a poor neighborhood and terraforming it until it's livable.\n\nWhat's involved is dumping a ton of money in your property to fix it up, setting up neighborhood crime watches, forming ties with your neighbors to form a community. The end result is the undesirables are pushed out and you're left with a safe, thriving place to raise a family.\n\nThe only reason why some people don't like gentrification is because the undesirables you're pushing out will be in large part protected minorities and left doesn't give a shit about you unless you are a protected minority.\n\nedit: *spelling",
"To those who clearly disagree with gentrification - what would you have the \"gentrifiers\" do? Seems that the initial impetus is people who are forced to buy in worse neighbourhoods and then expend time and effort making their bit nicer. Would you have them just keep things shitty? ",
"My friend in Atlanta said that the lesbians kick out the crack addicts and do basic renovations. They sell to the gay men who make it look nice and trendy. The gay men move when the rich hipsters offer high price to live in cool neighborhoods. The hipsters move out and are replaced by yuppies. The yuppies have shiftless kids who become the crackheads The neighborhood falls into disrepair and the cycle repeats.",
"It's not negative. It is the process of improving neighborhoods, but all change has positives for some and negatives for others.\n\nPositives: Updated and Repaired real estate. Lower crime rates. Improved economy results in more money for public school improvement. Improved environment as area is \"cleaned up\". Existing residents homes increase in value. And plenty more.\n\nNegative: Existing resident's owned homes increase in value but some can't afford the tax and cost of living increase. This forces them to sell their home (for more than they bought it (positive)) and move away (inconvenient).",
"Gentrification would be where people with monetary resources move into a poorer neighborhood and start buying property and fixing it up and prices of housing starts to rise. Other businesses start to move in and property starts to up. The good is there are more taxes for the city and more resources for the neighborhood. The bad would be if you are a renter and your rent goes way up or you are re-qualified and asked to leave. Also if you are a homeowner your taxes might go way up. So gentrification has good and bad depending on your perspective.",
"OP, master's in city planning here. You already have lots of great answers here that describe the process, but they leave out a crucial element that's required for what would otherwise simply be neighborhood change, to be become gentrification: time. That condition also means that gentrification is really quite rare.\n\nGentrification requires that the rich folks moving in do so at a rate which outpaces a typical neighborhood turnover cycle. Neighborhoods are not static and nor are the people in them. A neighborhood in which property values rise over the course of 20 years is not being gentrified. The change that neighborhood experiences would be better explained by generational change. You're really only truly experiencing gentrification if this process is accelerated over the course of 5-10 years.\n\nI believe it's important to make this clarification because I far too often see general real Estate development demonized as being gentrification, when in reality it's just another part of your typical neighborhood change. Communities and neighborhoods evolve, and for us to expect them not to change, or to politicize and demonize new development, is simply naive and misguided.",
"The lower socioeconomic strata are priced out of their old area due to the area getting more social capital and thus making it attractive to ever more trendy people who pay higher rates for dwellings and business premises.\n\nIf your country really is the land of opportunity then you can buy a house and sell it when it is trendy and then live somewhere with fewer hipsters, where your low income friends have all moved to.\n\nThis is what progress is. Make sure you are investing to keep pace with it. Look at Rome. You excavate a church and find a church under it. You keep digging and find an older church. 5 churches down and you have hit a roman bath house. 2000 years of communities being displaced by time, dirt, and higher rents. Your neighbourhood is ephemeral.\n\n\n\n",
"Well I can't speak for other places but new York city is one of the most gentrified places I have ever seen ,a city known for being a melting pot is slowly and legally choosing who they want. I'm from Washington Heights (known for having mostly Dominicans) one if the last places to start getting gentrified and my neighborhood has completely changed the rent is at a all time high it's almost 2000 dollars for a one bed room, many people from downtown come here because it's cheaper but because landlords know they make more money they tend to raise the rent but keep it 200-300 dollars lower then downtown area because if this many people can't even move or won't move to nyc because rent is to high there are grown ass men for are in there mid 30s that have roommates. All I see is 3000 dollar dogs walking the streets now and since then I've had to move to the Bronx cause it's the last cheap Borough left and even then it's still expensive this is why gentrification is look badly cause all the middle class- to poor are losing there neighborhoods to upper class people anyone here from nyc can tell you that's slot gas changed in less then 7 years Harlem is so different and expensive so are many parts of Brooklyn and queens which use to be dangerous is now full of condos ",
"Gentrification is when the cool hole in the wall restaurant that you love is suddenly a Starbucks, and the Mom 'N Pop store down the street turns into a thrift store, then Hanks gas station is torn down and a Circle K is built. Suddenly, the buildings are shiny and new, and there are hipsters everywhere, and none of the cool people you used to know can afford to live there anymore, and moved somewhere else, to restart the cycle.",
"In Spain gentrification only happens with gay neighborhoods, gay people move to old abandoned parts of city center to be left alone and concentrate, they attract business and make the city hall to invest on improving the neighborhood, crime and drug traffic gets displaced and taxes don't rise because we don't do things like that here. So it's always good.",
"Artist: I make like no money making art. I bet I could live in some old warehouse in a near-abandoned district of the city with 20 other artists for almost no money and still make ends meet as an artist, though!\n\n\n**20 artists move into warehouse not really zoned for residence, share a single 100-year old bathroom for 20 years, paint the walls with murals, and make quirky furniture out of garbage they find in the streets. They also paint the walls and sidewalks around the area because no one gives a shit about the area, but artists be like \"fuck it, lez make it pretty! ^_^\".**\n\nMusician: Man, I'm barely making any money playing music because I'm not a top 40 chart topper. But that new warehouse district seems pretty cheap, bet me and 15 musician buddies could live out our dreams there!\n\n\n**Musicians move into another warehouse. Maybe nightly bizarre concerts aka people playing music in warehouses at 3 am while smoking cheap weed while other people paint with their bodies on the walls start occurring.**\n\n\n\nWriter/Poet: There's just no place in the world for struggling writers unless you sell out to Hollywood or some shit. Where can I struggle to be the next Bukowski for a decade or two, drink cheap beer, starve myself and have raunchy sex with artists while listening to bizarre music at 3 am every night? Oh hey, I've heard about that still-pretty-cheap warehouse district! I bet me and 20 of my writer/poet friends could live in one of those hollowed out warehouse rooms there for cheap!\n\n**Writer/poets move in; open a \"coffee shop\" sort of a makeshift space in one of the warehouses with water they can filter through a complex series of cloth slow drips that the writers are more addicted to than crack because writers need coffee shops real bad. It becomes a bit of a community hub, though. It inspired some local co-op gardening projects as well.**\n\n\nKid with $10 million Trust Fund: I need to move to a cool part of the city, that weird warehouse district is pretty cool, totally counterculture! I guess I can buy a floor of a warehouse and remodel it kind of or something.\n\n**Coffee shop improves because trust fund kids buy $20,000 espresso machine and water filtration system for it.**\n\nYoung Professional who managed to land good-paying jobs out of college: I really want to be cool even though I have to work this corporate gig all day. I bet I could buy a loft-sized part of one of those old warehouses and remodel it and it would be cheap as fuck for me, plus that area is pretty dope!\n\n\n**Warehouses now consistently selling in loft-sized units. Over half of the community is made up of trust fund kids and young professionals. There is an organic vegetable co-op that makes deliveries to everyone, the coffee shop has stable walls, and actual cups. There's a cafe that actually makes food for people. The concerts are beginning to get scheduled and start to appear in major newspapers as \"hip events\" in the city.**\n\nReal Estate Developer: Hey, the ROI on converting these old warehouses into neo-luxury lofts is like 10,000%, I should buy up these warehouses and turn them into neo-luxury lofts!\n\n\n**Average person living in the area now pays $5,000/month for a super hip loft in a remodeled warehouse that they live in alone, instead of being 1 of 20 people in an illegal warehouse floor. The artists, musicians, and writers don't live there anymore, except maybe 5% of them who somehow made a bunch of money by selling their art to the trust fund kids, or randomed their way into a 9.3 review on Pitchfork media because someone recorded them randomly playing in a warehouse. There are several high-end coffee shops carefully crafted with hundreds of thousands of dollars in Dutch wood paneling and several of the cities hottest new restaurants have opened. It is paradise, and real-estate values are skyrocketing.**\n\n\nForeign investors: Real estate prices in that warehouse district in X City are skyrocketing! I should buy up as many lofts as possible to protect my massive fortune!\n\n\nFin.\n\n\n",
"It's seen as negative by people who don't understand history. if you actually look at overall numbers, people aren't losing housing due to costs skyrocketing, but rents tend to go up as residents turnover - so overtime, rents in some areas go up (and down in others.)\n\nThis is actually great, because it allows cultures to mix. A largely poor area might get an influx of middle class college grads, who will want higher end groceries and coffee, creating jobs that pay well. It's overall a win for all involved.",
"Its not. A small fishing town near my city used to be dirt poor. Now its a hip place where rich people come for vacations in the summer. As a result the prices there have gone up x10 in value, and all the shops have increased their prices and started selling organic foods and nice little things. Of course the old timer locals complain about how their town isn't the same any more. But before you pity them, remember they have each made a half million pounds without doing any work, just by living the right place. And then you can go ahead and feel sorry for someone else who is less fortunate.",
"Its simple while people will complicate ect. Its the process of making making poor neighborhood not poor. \n\nWhy its controversial is often times it pushes people out of the neighborhood. People were not living in a slum beat down type neighborhood. Because they wanted to live in a crappy place. Its because they couldn't afford anything else. Once its nicer it draws appeal demand ect driving up prices. ",
"It's changing real estate values. That's it. The inner cities use to be the premier place to live from the start of America until post world war 2. Then suburbs stated to pop up and people moved out of the cities. Not in large numbers though. It's the 1960s that saw \"white flight\" as drugs and crimes in inner cities exploded. The massive beautiful houses got cut up into apartments and rented to people. Resulting in more crime and drugs, making properties even more worthless. Fast forward to 2000 or so, people started wanting to not have long drives to work and saw cheap properties in inner cities. Companies would go in and buy whole blocks. Kick out the criminals and drug users, fix up the places and sell them off. There was that 40-50 year period where if you were white and had money you did not live in the \"city\" notable exceptions being NYC and Chicago. Now that everyone is wanting to live closer to stuff and be in old buildings that have character, the houses/apartments are desirable again and the renters are getting removed. It's not a negative thing. At all. It's a wonderful thing that people are taking interest in and wanting to move back into some of the most beautiful cities and areas in the world. ",
"it's simply a supply and demand situation\n\nthere's limited supply of desirable living space in cities and a growing demand from people who want to live there\n\nit's considered bad by people who get displaced because they can't afford rising costs of living in their neighbourhood but it's neither good nor bad, it's just inevitable ",
"Highly recommend a podcast called There Goes the Neighborhood. 9 part episode that takes a very detailed, interesting, and candid look at gentrification in New York and to a lesser extent San Francisco _URL_0_",
"Did anyone else see this post right after that \"NBA CONSPIRACY\" post in r/nba, in which the word gentrification was mentioned in relation to Alvin Gentry?",
"Rich people buy poor people housing bc they can't afford it. They bring their friends who do the same. Eventually small businesses open. Then landlords make deals with people who pay. Eventually pushing out the original inhabitants and forging a new social and economic area.",
"Shit holes start getting people who aren't just idiots, criminals and drug dealers living there, rents start going up, crime rates go down, to the point where more people are willing to invest a few million dollars in a store or apartment building in an \"up and coming\" neighborhood without running the risk of the place getting destroyed in a riot after some thug gets shot. Because everyone's become brainwashed to see everything in terms of race now, \"gentrification\" is seen as \"whitey moving back in\", which is fucking dumb. I welcome angry responses.",
"\"White flight\" is when white people move out of the inner city to the suburbs. Obviously, this is a bad thing for them to do.\n\n\"Gentrification\" is when their grandchildren move back into the inner city, renovating and revitalizing. Obviously, this is a bad thing too.\n\nIf you are an American white person everything you think do and say is automatically wrong.",
"Besides the technicalities of it, the cultural response is huge. In SF, for example, the Mission District is experiencing gentrification currently and it's displacing all of the neighborhood kids. The parks they used to play at? Now have loads of young tech people playing soccer in them and theyll take up the whole field- won't even let them join. They GREW UP going to that park, and now they can't even use it. There is no rule, it is unwritten. The park they used to play at is gone. It now has a new identity. Picture mission district as all...yellow. gentrification is green. Slowly but surely these stores, cafes, new apartments sprout up. More green on the map. Now it's specks of yellow and green, but the yellow no longer the dominating culture. Family business shut down because they can't afford the rent, history is lost, people have to move out if they don't have rent control, the cost of living increases because these stores taking over cater to the working tech class ($8 for a coffee Ffs).\n\nWorst of all, people who didn't grow up here, who didn't experience the culture and family aspect of the mission district, the old school way of life, they think the green areas are amazing and in contrast the yellow areas need to go. Thus, continuing the cycle of gentrification until the Mission Districts history and influence is lost to the hipsters and socialites of this world",
"Gentrification isn't necessarily a bad thing. An area could be gentrified, but simultaneously now house 9000% more people. Gentrification is not a 1:1 process of displacing one poor person with one upper middle-class person.\n\nGentrification increases the cost of living of an area, by injecting money into land development in that area. The result is more expensive living options, and businesses that cater to a more expensive demographic.\n\nGentrification can range from being an unintended side-effect, all the way to being completely orchestrated by a group.\n\nThe result of gentrification is the displacement of those who cannot afford, or do not wish to pay, the cost of living in the area that has become gentrified. This can have negative consequences for anyone who is displaced, and other areas may become worse-off as they absorb the people who were displaced.\n\nThe term \"gentrification\" is used as a buzz word most commonly. It does not convey the positives or negatives of change. To \"gentrify\" does not guarantee cruelty, or positive change. If someone uses the word \"gentrification\", they may very well not know what they are talking about; specifically, if someone is speaking about a new development as a news or opinion piece, how much do they really know? Those who speak in generalities are often seeking to avoid specifics, because they know very little.",
"Gentrification: White people move into an area for their own.\n\nWhite Flight: White people leave an area for their own benefit.\n\nYou can't win either way.",
"Gentrification is the way \"Big Business\" forces minorities out of their homes and on to the street via refurbishing homes and revamping business to raise rents and mortgages. ",
"There's a few recentish South Park episodes where the SoDo SoPa development happens, it's actually a pretty good illustration of exactly what gentrification is. ",
"South park did a couple episodes which offered a fictional yet humorous example of gentrification.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/there-goes-the-neighborhood/id1089555645?mt=2"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://southpark.cc.com/clips/3s8o5s/the-villas-at-kennys-house"
]
] |
||
4kukso | if humankind has been selecting and breeding and cropping and, in general, manipulating, seeds for centuries—if not millenniums—manually, why do companies that just make the process faster and more automated and efficient, i.e. monsanto, get so much hate? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kukso/eli5_if_humankind_has_been_selecting_and_breeding/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3hv6hq",
"d3hvdkt",
"d3hve83",
"d3hvpw6",
"d3hwhiv",
"d3hx58f",
"d3hyijo",
"d3hyl88",
"d3hyn7q",
"d3hyu0h",
"d3hza2n",
"d3hzenc",
"d3i02co",
"d3i0b6f",
"d3i0mis",
"d3i10yy",
"d3i1228",
"d3i159s",
"d3i1bac",
"d3i1k2n",
"d3i1u17",
"d3i2lde",
"d3i2lj7",
"d3i3d3v",
"d3i3tsp",
"d3i4l7w",
"d3i5cj6",
"d3i65er",
"d3i6ntz",
"d3i6tod",
"d3i7j43",
"d3i8jx1",
"d3i8trb",
"d3i8x4u",
"d3i8zwj",
"d3i924v",
"d3i9863",
"d3i9a49",
"d3i9edr",
"d3i9ghe"
],
"score": [
395,
4057,
24,
7,
16,
2,
6,
18,
4,
3,
268,
3,
2,
40,
4,
3,
35,
2,
4,
2,
127,
4,
4,
2,
2,
317,
4,
2,
67,
2,
2,
3,
8,
3,
2,
2,
3,
6,
5,
13
],
"text": [
"The get hate because of their business practices, primarily actions taken to assure that they get paid every year by every farmer than plants their GMO crops. Previous hybridization efforts produced crops whose seeds could be replanted the next year. Hybrids that didn't \"breed true\" weren't commercialized (except for apples, but that's a different question).\n\nRecently seed companies have learned that it's more profitable if the plants can't be replanted, so that's what they are selecting for. That's more profitable for them, but bad for farmers and eaters. Maximizing your profit while screwing everybody else tends to draw Internet haters.",
"The most valid argument against Monsanto is that they engage in some pretty severe business practices. Perfectly legal, but somewhat bullyish. Or at least it seems that way to detractors. They own the seeds, and the farmers who grow them in effect \"rent\" them. If any seeds from those plants are sold, or grown without Monsanto's consent, farmers face huge penalties and lawsuits. Because of their presence, most farms have to use Monsanto. There are not many good alternatives to the average farmer. This doesn't just exist on the micro scale, but continues on to their macro/international commodities presence. A sort of Wal-mart to farmers on the small scale, and a Goldman-sachs type of player on the global scale. Because they're American, they receive far more scrutiny from almost everybody.\n\nThe next reasonable argument against them is that they're being a little reckless. A little tough to argue, but there is at least a legitimate place for concern. Previous genetic manipulation took decades and centuries. The changes did not happen at scale. Now they're fast, and done across the globe. Even a small mistake can have huge consequences. So far they've done alright. Their business model does mean they take on a sizable amount of liability. That said, they're one of the largest corporations in the world, with a lot of political sway. Volkswagen got away with their false emissions numbers for years. What could Monsanto get away with, then? They receive a lot of attention, but they also have a lot of friends and influence.\n\nThen you start getting into conspiracy territory. This takes the very reasonable concerns/criticism, and amps them up to eleven. Assumes malicious intent in Monsanto's practices, and tries to tie them to global hegemony. Some of the links are certainly there, but the connective tissue doesn't really hold.",
"There are some persistent myths about Monsanto that they [and some reporters] (_URL_1_) say are untrue. For example, I read somewhere that farmers are forced to keep buying seeds from Monsanto, because the plants grown from those seeds don't produce viable seeds themselves - the so-called \"Terminator gene\". Monsanto [insist] (_URL_0_) that they could do that but have promised not to. ",
"Because that is not what they are doing. They are altering the genome directly rather than selecting for traits as the plant reproduces. This is including genes that never could naturally exist in the plant by selective breeding. \n\nAdditionally they will sue any farmer that has their cops on their fields without paying for them, even if said crops were from the wind carrying seed from a neighboring farm or from cross pollination. They have also developed some strains that do not produce fertile seed so they have to purchase seed from the company to grow crops each season. ",
"I think less of the criticism has to do with their methods of engineering genetically modified crops and more to do with their marketing and business practices.\n\nCompanies such as Monsanto are encouraged to sell their genetically modified crops--crops often optimized to be grown in very select climate zones within specific temperature and rainfall--to poorer individuals in nations which do not have this type of climate.\n\nAs a result, these poor individuals, trusting in the quality and success rate advertised by these companies (such as Monsanto) take out loans to pay for genetically modified seeds. Monsanto and similar companies know these individuals cannot afford these seeds, but they sell to them and market to them anyway.\n\nThen, when that years crops fail because the genetically modified crops were not optimized for their environment (the original, non-genetically modified plant is not meant to grow in all the climates in which it was sold and companies which make these genetically-modified crops do not address this problem, with the exception of drought-tolerant crops), these individual farmers go into more debt. Because genetically modified seeds are patented, they are often either deliberately or serendipitously genetically modified to be infertile/less productive in subsequent generations (so seeds cannot be saved and planted for the next year), or they are illegal to save and replant, and farmers are fined (even in the US) or sued (especially in the US) if they are found to be growing genetically modified patented crops purchased from a previous year. *I am not describing terminator genes here, and I am sorry for making this unclear. I only meant to be complete: some plants, especially fruits, are conveniently or purposely made to have an odd number of duplications of chromosomes. One most common example is the bannana. These plants do not produce fertile seeds (if they produce seeds at all; called \"seedless\"), because of errors in separating this odd-number of copies of chromosomes.*\n\nAs a result, these poor individuals would have been better off growing non-genetically modified crops which are native and therefore accustomed to growing in their climate (again, the crops themselves, not the genetically-modified component, are not meant to grow in that environment. ex: corn, soybeans, cotton). They would not be in debt, and they would be able to recoup farming costs from the season by selling the resultant non-genetically modified crops. \n\nDebt due farming crops in countries such as India is believed to contribute to the high suicide rate of poor Indian farmers (although this rate has remained consistent since the dramatic acceptance of genetically modified crops, so perhaps this example is less persuasive). While this rate has not changed since the introduction of genetically modified crops, now most farmers are indebted to these companies, as most farms in India now grow genetically modified crops (for example, [\"more than 90% of the cotton now grown in India is transgenic\"](_URL_0_)).\n\nFurthermore, because these crops are not optimized for the climates in which these poor farmers grow them ([supporting this statement, it seems the long term benefits of growing such crops have not been sufficiently explored](_URL_0_)), the available genetically modified crops tend to require more water (again, the species source of the genetically modified plants are not necessarily native to the environments in which they are grown), requiring irrigation. They also tend to require fertilizer. Genetically modified crops tolerate herbicide, contaminating irrigated water with herbicide and fertilizer, which causes algal blooms (the fertilizer does) and pollutes water, killing native aquatic wildlife (eutrophication). These irrigated waters must then be used downstream as a water source for other community members, or are used entirely by genetically modified crops, resulting in drought.\n\nGenetically modified crops which are pesticide/herbicide resistant such as roundup ready soybeans (herbicide only) increase selection pressure on weeds and/or insects, creating the potential for weed/insect species which are also resistant, called superbugs or superweeds.\n\nEdit: Also, (although this is not unique to genetically modified crops, but perhaps belief in their superiority may encourage this) if the vast majority of farms in a certain area grow the same type of genetically modified crops, it increases the chances that a plant-specific disease/predator (fungus, virus, whatever), could wipe out a large number of a particular area's food source, because all plants are genetically similar, and therefore share a similar predisposition to have the disease/predator. ",
"Because few people understand the science behind the scenes and it's easier to just buy into the fear mongering of idiots.",
"Yes traditional plant breeding has been a practice for thousands of years but that's not what is happening, crops are being genetically engineered. Genetic engineering is basically inserting material from one organism into a completely unrelated organism. More specifically crops are being genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate (AKA Roundup..an herbicide) along with other herbicides and pesticides. Since crops are now resistant these herbicides and pesticides are being used in levels never before seen. This means that most the food we eat now contains herbicides and pesticides and at the moment we don't really know how much. We are also polluting the environment and we don't have any good data on long term effects. \n\nThere are also a slew of legal issues farmers are facing regarding the purchasing and use of seeds and the various chemicals to treat them. Others have already covered this in their posts. \n\nSo far We have seen some action from the WHO declaring glyphosate as a likely probably carcinogenic to humans (cancer causing). The FDA has also said that they will begin testing foods for glyphosate residue later this year. We are also increasing seeing support for GMO labeling that made the news quite a bit thanks to Vermont law.\n",
"Because people fear what they don't understand. Everyone understands selective breeding but once you start messing with genes in a lab using agrobacterium and restriction enzymes and such. People become afraid of it",
"Primarily the hate comes from ignorance. Many people have talked about the \"shady\" business practices which are either fairly standard or complete urban legends so I will talk about the fear of health risks.\n\nGMO's are among one of the safest products out there. They are extensively tested and the kinds of alterations that they are doing are pretty much harmless. They are just as nutritious as \"organic\" products. About the biggest issue that I can tell is the fact that it allows farmers to use more herbicide which is possibly dangerous to people if in strong enough dosages. (Possibly)",
"Basically, propaganda spread by the people selling you organic non-gmo soy and corn because that's the only way they can compete. \n\nIn other words:\n\n\"corporations are evil\"",
"Monsanto was involved in some things that were previously thought \"safe\", but was later found out to be harmful (e.g., DDT, Agent Orange). People were pretty distrustful of Monsanto before they went into GMOs. \n\n",
"Take my comment with a grain of salt but I remember a case with Monsanto from late 90s when a GMO in school cafeteria milk was found to contain cancer causing elements . An investigative reporter on a news network was pretty squelched via media and Monsanto legal ramifications. Someone please correct me and shed light if this is bull",
"there is a difference in genetically engineered and genetically modified. hand pollinating varieties is not the same as modifying the plants genetic makeup w outside sources.",
"It's important to see the distinction between modern direct genetic modification and traditional breeding techniques. When you magnify the power of a technique by several orders of magnitude it should be thought of differently. A person with a sling can do more or less what a person with an UZI can do...hurl a projectile at high speed. But the UZI does it more rapidly, at higher velocity and with greater accuracy. Still you could argue \"they're both projectile weapons, what's the difference?\"\n\nThrough direct genetic modification we can now create a living thing with a desired trait with a great degree of success in a very short period of time. For example, if you wanted a glow-in-the-dark cow, how many generations would it take using traditional breeding? Thousands? Your children's children might never see their cows in the dark. And it might not be possible at all since the gene for glowing doesn't exist in any cows (as far as I know). But with genetic modification you grab the gene you want from some other creature, insert it into a cow's DNA and bingo...glowing cow in one generation. That's the power of selective breeding magnified by many orders of magnitude. \n\nAnother analogy is the way we are able to engineer new chemical compounds. It is far more powerful than ancient alchemy and capable of producing an unlimited variety of molecules. And just like a new GMO, each molecule has its own properties and should be treated with great care before its effects are well understood. I personally don't feel comfortable with how either new compounds or new GMOs are tested and would prefer we abided by the precautionary principle adhered to in Europe. But I don't think genetic engineering is inherently evil.",
"Wow so much hate and misinformation going on in this thread. There are legitimate criticisms of genetically modified foods. Let me take a shot at it. \n \nFirst off let's start with things that are not true at all. \n \n1. Monsanto doesn't sue and ruin people who; don't buy their seeds, have accidentally crossbred seeds onto their land, discontinue business with them. I have never seen any proof of any of these things outside of baseless claims made in anti-GMO documentaries and internet forums. \n \n2. Monsanto doesn't make all of their crops sterile. They have a patent for terminator genes but they claim they don't use them. Crops that are hybridized of genetically modified do produce seeds however without careful control these seeds will be far less effective. \n \nLegitimate criticisms of GMO are the following.\n\n1. As you can use GMO's to create crops that produce almost any protein you could actually make a crop that produces crops that poison you. This hasn't happened yet because GMO's are heavily regulated. However companies who make GMO's would love to be able to sell anything they want at their discretion just like pharmaceutical companies (and any other company ever) so they will always fight these regulations. It is up to the people to fight to keep regulations as strict as they need to be we can't rely on companies to make their own decisions and then get pissed when they choose the high profit decision.\n\n2. GMO's could be potentially dangerous for the environment. They can lead to weeds and insects becoming resistant to pesticides. They can cause damage to the environment if they get out. They can cause damage to bees and other pollinators.\nAlthough all of these problems are more just problems with agriculture in general. If you overuse a pesticide or herbicide it will eventually lead to resistance (GMO's actually use less pesticides per crop yield than non-GMO's) Monoculture or growing the shit out of a crop in the same place constantly is not good for pollinators such as bees. This is difficult because GMO's are so awesome that why would you grow anything else? You need to rotate your crops and grow a variety of things but farmers only want to grow crops that are financially viable because they want to feed their families or whatever. \n \nI am getting off topic also I don't care anymore. GMO's are the next stage of agriculture there will be a lot of opposition and there WILL be a lot of problems with them. But doesn't it make more sense to work on these problems then to forsake all of our new technology and go hide in an organic free range grassfed cave somewhere? When the challenger rocket failed we didn't stop trying to go to the moon. GMO's arent perfect but the answer isn't to revert back to the last century it is to spend time and money to develop them further.",
"You sort of answered your own question. Most people don't realise that it's been done since the beginning of man. \n\nPeople don't like change. It's threatening, makes them feel insecure. \n\nGoing so fast with production has also impacted quality. Less flavor, less nutrients in some cases. Making foods huge so that they are more appealing. ",
"The argument I hear against GMO foods is that because they are made resistant to ~~pesticides~~ herbicides, farmers can douse their crop in copious amounts of the stuff, which then gets absorbed into the crop itself. Now we have corn that is laced with ~~bug~~ weed poison.\n\nWhether or not that is actually an issue to humans, I'm not sure.",
"Their business practices aside, companies like Monsanto are so often hated simply because people naturally fear what they don't understand, and the average person has basically zero understanding of genetics, let alone genetic engineering. That's what it really boils down to. People who understand these things are generally not concerned.",
"It may not be the technique or concept of genetically modifying food that is wrong. However, I believe Monsanto, Pioneer, and companies that support them are trying to own the food system. Own it. Through patents and lawsuits and power. Imagine a monopoly controlling your very survival through food. If the food system is in the hands of a single entity, that's a lot of power for one. Too much for comfortable sleep at night.",
"Because people are ignorant. A lot of people see GMO and think \"oh they put dinosaur DNA in a tomato. That doesn't sound good so I'm against it\"",
"In my state, Missouri. They paid off some members of our house to pass legislation to make it illegal for people earning less than $1,000 in farming earnings to grow their own food, so Jimmy down the street who grows food for the neighborhood wouldn't be able to have his crops anymore, unless he sold more than $1,000 worth per fiscal year, and they were also trying to get passed impossible to maintain standards for owning livestock for farmers here. We ended up passing a bill in 2014, [Right-to-Farm](_URL_3_ to combat Monsanto.\n\nEdit: Those asking for references, there aren't any directly, and frankly the whole ordeal as one giant media mess as no one knew what was going on and a lot of lies were spread to add to the confusion. I was an Intern for [Rep. Glen Kolkmeyer](_URL_0_) at the time and as such heard a lot of what was going on behind the scenes and this post is what I took away from it. \n\nBasically it was a giant legislation brawl between farmer coalitions, mostly small family farms and big ag bureaus. [Which you can read about here.](_URL_1_) [And Here](_URL_2_) Monsanto supported heavy regulations on keeping livestocks which would have had a major impacted on meats in the state. Which would have benefited Monsanto greatly. And was the main reason for the Right To Farm bill.",
"The consensus by humanity is often that if something is natural it is also good (and something that is unnatural is bad). This isn't always true. This is the shortest way to answer this question. ",
"Technically what you described does fall under \"genetic modification\", however that is an umbrella term. What is described here (selective breeding) is simple genetic manipulation and, like you said, is a practice used by humans for millenniums without detriment to the environment or agriculture. Genetic manipulation is different than gene splicing, a relatively new technology in genetic modification currently being explored by companies like Monsanto. This, I believe, is what gives a negative stigma to the science of genetic modification as a whole and demonstrates the public misconception of the science; a seedless watermelon is technically a GMO, however its genetics have only been altered through breeding, not by an actual mechanical manipulation of a gene itself. Many people hear \"GMO\" and automatically think \"gene splicing\", which is not accurate. That being said, many people with knowledge on the subject object to this area of genetic modification science because of potential unintended consequences from implementation in large-scale agriculture. That is to say, selective breeding replicates a process that, in theory, could exist in nature without human involvement, while gene splicing does not; we do not know how genes altered in a laboratory, not yet seen in nature, will interact with an ecosystem (genetic drift is the worry). Surmised, many are worried that the technology being used by Monsanto is a kind of genetic evolution taking place at a reckless speed, without sufficient knowledge of long-term ecological impact. Also worth noting, as others have mentioned, Monsanto is a cutthroat company when it comes to the business side of things with alarming clout in the agricultural sector. ",
"Watch the documentary food inc. There is a whole section about how these company's force farmers to buy and use only their seeds. The main company's that sell seeds now have a strangle hold on the market and they will not hesitate to bully and sue anyone including the farmers who speak out or want to change things.",
"You can't breed in things like roundup resistance naturally, so there's that - genetic engineering introduces changes that could not happen naturally in the wild. \n\nTo me the biggest concern is the speed and scope of the introduction of genetically manipulated materials though. I think Monsanto and other similar companies have not done their due diligence, and are taking risks with all of our food supply to make a buck. Clearly the business practices that we know of smack of the company store kind of mentality - what does that say about how concerned they are about protecting people over their income? And when you see how farmers in the developed world are struggling to maintain their independence in the face of Big Seed, what chance do developing nations have? \n\nYou don't hear much about it, but super bugs, super weeds and resistance to pesticides are all big problems, as well as the decimation of bees which has been linked to pesticide use. The combination of new technology, unintended consequences and greed should be scary to anyone with an imagination. ",
"Crop breeder here. Most of the things are just hysteria that have been whipped up in one way or another. It's usually a complete misunderstanding of various topics at play. There are three main things people get uneasy about, mostly due to various groups spreading misinformation around:\n\n1. Patents. Most people don't understand how crop patents work. You can patent crops in two ways. One is a [PVP patent](_URL_2_) that prevents others from using that particular variety in their own breeding program, but they can save the seed for personal use. The other is a utility patent that we tend to see with genetic engineering where the patent holder has more control over the product, such as requiring the seed not be replanted. This patents expire after about ***20 years***. People either miss that detail and think they've patented life forever. Some say it can be used to maliciously contaminate farmers fields so they can be sued. The only people this would apply to are those basically running their own breeding program, and they should already have safeguards in place to prevent unwanted pollination. For your regular farmer selling the crop that year, pollination from another variety doesn't matter. Some try to claim the companies are trying to prevent farmers from buying seed. That's also typically false because farmers in most 1st world countries don't save seeds for most crops. It's time consuming to clean and properly store the seed for planting, and you lose [hybrid vigor](_URL_4_) in certain crop species if you replant them. There's also the myth that companies are actively looking to sue anyone that has crops pollinated by a patented variety, but this is only done in cases where someone is [actively trying to steal](_URL_5_) a variety or trait. Farmers don't get sued for accidental pollination. Basically, a lot of saying farmers are being victimized, when in this case, that portrayal isn't accurate.\n\n2. [Meddling with nature](_URL_0_). Basically, people claim genetic engineering is meddling with nature, and we shouldn't do it. Tinkering with DNA or adding DNA from other species sounds scary to them. In reality when I'm doing traditional crop breeding, I'm scrambling, adding, and deleting thousands of chunks of DNA at a time hoping to randomly getting traits that I want. DNA from other species can come in with breeding between species when compatible, and can also be transferred from vastly [different species by bacteria](_URL_1_). Sometimes I could also use [mutation breeding](_URL_3_). When you finally get to genetic engineering, it's much more precise than any traditional breeding method, and it's not really introducing anything unique that natural wasn't already capable of.\n\n3. Safety. There's been a push by organic and other advocacy groups to say the GMOs are not safe to eat. Some of that goes back to the tinkering with nature bit I just described, but there is no difference is risk between GM crops and traditional breeding. Some of the plants can produce their own insecticide, but this insecticide, [Bt](_URL_7_), high pH stomach environment (ours is acidic or low pH) and specific receptors only found in certain insects that we do not have. It won't affect insects that don't eat the crop, and generally can only affect insects closely related to the target organism. This has actually cut down on insecticide poisonings for agricultural workers because they no longer have to work with insecticides as much, and Bt is non-toxic to humans anyways. The other main trait is herbicide resistance. Until recently, this has only been for glyphosate resistance. The plant does not produce the herbicide, which is a common myth. Glyphosate itself is relatively non-toxic and non-carcinogenic, and by the time the crop is harvested, any residue is practically non-existant. People have been led to believe they are actually consuming glyphosate in their food when most crops that have the trait are used as livestock food (and where before the traits), and that it's a danger to their health. One branch of the WHO recently claimed glyphosate should be classified as a carcinogen in the same class as working the night shift or being a barber after citing debunked studies, but this was [dismissed](_URL_6_) by other branches of the WHO and other worldwide regulatory agencies.\n\nSo **tl;dr**, there's a lot of things people just don't know about, but those gaps easily get filled with hysteria and sometimes political commentary related to anti-corporatism that make ideas completely out of line with the science more believable. All of the points that keep getting brought up are easily debunked, but they keep persisting as urban myths and misunderstandings of biology. Scientists and those familiar with the subject material can't keep up with how quickly all that spreads, so we're left with people repeating the same old rumors that we've already seen plenty of in this post.",
"Because people fear what they don't understand. Anti GMOers are essentially the same as anti-vaxxers; irrational and in complete denial of science.",
"As it seems that the most popular answers here are diverting away from the scientific issue and are focused on the business/legal practice of the corporation, I'm here to offer another answer...\n\nThere is a stark difference between indirect genetic manipulation, via selective breeding and/or grafting, and direct genetic manipulation, via inserting frog/fish/lizard DNA into the genes of a plant to make them more resistant to pesticides. That's really what all \"GMO\" products are, just resistant to pesticides.\n\nI've seen the argument many times, that the methods used since antiquity to produce more appealing crops is no different than what the biotech industry does; that the biotech industry just does it better. I think that's a very dishonest argument to make.",
"Farmers in my area that dislike Monsanto don't hate it because of their genetic engineering practices, there is nothing wrong or different in what Monsanto does in their labs. The problem lies in the copyright of the genetic material. I would agree that it is fair for Monsanto to be able to have control over a product which they spent billions investing into, but the fact that Monsanto crops can and will pollinate the fields of nearby farms leads to a big issue.\n\nImagine a situation where there are two neighboring farmers, farmers A and B.\n\n\nFarmer A buys a new batch of Monsanto seed every year and sells it at the end of the year.\n\n\nFarmer B keeps his (non Monsanto) seed every year and replants some of his harvest and sells the rest instead of buying new seed.\n\n\nSome of the crops on Farmer A's land will inevitably pollinate crops on farmer B's land. Why is this a problem? Because Farmer B did not pay for Monsanto's seed, and is in the eyes of Monsanto, is currently stealing from them. Monsanto will find farmers who still grow from their own seed and check their crop for any of Monsanto's genetic material. If found, they have legal grounds to sue. Due to the fear of this happening, many farmers who do not wish to use Monsanto seed are forced to use it simply because their neighbors are using it, to avoid being sued by Monsanto.",
"The issue, I think, is more to the point that big businesses are easy to hate. This is especially true when the businesses have access to lobbying of the government to slight the law in their favor.",
"Also, Monsanto uses what's called BT (Bacillus thuringiensis) and genetically puts it into corn. BT has been studied and linked to damaging kidney cells. Also after Monsanto corn was planted, over 100 million bees died in Canada. One reason Canada is now trying to ban GMOs. \nOne reason America hates them is because over 64 other countries have banned them or require labeling, yet Monsanto fights against labeling and refuses to say what is and isn't modified. This causes many people to be suspicious and wary of their products. ",
"Holy shit, this thread is full of indiscernible mixtures of misconception and science. A useful discussion to be had, but I can't take anything away from this thread without running it over with an extra dose of the usual Internet skepticism. Good and bad points to be had by all, but good God, this is some of the finest contradiction I've seen in awhile - many arguing sides with generally well thought out points.\n\nI need to research and develop some of my own opinions on this subject.",
"Monsanto has designed hybrid seeds that cannot be harvested and reserved for next year's planting. They do this to control the market. Farmers have to purchase their seed stock every year, and because Monsanto is nearly a monopoly in the corn and soybean markets, the farmers must pay whatever Monsanto charges. The seeds are designed to get the highest yield only using Monsanto fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.\n\nMonsanto has successfully lobbied governments for special anti-competitive legislation that ensures their business model. They can patent the DNA of a hybrid corn seed, and ruthlessly enforce it. How the government can justify a corporation owning genes is beyond me. I have heard of farmers that did not plant Monsanto corn being sued by Monsanto because a neighbor's Monsanto corn had pollinated their corn. This is a natural process and the pollen is driven by the wind. But since the corn had been pollinated with genes that Monsanto owns, Monsanto has a claim on that corn. This is how they deal with farmers that don't use their products. Farmers that speak out against Monsanto can get blacklisted, and put out of business.\n\nGenetically Modified or GMO crops are another issue. Because Monsanto owns the plant DNA, they push the use of GMO crops. GMO crops have not been fully tested and their DNA can contain non plant DNA. This is new in the world of hybrid seed development. Previously hybrid corn was developed by the same process as it had been in nature, cross pollination, but at an accelerated and controlled manner. With GMO, we do not really know the effect this modified DNA will have on the ecosystem.",
"I'll tell you the real reason.\n\nIt started out with the notion that \"Genetically Modified Organisms\" sounded really scientific in the ears of some people (you know the kind: homeopathic, holistic, raw vegan hippy-type), and conjured up thoughts of freak, slimy mutant vegetables oozing out of test tubes grown by some mad scientist in some dark lab.\n\nThat grossed people out, so they were totally against GMOs.\n\nThen, after a while, this whole anti-GMO movement started getting some ridicule over how dumb, unscientific it was - with a lot of arguments for GMO going like your OP.\n\nSome of the people in the anti-GMO movement didn't want to be seen as some backwards yokel, so they tried hard to retroactively rationalize their hate for GMO. \"No no,\" they said, \"you mis-understood me. I'm not against GMOs - that would be silly haha. What I'm really against is... Monsanto. Yeah! That's the ticket!\"\n\nYou see, they'll say they're against Monsanto's business practices. There're a lot of companies out there with shady business practices, but no no, they picked Monsanto because of stuff (but totally not related to how scientific GMOs sound, and not at all related to \"eww chemicals, I'll stick to water thank-you-very-much\").",
"A major problem with US based MNC's is how they try to patent everything. They even patent plants with certain benefits to monopolize their usage. This is the kind of material greed that causes people to be unhappy.",
"The main difference between traditional breeding and the GMO technology is that via a technology that is based on, atleast somewhat, controversial science (there are studies that say this process is unforseeable and there are studies that say it is safe, which one is true I dont know.) \n\nThe science used utilizes a process in which a foreign gene is inserted into the plant. For example a gene from an insect will make this plant more resistant to draught f.e but this process is based on an old understanding of genes and how they work. Remeber the human genome project? They thought that the human genome would be gigantic. Turns out we dont have a lot more genes than an earthworm. We thought one gene, one function. That is not the case, genes interact differently with each other based on the environment. And so far it is not possible to accurately forsee all the genetic changes that may occur. \n\nThat is where the risk factor comes in. What happens if it goes right in 1000 cases and wrong in another and that gene doesnt function as intended because of some unforseen change and the plant develops a mutation that will cause cancer, or anything else really, this could lead to a lot of things and the real danger lies in how random genes appear to be. \n\nPaired with the Business tactics that Monsanto utilize and the thought that a main revenue stream for that company relies on GMOs and they invested a shitton of money, I think it is fair to assume that if GMOs are in fact dangerous to our health we would know about it when it gets too big to hide. \n\nAlso the fact that there are no proper long term studies on the effects on humans and some long term studies hinting at organ malfunctions I remain sceptical, but I mean if they are proven Safe without the current controversy that exists (its not just some ppl saying uuh.. I dont want technology in my food.. its actual scientists expressing concern) the idea behind it is awesome, combing strenghts of indivual plants (what traditional breeding is) to create more effective plants, just alot faster and more efficient. \n\nTL;DR The technology is different as in GMOs foreign genes (e.g. Insect genes into plants) are forcefully inserted into the genepool whereas in traditional breeding plants are selectively crossbreed between each other.",
"Very good question and I believe it's another of those things like the vaccines. Absolutely no scientific proof there's anything harmful about doing it but someone decided it's frankenseed or something and must therefore kill you. Yet another report was released I believe just last week possible the week before showing yet again they're not harmful. Also it could be that people just want them to label products. Personally I think eating the \"seedless\" watermelons is better than the seeded ones and that was manipulated! Of course all this is strictly IMHO",
"It's my understanding that the germ plasm is 'genetically engineered' so as to limit its reproductivity to one generation, farmers cannot grow new crops from the seeds produced by the plants grown from germ plasm purchased from Monsanto.",
"It is baseless. Monsanto has a bad reputation because they have patented seed technology that re really is the only option on the market. That is the company's IP and in effect they license the technology to farmers. As far as I am aware Mondanto is not active on commodities markets.",
"Monsantos products, dominate the industry.\n( guess soon it will be Bayer)\n_URL_0_\nInsects and weeds have evolved to withstand their chemicals, so more & stronger pesticides and herbicides are needed for optimum yield.\nWhich goes into the groundwater and affects beneficial birds & insects, not just people who want affordable produce without a lot of chemcals.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx",
"http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted"
],
[],
[
"http://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=53",
"http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/08/06/338127707/missouri-s-right-to-farm-amendment-pits-farmer-against-farmer",
"http://www.thenation.com/article/whose-side-american-farm-bureau/",
"https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right-to-Farm,_Amendment_1_(August_2014)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy",
"http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/05/05/404198552/natural-gmo-sweet-potato-genetically-modified-8-000-years-ago",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis",
"http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted",
"http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y71HR",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/opinions/monsanto-bayer-douglas/"
]
] |
||
5mbj4a | why do lights that are far away have a "twinkling" quality to them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mbj4a/eli5_why_do_lights_that_are_far_away_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc2bm42",
"dc2j67t"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, heat & particulate (ice, dust) distortion in the air. That's why cold air provides clearer views, especially for astronomy.",
"they twinkle because we are watching them from earth. the atmosphere of earth (air medium) deflect, reflect and create that fuzzy moment due to heating and cooling effect (this is also why there is turbulence!). so when your line of sight to the starlight have air, you would see the star twinkle. \n\nstar = sun, and sun burn 24/7 until they die. they don't go out of a sudden and reignite."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
bsi6hw | why does it seem so challenging now to send a manned crew to the moon, when we were able to accomplish this over 50 years ago? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bsi6hw/eli5_why_does_it_seem_so_challenging_now_to_send/ | {
"a_id": [
"eonfqh2",
"eonfsid",
"eonfv60",
"eong0du",
"eongb2p",
"eonmx5z",
"eonqvsa",
"eonrq1v",
"eons66r",
"eons6g2",
"eonsiqm",
"eontd0p",
"eontkxo",
"eonuf8g",
"eonuu7q",
"eonvpbq",
"eonw1bw",
"eonw94p",
"eonx8d4",
"eonzbp3",
"eonzo7j",
"eonzpb5",
"eoo1cfd",
"eoo1mzj",
"eoo48g9",
"eoo5409",
"eoo68lw",
"eoo8lek",
"eooay68",
"eoobic8",
"eooboiq",
"eooch17",
"eoochf7",
"eoocmri",
"eooctx4",
"eoonxht",
"eoos8rx",
"eop7u5v",
"eops3c7",
"eoqe2b6"
],
"score": [
168,
707,
4197,
26,
15753,
67,
50,
3,
5,
62,
2,
15,
69,
3,
2,
4,
11,
2,
2,
9,
165,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In large part it’s because the politics have changed. Fifty years ago we were scared of the communist threat, and constantly in competition with the USSR (communist Russia). Russia was trying to send men to the moon, so we had to do it first.\n\nNowadays there’s not as much funding or government/public interest in space exploration, so it’s kind of fallen to the wayside.",
"AFAIK, it's a relatively ~~low~~ high cost to benefit ratio.\n\nIn other words, it would cost A LOT of time & money to make it happen, with not a lot of benefit. \n\nThat being said, there are plans to use the moon as a 'base' for further exploration (to Mars for example). So if/when it comes time for that, there will be much larger benefits to having people on the moon, so it will be likelier to happen.",
"Space travel is always challenging, but I would argue it has more to do with motivation. After the Apollo missions, there just hasn't been a need or want to go back. We all have our sci-fi desires, but until there is money to be made (even on research), there hasn't been a point to go back. That mood encouragingly seems to be shifting and a manned mission may be on the horizon again.",
"In 1969 humanity sent a few people to the Moon for a short period of time.\n\nImagine going on a weekend vacation with your family. (Analogy obviously)\n\nNow we are sending people on vacation but we are using the trip as a preparation for moving out to another city. Logistics are different, budget is different, the vehicle is different",
"The best analogy I can think of is that it's also challenging to reproduce the Great Pyramid now, even though it was something that was accomplished 4000 years ago.\n\nIt's not that we don't know how to do it, it's that our priorities have changed. We're not willing to spend the money it would require, and we're not willing to take as many risks with human lives as we were then.\n\nBut we COULD do it.",
"It costs a lot of money.\n\nJFK didn't want to send people to the moon, but he also didn't want the US to lose the space race against the USSR. During the Apollo program (The US Moon landing program), it was heavily criticized for costing too much. Of course now that it's over, we all look fondly at it and are quite proud of it. But that wasn't the feeling during the the process before we landed on the moon.\n\nThere's also the fact that a lot of the people who worked on the Apollo program are either retired or dead. So it's not so easy to do another moon landing, as tons of experience from the prior ones is now inaccessible. Documents and technical drawings are still available, but those don't tell the full story.",
"We understand the technologies required but NASA's budget is only $21.5 billion for 2019 - and due to decrease in 2020. If we wanted to go we could, but no-one in power thinks it's a priority. We could probably make some scientific advances with human exploration of the solar system, however it's hard to see what benefit there would be over using robotic vehicles. The real challenges of space exploration aren't going on sight-seeing trips around the solar system, but are in solving the challenges of traveling between stars in time frames that make human exploration feasible. That would require a step change in technology as significant as moving from the stone age to the nuclear age. Just my opinion, but spending a ton more money on the lab coats down here on earth would be the best step we could make to advance space exploration.",
"Launching, landing, and re-launching anything with mass is expensive. \n\nThe more mass, the more expensive.\n\nA person weighs ~76 Kg.\n\nThen needs water and food.\n\nAnd pressurized atmosphere.\n\nAnd if that person’s brain doesn’t get oxygen for ~2 minutes, it catastrophically fails.\n\nOur bodies have evolved for a billion years to live on this planet, and this is where our bodies will stay.\n\nBut I am wholeheartedly for space exploration. The Rosetta/Philae mission to comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko was super cool. \n\nI just don’t think a person can do anything in space that a robot can’t do safer, better, and most importantly, less expensive.",
"It is just the cost.\n\nThere no question we could do it if we really wanted to but no one really wants to. It is very expensive for little upside. Telling someone you cannot fix a bridge or build a school because you sent someone to the moon does not fly politically today.",
"Because we are not just dealing with \"going to the moon\".\n\nBack then, we did it to fly American might in the face of the USSR.\n\nNow.. well Russia isn't our competitor. And politicans WON'T let their opponents claim a single victory. Even if that means hindering the country as a whole.",
"Aside from the fact that its costly to build a big enough rocket to go to the moon and back, its an even bigger hurdle to do all the initial research and development that goes along with it. You have to develop a lot of technology, equipment and procedures to enable it. The key thing though was that NASA was basically given a blank check during the 60s to make sure we got to the Moon first. IIRC NASA was 2-3% of the Federal budget then, its a fraction of that now.\n\nOne of the greatest mistakes ever was basically throwing all that away when we canceled Apollo. So if we want to go back we have to do that all over again for the most part.",
"The easiest answer is politics and money. What the answer is *not*, is technology, materials or manufacturing challenges. I wouldn't believe those that says otherwise. A nice eye opener is Andy Weir's (The Martian) references at the back of his books and that he's posted online showing detailed technical proposals from the *70's* for building various types of artificial gravity (centripetal) stations and structures. The plans go into manufacturing, materials required and even cost analysis. The reason Orion is so over budget is the politics of supply chains being deliberately spread all over the country so that every representative in DC can benefit politically. The downside is that it massively over-complicates designs and makes any changes or redesigns move at a glacial pace. That's one example of why our capabilities aren't the problem. Money and politics. That's pretty much it.",
"Risk aversion. \n\nBack then, the death of an astronaut was a tragedy, but expected. Today, it's unacceptable.",
"Because it was challenging then too. You should really listen to the new podcast on the BBC World Service. It’s called “13 Minutes To The Moon” ...\n\nYou need to understand that sending a spacecraft 230,000+\\- miles away takes not only good timing, but, a significant amount of fuel, and spacecraft reliability to get there, and then even more luck, fuel, and reliability to get down, back, and then home. The Apollo program was very rushed, and frankly, every single mission could have and should have been a disaster.",
"Constantly changing priorities. When NASA accomplished putting people on the moon, they spent nearly a decade solely focused on that and their priorities were not changed by the administration.\n\nNow, every President that comes into office wants to make a proclamation similar to JFK, but they are never willing to actually commit to that proclamation. Then the next administration comes in and changes the priorities to try to make themselves look like JFK. It's counter-productive.",
"In short, it's because we stopped doing it.\n\nHad we continued doing manned missions, they might be super easy. But we didn't. Too expensive. So now if we want to go back, we basically have to do everything all over again.",
"Let's say that the world suddenly stops making computers of any sort because it would not be a priority anymore.\nThink about how long it would take to get back to modern computers 50 years after stopping. You wouldn't have any factories ready for any of the components, you wouldn't have any skilled engineer or worker to build anything. Even with theoritical knowledge you would have to basically start from scratch.\nThis is what's happening right now with the space industries. Because we shifted focus to other objectives and don't have as much money for it we don't have the tools, factories and skilled employees they had 50 years ago.",
"What’s so special about the moon anyways? Let’s build a craft that can collect all the space junk instead. Let’s measure our dicks by seeing who can do the most good!",
"It was fucking challenging then too. It is a matter of priority. In the 60s the US felt it HAD to be first. It was war. Now it's more \"sure we COULD go back, but why?”",
"Landing on the moon is a huge engineering challenge. Can we do the math easier ? Yes. Are our computers faster ? Yes. But that doesn't help the logistics. You still have to train the crew. Build the ships. Test the computers. Run all the simulations. The actual calculations that are faster now than 50 years ago are a very small part of the total mission if you want to run it with s high chance of success.",
"We decided to scrap the Saturn 5 rocket program in favor of the shuttle program for safety and cost\nreasons. In doing so we forfeited the ability to travel to higher orbits as the shuttle only performs in low orbit. Sending a manned expedition to the Moon was no longer possible. This wasn't a problem as automated systems eliminated the need for such manned missions. \n\nFast forward to today, we still don't have a rocket powerful enough to travel to the Moon because we haven't had any need to build such a rocket. Further, our safety standards are higher then they were making such a program even more expensive.",
"1. No funding\n\n2. Increasing debris around the earth (in-orbit)\n\n3. Lack of interest\n\n4. No purpose\n\nAlso, regarding no.4 ...the only viable purpose to send people to moon would be to establish a moon base...but that again requires funding and interest (what would you do with a moon base rn? scientific research work on moon? Fusion research? Establish a colony? Grow artificial vegetation?...none of those benefit the economy thus no funding)\n\nIMO this line of thinking is the same that doesn't allow us to build genetically engineered catgirls....but that doesnt mean it won't happen",
"Whats with them saying we don't have the technology to go? And how did they lose the tapes of the moon mission? I believe they might have taped over them they say? I'm not saying we haven't actually been, I just don't understand.",
"Because it's not possible for humans to sustain those levels of radiation and therefore, it never happened...",
"Because we didn’t accomplish this over 50 years ago. We filmed stuff in a studio and made it look like we had accomplished it",
"The U.s. government and a bunch of literal Nazis sent us to the moon in a feat we still cant recreate and then deleted all scientific evidence of it, but its insane to question the validity.",
"Lack of funding and as a result of that lack of resources needed to achieve a manned Moon mission",
"NASA was receiving ~4.5% of the federal budget in the 60s. It declined to .5% in the late 80s-90s and is now a little less than 1%.\n\nWe’ve already been to the moon, most people want to push the envelope and go to other places. The moon was a singular purpose when they were getting 4.5% of every dollar in the budget.\n\nNow their are hundreds of ideas and a multitude of missions fighting for less money.",
"The primary reason is that the entire supply chain needed to do it does not exist anymore. Think of all the software needed and the small and big parts alike. All the people who used to know how these systems work.l are dead",
"The Saturn V has been decommissioned as part of the deal with Boeing to make the space shuttle",
"We're smarter and wiser and we're not trying to race anyone there. We were playing cowboys in space back then, now we're a bit more careful. It's not that it's harder, we've just placed more responsibility on ourselves.",
"No more space race or USSR, no more reason for the government to fund it. Simple as that. We could still quite easily send a manned crew to the moon if we gave NASA the funding. Also we signed a treaty saying we wouldn't test nukes on the moon, which is the reason we were racing to space in the first place.",
"Detracting from the real reasons, but if I recall correctly, they actually don't have the technical know how/skilled craftsman or detailed plans to rebuild most of the Saturn/F1 rockets anymore.\n\nSomething like 2-5% of each engine was completely unique to that build and had many modifications by the Boilermakers to make them function from the original engineering plans\n\nEdit: original source I was thinking of: _URL_0_",
"Tighter safety regulations, more equipment, more R & D, more training, etc, etc.\n\nThings have been getting more complicated scientifically and politically.",
"Money. Also safety precautions are much tighter than they were when they were racing to the moon against Russia.",
"I remember watching a documentary on Apollo 8. One of the wives kept bugging one of the scientists to tell her honestly what he thought her husband's chances of coming home alive were. He eventually replied \"how's 50/50 sound?\". This actually made her feel better.\n\nThat level of risk was acceptable when the entire country was backing the effort, and there was general agreement that beating the USSR to the moon was crucial.\n\nCurrently, an astronaut's chances of dying on the job are around 1 in 20. I am assuming those odds would be much worse for those involved in a moon shot. We were *very* lucky to lose only 3 astronauts during the Apollo program.\n\nThe PR damage of having dead astronauts orbiting/sitting on the moon forever would greatly outweigh the benefit of returning to the moon. Increasing the safety margin to an acceptable level is crazy difficult/expensive (presumably).\n\nAlso, NASA used to attract the best minds in the country. They still have great scientists, but many super-intelligent people are on Wall Street, figuring out how to extract rents from high-speed trading or inventing new ways to gamble on student loan defaults.",
"I’m not too sure but my god it blows my mind when I think about how we, as a civilization, can literally build a rocket that shoots us into space so that we can visit other planetary bodies. It just baffles me",
"NASA destroyed all the technology they used to go to the moon. This is one of the main reasons people who think the moon landings were faked use as a reason. They make a good point too. One of the Most important events in human history and you just decided to destroy most of the evidence it happened? Why? Can only be one of 3 reasons. 1. We never went. 2. Massive incompetence. 3. Aliens contacted us and said stay the fuck off the moon. \n\nHere’s a video of the astronaut saying that we destroyed it. \n_URL_0_",
"You don't run the Boston marathon once, in your twenties, and then say \"*I'll definitely do this again some day, absolutely, great stuff!*\", and then at age 70 you think to yourself, \"*that was a blast. Hey Hon? I'm going to go to the moon again. When? Oh, I don't know, are we doing anything important on Wednesday? No? Ok, Wednesday it is\"*\n\nIt's not an afternoon picnic down by the river, every choice in the mission has consequences. Technology has improved, not necessarily making things easier, but perhaps, requiring less human involvement so....what happens if backups 1, 2 and 3 fail? Can they fly this new device and get back to Earth safely?\n\nTraining is needed, study is needed.\n\nAnd every bit of this is the stair step to Mars.\n\nIf we make mistakes on the moon, we can have a ship to pick up the pieces in 96 hours.\n\nNot so with Mars.\n\nThe moon is where we get it right.",
"1.) Funding. The space race, 50 years ago, was exorbitantly funded to produce a mission that would make US the undeniable winner of the conflict. Over time, the funding was cut from 4.0% of the Federal budget to 0.50% (and it's not increasing... yet).\n\n2.) Public Interest. I hate to say this, but the public has little interest to space, only until not too recent ago when privately funded companies (SpaceX, Blue Origin) have had the chance to project ambitious goals of deep space explorations. \n\n3.) Lack of Research. Deep Space exploration missions is entirely different than Low-Earth Orbit missions. We have yet to design a capsule that would combat the intense solar radiation from the occasional flares that the sun might emit. There isn't a proven design that can transport humans safely beyond Lunar orbit. We stayed stagnant on the Low earth orbit region for decades and had we not done that we would be in a better position for deep space missions. \n\nI have faith though. Someday, we will have an astronaut in Mars, and beyond."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/ovD0aLdRUs0"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/BK-uatwOOeA"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1q777g | why is so much research behind a paywall? | I'm currently doing a research project (on naked mole rats), and it's kindof opened my eyes to how much bullshit is floating around the internet. I already knew most of the internet was bullshit, but I had about 20 sources that all said the same thing that were self referencing eachother.
I finally had the sense to start googling "Heterocephalus_glaber" instead of "Naked mole rat" and found a bunch of abstracts (only in citations, not directly from google) that are mostly behind some sort of paywall.
Is there any sort of hub where new research is published and easy to access? Or do I have to look at each individual research institution, easily passing over places I do not know exist?
Right now I just kinda look at what is on reddit or huffington or whatever. I don't want to only go directly to sources but want to be able to find new things independently that aren't just what some sort of media happens to find interesting at that moment. Where can I do this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q777g/eli5_why_is_so_much_research_behind_a_paywall/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd9vzwx",
"cd9w1ka",
"cd9wbd0",
"cd9x53k",
"cda0nql",
"cda198x"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
16,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Google Scholar is great for this. _URL_0_\n\nAll of the papers with free links are show a link to the right that should say either html or .pdf. If your research is through a university, I would assume there are a lot of resources through your library for looking up journal articles.",
"The best places to find scientific literature are [Google Scholar](_URL_0_) and [Pubmed](_URL_2_).\n\nIn regards to your actual question, the reason that research lives behind a paywall is mostly historical. It used to be that authors would submit their work to a journal for a nominal fee. Libraries would then pay the Journal for a subscription to cover the costs of printing, etc. In return, libraries would offer patrons the opportunity to read about Professor Y's work. The advent of the internet has changed this paradigm, since libraries are mostly unused for legitimate scientific research. As a result, so called \"open access\" journals are cropping up, but not without [their issues](_URL_1_). In this model, scientists pay for their article to be published/disseminated, and patrons can read the article for free, without any library affiliation.",
"As an academic (PhD student), I completely agree with you that far too much knowledge is paywalled. Most academics hate it. Authors of journal papers don't get paid for publishing articles; you write them for free because, well, you have to. In order to keep a job at a university you have to demonstrate that you produce research, and journals are the best way to do this. So, the idea behind not getting paid is that you are doing it for the prestige, and to further the body of knowledge, not for a reward. Furthermore, a lot of research is funded by government grants and research, so given that this is public money, it seems unfair for it to be unavailable to the public. I have no problem with journals charging a fee for a subscription, but when you see databases trying to charge you $49.95 for access to a single article, that just takes the biscuit.\n\nA major problem is that, whilst universities are technically not-for-profit (at least, most are), the databases that store journal articles are actually for-profit. They store the journals online, and then charge universities (and others) for access.\n\nSome journals (such as PLOS ONE) are open access journals, and the way they are able to do this is by charging authors to publish. The idea is, the author pays to publish the work, so that it can be provided free. PLOS ONE is one of the more reputable open access journals, but most of them aren't that well regarded. I would do some research on the journal first, as if it is a poor quality journal, the quality of the research is likely to be poor.\n\nAs /u/jbresnahan says, Google Scholar is a great resource, and does host a number of free articles. Also, you might want to check out JSTOR - due to certain circumstances, they have recently made a percentage of their database free to access.\n\nIt is also worth bearing in mind that just looking at the abstract can be useful, as it gives you a good indication of the study. Although it is always preferable to read the study directly, if you can only see the abstract (which are almost always free - I have never seen an abstract that you can only access behind a paywall), then that is better than nothing. ",
" > Is there any sort of hub where new research is published and easy to access? Or do I have to look at each individual research institution, easily passing over places I do not know exist?\n\nAcademic journals, I'm not familiar with biology journals at all, but there will be a professional society of biologists or zoologists or something that handles the publication of most journals about animals. \n\n > that are mostly behind some sort of paywall.\n\nDo the searches from your university campus, or through a library VPN.\n\nMost universities pay (quite a lot of money) for access to academic journals, use _URL_0_ and bing academic search and actually use the library search tools. \n\nInternet searches suck at pulling information out of databases, most academic journals are databases that only really work with library searches. Yes this is stupid, no this is not a new problem, and yes, places like google are working on it. \n\nRunning journals costs money, you need to keep track of a mountain of paperwork, organize conferences, etc etc. etc. There are two pays to get that money - either you charge authors or you charge readers. The current model is a bit of both, but mainly to charge readers, since most readers are institutional (through a university or large corporation) they pay subscriptions to journals. The big journals like Nature even have subs with some local libraries. \n\nI've been charged to publish in a journals (Eurosis) particularly because my paper was over their regular page limit, and they charge authors extra to deal with the print versions. It's bizarre, but whatever. You do what you have to do.\n\n\nI'm not sure what academic stage you are at, if you're in highschool trying to do searches in journals is mostly going to get you no where. If you are in university your best bet is to work through your library (check their website to see).\n\nOne thing you can always try, is use google scholar to find articles that seem interesting, and then search for the actual name of the article, lots of academics post their own papers on their own website outside a paywall. \n\n",
"Right, Google Scholar can help identify some scholarly material on the web, but a lot of it will still be paywalled. I.e., you'll find the citation but when you click through you'll get hit up for $9.95 or whatever to read the PDF.\n\nTwo options to get around this:\n\n1. Check with your local university or college library, as someone else said here. Research libraries subscribe to tons of specialized research databases and most will allow you to access the full contents of them if you visit the library in person. Call ahead to make sure--but that's widespread in the US, at least at public research universities.\n\n2. Call or go to your public library. Public libraries usually have way more access to databases and research articles than most people realize. If you have a library card, you should be able to log into those databases from your home computer and download to your heart's content. If they don't have what you want, you should be able to submit an interlibrary loan (ILL) request and they'll get it. In most cases, they'll get PDFs of articles (scanned by other libraries and emailed to you/them.) They can also get hard copies of books this way.\n\nBottom line: talk to a librarian! This is exactly what they're there for. \n\nAaand I just realized that this doesn't answer your exact question, which is *why* so much research is behind paywalls. /u/Fairleee covers it. Except that Google Scholar doesn't, to my knowledge, host any free content. They just point to free content if it's already available from an academic publisher. That's a pretty mixed bag. If you're doing serious research, go to the research databases themselves. \n\nOne other tip: when searching for your topic on Google, include site:.edu in your terms. That will limit your results to pages on university sites. Not a surefire way to get scholarly stuff, and misses stuff from things like _URL_0_, but a good starting place and a way to filter some of the crap.",
"Are you a university student? Then go to your library. They pay thousands (in some cases millions) of dollars for you to have access to these resources. \n\nHigh school student? Ask your school librarian about databases at your school. You may also be able to \n\nPublic libraries also have database access, though they tend to be light in the hard sciences (those databases are super expensive). Never hurts to check. \n\nIf you live close to a state-run university (University of *insert your state here*), you can access it no matter what because you are (theoretically), a taxpayer. For academic libraries, always check their usage policies. If you are under 18, you may need to take a parent with you. \n\nYou can also try _URL_0_ . Some of these items will be UNPUBLISHED, and probably not appropriate for a HS/Bachelors level work. \n\n---Your friendly academic librarian. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"Scholar.google.com"
],
[
"http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&tab=ws",
"http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed"
],
[],
[
"scholar.google.com"
],
[
"Oxford.com"
],
[
"http://www.mendeley.com/"
]
] |
|
5ag3qg | is the speed of light the fastest any object can move through space, or is it the fastest speed any object can move, period? | I'm having a hard time finding an answer for this question, I've heard this is the fastest any object can move through a vacuum. Though I'm not sure if, in the absence of a vacuum(ie an area in which there is no distance between two points), the speed could increase.
I have no experience at all with this, so yea, disregard that if it doesn't make much sense. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ag3qg/eli5_is_the_speed_of_light_the_fastest_any_object/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9g68t9",
"d9g7c8l"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Fastest anything can move period. Fastest \"information\" can travel. \n\nLight can, however, move slower in a medium, which is what allows for Cherenkov radiation.",
"Matter cannot travel at the speed of light. Only the energy can travel at the speed of light.\n\nThis is where relativity comes into play. As matter moves closer to the speed of light it gains mass. As it gains mass it requires more energy to go faster. In order to reach the speed of light you require infinite energy. This is obviously impossible.\n\nEnergy gets around this because it has no mass."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3d1q0b | when and why did names like evelyn, vivian and ashley, which used to be suitable to either sex, become restricted to women? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d1q0b/eli5_when_and_why_did_names_like_evelyn_vivian/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct0zmsi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In Britain at least, Ashley is certainly a boy's name still:\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_2_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Cole",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Peacock",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Walters"
]
] |
||
2r245m | what happens to the poison when you kill a poisonous spider? | For example, if I were to smash a Black Widow. Could the poison still cause harm if I were to touch it etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r245m/eli5_what_happens_to_the_poison_when_you_kill_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnbpsiy"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"With most spider venom it will only harm you if it is introduced into your bloodstream. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
pmcgs | why does visible light seamlessly "loop" (color wheel) when each color is a higher frequency than the last? | Thinking of a rainbow's Red Orange Yellow Green Indigo Blue Violet pattern, with infrared and ultraviolet being just beyond our visible perception, why can a violet hue transition to red without going back through the other colors? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pmcgs/eli5_why_does_visible_light_seamlessly_loop_color/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3qxcyz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Okay, so you know that the electromagnetic spectrum doesn't actually loop. But our eyes see color in visible light using three different pigments in our retinas (in the parts called the cones). These pigments correspond to red, green, and blue. These pigments all respond a little bit to different colors, but respond most strongly to their specific color. Our brain then interprets the color from how much each of these respond.\n\nTransitioning from red frequency to green frequency, we see yellow, and from green to blue we see cyan, and beyond blue, we see violet.\n\nBut there are infinite colors, like you said. Now, in a TV, you can't put an infinite number of colors in each pixel, so you mix colors. If you show red light and green light at the same time, our brain also interprets that as yellow. If we show green and blue and the same time, we interpret that as cyan.\n\nThere's nothing to keep us from showing red light and blue light at the same time, and if we do, we interpret that mix of colors as magenta. The seamless loop you describe can be done like this:\n\nImagine you have three lamps shining on a wall. One is red, one is green, and one is blue. You turn on the red one so that it gets brighter and brighter, and then start turning it down. While the red one is slowly fading away, you start turning up the green lamp (yellow). Then, once the red lamp is completely off, you start turning down the green lamp and turning up the blue lamp (cyan). Once the green lamp is off, you start turning down the blue lamp and start turning up the red lamp again (magenta).\n\nThis works because we can see a color as one wavelength, or as a combination of wavelengths. When you see blue transition to red, you're seeing a combination of wavelengths. This is also what you see when you see white: many different wavelengths.\n\nP.S.: When you see *light* green, you're seeing *mostly* green light with a little red and a little blue. Light purple is *mostly* red and blue light with a little green mixed in."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
50jpg9 | why do you get paralyzed only by damaging the spinal cord, it's not like it's cut in half | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50jpg9/eli5_why_do_you_get_paralyzed_only_by_damaging/ | {
"a_id": [
"d74l7e0"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Picture it not as one cable, but as a bundle of cables. If even one little cable within the spinal cord is damaged, some nervous system functionality can be lost."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5sjm9h | why is moving water harder to freeze/boil? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sjm9h/eli5_why_is_moving_water_harder_to_freezeboil/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddfku45"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"...It isn't. In fact, in both cases it makes it easier to bring the total volume of the fluid to the desired temperature. The reason you might think otherwise is just that some regions of the fluid (in contact with the pan, or the cold air depending) are the first to reach boiling/freezing. \n\nIn fact however, agitating water while freezing it is going to speed up the process of freezing, since you'll be helping to give furnish the water with nucleation sites for ice crystals (or bubbles for boiling in the other case). Either way, stirring or mixing is going to help get you there just a little faster, not slower. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2yj0ov | how did superheroes (marvel/dc) enter the mainstream and pop culture when they were primarily aimed at a young male demographic in the early days? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yj0ov/eli5how_did_superheroes_marveldc_enter_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp9ziep",
"cp9zme3"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"The kids that grew up reading those comics are the generation in charge now. They're old enough to have jobs, disposable income, and free time, so it stands to reason that some of the things they liked as kids would translate into modern pop culture",
"Movies.\n\nFirst, the 80s. There was a wave of largely British writers who went to the US and began ripping apart the genre. Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Frank Miller, they began deconstructing these simplistic, childish power fantasies in ways that made adults say \"holy shit\" at their darkness and depth of examination. It flipped the comic world on its head, and comics like Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns and Sandman were so critically and commercially successful with more adult audiences that it opened up a whole new market. Comics were no longer just for kids, even if they weren't mainstream/popculture yet.\n\nNow, back to movies.\n\nPeople enjoy action movies. They enjoy them more when the plot is half-decent, the characters have a bit of depth, and the action includes laserbeam eyes and throwing lightning at people. The plots and characters are already there, being that the movies are basically loose comic adaptations, and the genre was in the right place at the right time as movie CGI began to look good enough for this stuff.\n\nIt was really a mix of the first X-Men movie in 2000, which was fun enough to people accept them, followed by the first Spider-Man movie in 2002, which was a box office megasmash. At that point the studios smelled cash, Marvel and DC went all out, and it just exploded over the last decade as they've proven to be a great summer box office formula."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4zmrga | those 1 second commercials you see, are those some sort of editing mistake, or do companies actually pay for a 1 second ad slot? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zmrga/eli5_those_1_second_commercials_you_see_are_those/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6x3sky",
"d6x8l7j",
"d6x8y9u",
"d6x9zjv",
"d6xcdd3"
],
"score": [
455,
17,
45,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Your cable/satellite company you get your TV from is allowed to preempt a certain amount of ads the network sends each hour on each network, and insert their own ads instead that go ONLY to their customers. Each and every cable/sat distributor does this for their own customers, and on almost every network.\n\nThis process is all automated and done electronically and is actually quite complicated.\n\nWhat you are seeing is that the network and the cable company happened to be a little out of sync when the cable company pushed their ad instead of the the network's normal ad stream. [It can be the fault of either the network or cable company depending on the specifics]\n\n",
"Ads usually come from 3 places: The broadcasting network (e.g. NBC, ABC, FOX), the local TV stations (e.g. Fox40, KCRA, ABC 13, etc) or the cable/satellite company. \n\nNBC will usually produce the content (TV show) at their main facilities in New York city and the local stations or the cable company will retransmit the feed to your TV. Now, NBC puts its own ads in between shows. However, local stations and the cable company are also allowed to place their own ads instead of NBC's for a limited number of times. Sometimes the ad starting point is timed incorrectly and that's why you see the original feed for like a second until the local station's ad starts.\n\nKeep in mind that local stations (e.g. NBC 13) usually don't belong to the network (NBC) even though they retransmit their shows and use their name. They simply pay a fee to retransmit the contents. That's also another reason why each local channel has its own news. That's often the only time in which the local station can make some revenue since they are the ones producing the show and charging for the ads.",
"Yes, Miller High life did purchase 30, 1 sec ads for a certain super bowl, besides that most are what everyone else is saying. It's because broadcast are done in multiple place and several entities are allowed to show commercials, sometime this is done out of sync with the recordings. ",
"Local television stations have master control operators. They sit in a room full of monitors, watching the main feed as it displays on television. Everything is timed out, from the length of each segment to how long the commercial breaks are. In some shows, both the show and the commercials are in one large video file already edited together, with a portion of the nationwide broadcast having space set aside for local affiliates. This portion could either be black space or a certain set of commercials that can be \"overridden.\" So, when the time comes up for the local commercial to air, a master control operator pushes a button to play a preloaded local commercial sequence. 99% of the time, you don't notice the transition. 1% of the time, he's too fast or too slow in playing the local commercials, so you see a portion of the original broadcast.",
"does anybody else ever get the sound like 5 or 6 buttons being pushed on a touch tone phone during cable commercials?\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2bzraf | why does my cat ignore me when i say its name but it always looks up when i make a kissy noise? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bzraf/eli5why_does_my_cat_ignore_me_when_i_say_its_name/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjahunz",
"cjamttc"
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text": [
"I've worked with cats for years. Your cat knows his/her name. He/She simply does not associate anything that he enjoys with you calling him by name. Since there is no benefit in it for your cat, he doesn't respond to his name when you say it.\n\nThe kissy noise might be associated, in his mind, with a bird or other critter -- or perhaps you give him a treat when you make the kissy noise.",
"He's a dick.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3ii6fv | how did vietnamese monk thích quảng đức achieve such an extreme pain tolerance? | Describing his act of self immolation in Vietnam, the American journalist David Halberstam wrote:
"I was to see that sight again, but once was enough. Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shriveling up, his head blackening and charring. In the air was the smell of burning human flesh; human beings burn surprisingly quickly. Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering. I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think ... **As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him.**" | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ii6fv/eli5_how_did_vietnamese_monk_thích_quảng_đức/ | {
"a_id": [
"cugv7iu",
"cugw2wm",
"cuh2ddp"
],
"score": [
36,
15,
3
],
"text": [
"If I remember correctly, during immolation the extreme heat can burn the nervous system, basically killing the cells that would carry the signal of pain to your receptors. The flames would be so hot that they destroy the nerves responsible for fast and slow pain, meaning the body doesn't react like it normally does by twitching and other reflexes. Also I'm fairly certain that if the flame burns hot enough and fast enough as with some sort of accelerant, the flames deprive the person of oxygen and they will usually suffocate to death before succumbing to the destruction of their body.",
"Disclaimer: I am not an authority on I anything say here. I'll probably get details wrong.\n\nThere are schools of meditation that teach that there is a difference between pain and suffering. Pain is what you feel, but suffering is in your reaction to the pain. If instead of having a strong, negative reaction to the pain, you simply accept it, you can experience pain without suffering. \"Simply accepting\" in general is easier said than done. The skill of Acceptance (in general, not specifically pain) is a major theme in some schools that is explicitly practiced and refined. I expect that Thích Quảng Đức was a master at it.",
"Do other people know more about self mummification? I believe it used to be more common for old monks to consume salt and stuff to mummify themselves alive,right?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3swhs7 | why isn't deforestation and the decline of plant life largely responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide we hear everyone talking about. | There must exist a ratio between carbon dioxide and oxygen which plant life and animals use to survive and thrive. This ratio is apparently tipping towards carbon dioxide. Could this be due to the reduction in the Amazon forest and general decline in quality and quantity of plant life around the globe? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3swhs7/eli5_why_isnt_deforestation_and_the_decline_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx104gf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > Why isn't deforestation and the decline of plant life largely responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide we hear everyone talking about.\n\nTo keep it simple, CO2 is given off when wood is burned. Sometimes lots of wood is burned on purpose, like slash-and-burn agriculture that results in large sections of the Amazon rainforest being cut down. Sometimes lots of wood is burned by accident, like forest fires in California or British Columbia. Either way, all this burning wood releases a whole lot of CO2. \n\nScientists know this and they take this into account in their climate models. They calculate all the CO2 being released from burning wood and they find that it doesn't account for all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere...something *else* is releasing a whole lot of CO2. This something else is mainly industry (e.g. manufacturing) but also cars and energy production are factors as well. My point is CO2 released from burning wood is a fraction of the CO2 being released into the atmosphere each year. However, even this fraction contributes to climate change and the scientists also account for this in their models.\n\n > There must exist a ratio between carbon dioxide and oxygen which plant life and animals use to survive and thrive. This ratio is apparently tipping towards carbon dioxide.\n\nYes, too much CO2 in our atmosphere would result in life dying off. For example, Venus has a [run-away greenhouse gas cycle](_URL_0_) that has resulted in a really bad conditions for life because, among other greenhouse gasses, it has too much CO2 in its atmosphere. It is certainly possible that such a state could be achieved by our natural cycles here on Earth. Thankfully, we are very far from this scenario and its not going to happen any time soon. This is because the Earth has mechanisms or cycles which balance out these different molecules. One such cycle is the [carbon cycle](_URL_3_). It is a well understood mechanism that naturally keeps the carbon circulating through different parts of the Earth. Some of these processes are very slow, some of the processes are very fast. Here is a simplified graphic of the [carbon cycle](_URL_3_). There are other nutrient and chemical cycles found in nature...the [water cycle](_URL_1_), the [nitrogen cycle](_URL_4_), [the oxygen cycle](_URL_2_). All of these cycles keep these particles moving and flowing so that they are in usable and un-usable states. These cycles can have different equilibrium points.\n\nThese cycles are at a natural equilibrium, where the outputs naturally balance the inputs. Humans are adding more CO2 output and the Earth's carbon cycle is having a harder time compensating. For example, the Earth's oceans can store a lot of carbon by absorbing it, however the more it stores the slower the process becomes. The oceans become saturated and they \"fill up\" with carbon and they can't store any more. So there is some flexibility in the cycle in regards to cushioning our increased outputs but this flexibility will only go so far. Humans are pushing these cycles to past their current equilibria point. The cycles will reset at a new equilibria point, one which may not be conducive the way of life for many species. Thats why so much research is being put into figuring out how new equilibrias might effect different species, and which species will survive and which ones are very likely to go extinct.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_cycle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle"
]
] |
|
1y8p6l | can you please help me understand native americans in current us society ? | As a non American, I have seen TV shows and movies where the Native Americans are always depicted as casino owning billionaires, their houses depicted as non-US land or law enforcement having no jurisdiction. How?They are sometimes called Indians, sometimes native Americans and they also seem to be depicted as being tribes or parts of tribes.
The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me, can someone please explain how it all works.
If this question is offensive to anyone, I apologise in advance, just a Brit here trying to understand.
EDIT: I am a little more confused though and here are some more questions which come up.
i) Native Americans don't pay tax on businesses. How? Why not?
ii) They have areas of land called Indian Reservations. What is this and why does it exist ?
"Some Native American tribes actually have small semi-sovereign nations within the U.S"
iii) Local law enforcement, which would be city or county governments, don't have jurisdiction. Why ?
I think the bigger question is why do they seem to get all these perks and special treatment, USA is one country isnt it?
EDIT2
/u/Hambaba states that he was stuck with the same question when speaking with his asian friends who also then asked this further below in the comments..
1) Why don't the Native American chose to integrate fully to American society?
2)Why are they choosing to live in reservation like that? because the trade-off of some degree of autonomy?
3) Can they vote in US election?
I mean why why why are they choosing to live like that? The US government is not forcing them or anything right?
I failed so completely trying to understand the logic and reasoning of all these.
**Final Edit**
Thank you all very much for your answers and what has been a fantastic thread. I have learnt a lot as I am sure have many others!
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1y8p6l/eli5can_you_please_help_me_understand_native/ | {
"a_id": [
"cga9q58",
"cfiaud1",
"cfiavlw",
"cfibcc9",
"cfidc8e",
"cfidsjz",
"cfie2wa",
"cfieg18",
"cfif05c",
"cfiffry",
"cfifgia",
"cfifkox",
"cfig13p",
"cfig6zh",
"cfigary",
"cfigem5",
"cfihffo",
"cfihg2f",
"cfihnuh",
"cfihqop",
"cfihtw1",
"cfii0d7",
"cfii53b",
"cfiiayn",
"cfiicx5",
"cfiisz5",
"cfij2eo",
"cfij3xz",
"cfijbd9",
"cfijf5n",
"cfijp7z",
"cfijvov",
"cfijxal",
"cfik12t",
"cfik9se",
"cfikfgc",
"cfikhcw",
"cfikkj2",
"cfikx9n",
"cfilm1e",
"cfilulv",
"cfiman9",
"cfimekv",
"cfimsc5",
"cfimzkt",
"cfinbju",
"cfinjit",
"cfinviu",
"cfinxec",
"cfioj4q",
"cfiozdp",
"cfiozwo",
"cfipadw",
"cfipe7h",
"cfipf4u",
"cfipv9i",
"cfipwes",
"cfiq1fg",
"cfiq6ce",
"cfiqjj7",
"cfiqzj1",
"cfir1af",
"cfir1g5",
"cfirss6",
"cfirtsz",
"cfirwjk",
"cfirxzr",
"cfis2ol",
"cfisce8",
"cfisfjn",
"cfism2e",
"cfispkx",
"cfit17w",
"cfitgrv",
"cfitm0l",
"cfitzjz",
"cfiuc0e",
"cfium5u",
"cfiv32h",
"cfiv9cb",
"cfiwpet",
"cfixf3f",
"cfixx2p",
"cfiy9ep",
"cfiy9hc",
"cfiyjmf",
"cfiypg4",
"cfiz3p5",
"cfizn5s",
"cfiztbe",
"cfizvkd",
"cfj0751",
"cfj0gmv",
"cfj11cp",
"cfj1239",
"cfj1303",
"cfj14nb",
"cfj1elw",
"cfj225s",
"cfj2hqg",
"cfj2r3x",
"cfj2v72",
"cfj3u6y",
"cfk6nus",
"cfk6xaj"
],
"score": [
2,
84,
5,
3,
11,
6,
1658,
4,
34,
4,
19,
3,
2,
2,
6,
7,
3,
36,
2,
7,
7,
7,
5,
6,
3,
9,
2,
17,
2,
3,
3,
63,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
35,
2,
3,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
6,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
9,
3,
3,
5,
2,
4,
2,
6,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
14,
2,
2,
5,
2,
4,
3,
6,
2,
8,
2,
10,
2,
3,
6,
2,
3,
3,
5,
2,
5,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Did they ever have the choice and did they ever want to intergrate in \"American\" society? The world has changed drasticly. One thing i know is that the world lost as a whole while it's lost the native American's. The native American's did know more about life, love, nature, the universe than anyone is trying to research now. And no, taxes were no part of that. It was more about giving someone something and maybe get something in return. Just like when we take something from the earth, you give something back.\nThis was a true value and even when they write otherwise about that. I do not believe it because this was of very high value!!! This was erverything you learned about life because you are a caretaker of the earth you respect your house. Imagine what it felt like to get misled, shot down or become sick. And not to be alowed to speak your own language or to use your own name. As well as native american's understood to be proud of the earth they were proud of there body's and took care of their body and the spiritual wellbeing of themselves and everything around them. This was very deeply rootened in the culture. Many things have changed and a lot seems out of proportion now. I still get sad when i see congreed. We had our paradise and this is what we made of it. But ok that's trough my eyes.\n\nMuch love, from a still proud \nforever living native american.",
"Great question!\n\nSo [a few significant chunks of the United States](_URL_0_) were set asside specifically to be \"Indian Reservations\". About 1 million of the 2.5 **million** native americans in the US live on reservations.\n\nMost minor crimes are handled by local tribal courts, but serious crimes (murder, etc.) are well within the control of the federal government who can investigate and prosecute as necessary. But because tribal courts have some leeway they can make things like casinos legal within states that have more restrictions on them, so this creates small areas where casinos become huge and sometimes profitable for the tribe. For quite some time tribal courts could only sentence people to one year or less for minor crimes.\n\nIt's definitely a complicated relationship, but the federal government is absolutely superior to tribal courts and people on reservations, they just often don't use that power since most issues are normally handled by local law, which on reservations is enforced by tribal courts.",
"Some Native American tribes actually have small semi-sovereign nations within the U.S., usually covering areas less than the size of, say, a city. Gambling is illegal in most U.S. states, but because tribes can set law on their land, they're allowed to set up casinos (which then bring in plenty of money, since they have no competition). \n\nLocal law enforcement, which would be city or county governments, don't have jurisdiction. The FBI and the like have...well, some jurisdiction. It's a gray area, and rarely tested.\n\nNative American culture is essentially dead in the modern U.S., and what few tribes do try to maintain a traditional way of life usually fail to do so.",
"Native Americans tribes were largely placed on reservations throughout the US after settlers removed them from their lands during the expansion westward. \n\nIndian reservations are essentially mini-nations within the United States made up of one or more tribes. They have the ability to craft and enforce their own laws in a limited fashion. The land they occupy is considered \"theirs\" and is NOT granted to them by the state they are located in. \n\nLaw Enforcement is handled by local tribal courts (have limited authority over non-Indians) and by the Federal Government which uses the FBI to investigate crimes inside Indian territory. ",
" > I think the bigger question is why do they seem to get all these perks and special treatment, USA is one country isnt it?\n\nKinda, sorta. It's not supposed to be. On paper, it's more like the EU, or a confederation. Each state is its own and has its own government. According to the Constitution, the Federal government only exists to facilitate interstate commerce, maintain a common army to defend against agressors, and establish/maintain foreign relations. \n\nOver time, the federal government has gotten bigger and bigger and taken more and more power that wasn't originally allocated to them. This is a big source of conflict between left-wing and right-wing political parties in the US. ",
"As far as I know the reasoning behind the \"perks\" and the sovereign nation concept is an attempt at reparation for the horrible way the native American people were treated during the colonization and development of the United states. By giving them a reservation where they have sovereignty they have, in some small (probably insignificant) way, the chance to reclaim self-government along with their control over their own culture. Sadly, it is a poor substitute for the life their ancestors lived, and many people on these reservations deserve better. ",
"I am not a Native myself, but I live in Montana, which has the most Indian Reservations anywhere in the US. From what I understand, the way it works is as follows:\n\n1) The reservation has autonomous control over its *local* jurisdiction. It fields its own local executive, judicial, and legislative bodies as it sees fit. However, if someone that isn't part of the tribe commits a crime inside the borders, non-tribal police have jurisdiction over the case. Similarly, if a tribal member commits a federal crime (murder, drug trafficking, rape, etc.) then the FBI or other federal police forces have jurisdiction there. \n\n2) I'm not sure of the tax status of Native American businesses conducting business on the reservation. I would imagine they would pay tax or membership dues to their tribal council. Much as federal law still applies inside the reservation, I would imagine these businesses may largely still pay federal tax, though not state and local.\n\n3) Indian reservations exist for a myriad of reasons. First, white settlers and our historical government thought it was a fantastic idea to slaughter, scatter, or relocate Natives to their own place far away from the whites. These parcels of land were very shitty, basically places no one else wanted to live. Natives often signed treaties to keep their original land, just to have them broken when convenient and forced to relocate to a reservation. Then, when that reservation was found to be inconvient to white settlers, they would just be relocated again, and again. Current reservations are a holdover from this time, and in a legal and historical sense, are each tribe's \"sovereign nation\", within which they all have varying degrees of autonomy.\n\nOPINION INCOMING: I forgive you for this for being non-American, but calling all this \"perks and special treatment\" is absurd. Yes, there are a few tribes, which are very much an exception, that have lucrative casinos and are very wealthy. These tribes are able to have casinos in areas where it is otherwise illegal because gambling is not federally outlawed, but is something each state decides for itself (Nevada, New Jersey, California, etc). So because state law does not apply inside reservations, they are able to do that.\n\nBut most Natives today live in extreme, EXTREME poverty. Drug abuse, alcoholism, extreme violent crime, 85% unemployment, hunger, homelessness, and lack of basic education and housing are all normal on a very large majority of reservations. You would not want to live there.\n\nSo why don't ALL reservations just build casinos? Because most of them are hundreds of miles away from any semblance of civilization. There's far more access to just make meth, or run drugs and guns, especially with how painfully inept or corrupt tribal police can be. Murders are very common, and often go unsolved. Crime is just rampant on a level not seen outside of a very few inner city areas in the United States, except on the reservation, even if police gave two shits, they still wouldn't have great resources to investigate the crime and catch the perpetrator.\n\nTL;DR - Because history, and the reservation ain't no land of milk and honey.\n\nEDIT -- Yikes, this comment blew up. There's a lot of ignorant opinions in this thread that might possibly mean well (the trolls are obvious, though). Please be easy on them, don't get out your downvote cannons. I was born and raised in Indiana, where there are no Natives to speak of. I had literally no concept of what an Indian reservation was really like until I lived in Montana, and dated a Native American tribal member, being introduced to her family and culture. I may have had some of these questions and opinions not so long ago. And I've learned a ton from the many tribal members who have commented and contributed! We're all learning, all the time. :)\n\nEDIT #2 -- A very common question in the thread seems to be \"why can't/won't they leave\", \"are there laws preventing them from leaving\", and \"aren't there a ton of resources for natives to go to college for free\". I answered this in detail elsewhere, but I'm attaching this for visibility.\n\n1) Can't leave. Not so many reasons, but a large teen pregnancy rate can keep young females (and young males willing to stay with their child) anchored to their family unit. It's also very likely to be beyond the financial reach of these family units to move anywhere, and would likely end up homeless in their new city. There's no way to gain job experience or build a resume on the reservation. Rarely, you'll be able to learn a trade (mechanic, electrician, etc) but even then, by the time, you're qualified, you'll likely have a family of your own, and have roots put down where you're at.\n\n2) Won't leave. This is where it gets tricky. Family and tradition are powerful forces, my friend. Reservations are extremely isolated - it's not like moving from say, Minneapolis to Milwaukee. In that situation, you can expect pretty much the same cultural experience from city to city. Moving off the rez, if you were born and raised there, (tribal members please correct me if I have it wrong) might be more akin to growing up in inner city Detroit in crushing poverty, and moving to a very nice neighborhood in say, Shanghai, China. You have no cultural reference to succeed there. Everything you know about the world is now useless, and worse, you're even more dirt poor in relation to those around you. You've changed your location, but you're still fucked, and now, you have no family support net.\n\nThere's also cultural factors at work - each tribe's reservation is theirs. It's a nation. It's their home. For most tribes, they have literally nothing except the reservation. So no matter how bad it is, it's what they know, and where their roots go deep. It's where your family is known, your language is spoken, your religious holidays make sense, your customs, your slang, your accent. I can't stress this enough - it is not at all like moving from one American city to another as a white American. It's more like moving from a sub-Saharan African country where English is spoken to Chicago.\n\n3) Laws about it. There are no current laws preventing Natives from assimilating or moving wherever they wish. Historically, there used to be laws preventing Natives from obtaining US citizenship, or living off of the reservation. Natives could only obtain citizenship after 1924. As for living off the reservation legally, I'm not sure when that occurred, but I bet it would shock you how recently it was.\n\n4) Free college. There are plenty of scholarships available for Natives, but this presumes Natives are interested in college. Again, you have to realize perspective here. If you grow up on the reservation, almost no one that you know will have gone to college. Your high school is a joke, and many people you know, adults you respect, will not have completed it. You will likely not even know it's a joke, because you have no frame of reference to know that. Those that have gone to college may likely be viewed as abandoning their tribe, or being traitors. Not exactly the shoes you want to fill. Additionally, you're going to assimilate directly into the culture that is responsible for completely fucking over your people for centuries.\n\nEven if you get to college, this presumes your education has prepared you for it, which it very likely has not. There's plenty of resources and scholarships for many disadvantaged groups to go to college - that does not mean that it's easy to get there.\n\nEDIT #3 -- Thanks for the Reddit gold, kind stranger! Again, I am not a native, I'm just relating my experience. Others have also done so in this thread, some native, some not. There's a ton of fascinating tradition and history with American native cultures - some beautiful, some heartbreaking. If you're interested, head over to /r/nativeamerican (just learned that exists today!) and/or do some reading! There's tons of great books recommended in this thread.",
" > I think the bigger question is why do they seem to get all these perks and special treatment...\n\nThe \"perks\" that you speak of, are simply the ability to ignore state laws.\n\nThe reservations are under the authority of the federal government as set forth by the treaties between the two, and the states have no more ability to interfere in such matters then they would between agreements with the US and Canada. For all intents and purposes, **with regards to the states**, Indian reservations are foreign and sovereign nations.\n\n > USA is one country isnt it?\n\nAny one born within the borders of the United States is guaranteed the right of citizenship.\n\n > Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:\n\n > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.\n",
"Native Americans are also called American Indians, or just Indians (though this term is somewhat less respectful and usually used in self-reference or as a legal term in federal documents). These peoples were forced off of their traditional lands by the federal government and/or the U.S. military as white settlers moved west. \n\nMany, many tribes signed treaties with the federal government about things like compensation for their traditional lands, the granting of reservation lands that would be reserved for that tribe, etc. These treaties were almost universally ignored by the U.S. government. Over time, the reservation lands were reduced again and again and compensation to the tribes was never paid. There are some remaining large reservations in states such as Arizona and New Mexico (Navajo), Wyoming (Wind River reservation, Eastern Shoshone/Northern Arapaho), Montana (Crow), and South Dakota (Cheyenne River Reservation, Lakota), and many others. That is just my limited knowledge of the larger reservations in the US.\n\nThere are around 565 federally recognized tribal sovereign nations in the U.S. These sovereign nations (\"nations within a nation\") have the ability to enforce their own laws, have their own courts, police forces, etc. Some tribes choose to utilize their state's law enforcement within their boundaries, but this is at the discretion of the tribe. \n\nGetting federal recognition is a long and difficult process that involves proving the existence of a long-standing historical community, descent from a historical tribe, political authority, etc. Many groups want this kind of recognition now because, as you mention, federal tax exemption, casinos, etc. etc., but it is very hard to acquire this level of recognition, even for legitimate tribes. Many tribes are recognized at the state level, but not at the federal level.\n\nAs U.S. citizens, tribal members are subject to federal laws and can be brought before a federal court. However, Indian-owned businesses and enterprises fully within a tribe's jurisdiction are not subject to federal taxes because they are owned by a sovereign nation.\n\nThe federal government has a trust relationship with tribes; that is, a \"duty to protect\" the tribes. There are laws and federal agencies dedicated to providing services for tribes, e.g. the Indian Education Act and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This is all part of the evolving relationship between the federal government and tribal nations. Indian Law is a complicated area, as tribes operate more or less like states, but because of sovereignty, they have additional rights -- for example, some tribes have considered creating their own environmental laws which would be more stringent than U.S. law and would allow them to prosecute companies that polluted their water supply, for instance.\n\nAnd finally, many Indians are not rich. Poverty is common, especially on the reservations. This is a [whole other topic](_URL_0_), which I won't go into too much, except to say that the roots of poverty in the community go back to decades of discrimination, racism, forced break up of Native American families, etc.\n\nI hope this clarifies a bit. \n\nSource: I worked as an intern for a non-profit program dedicated to environmental partnerships with the tribes.",
"This is how a couple Native American friends explained it to me when I knew virtually nothing about it. Seems appropriate considering this is ELI5.\n\nBasically the American government signed a treaty with Native Americans saying that the American government is not going to interfere with tribal affairs. Profits from the businesses opened by the tribe are supposed to benefit the whole tribe. Spreading the wealth through out it. The fact that the American government doesn't tax them and lets them instead spread the profits though out the whole tribe is considered reparations for the most part. \n\nNative American reservations aren't really considered part of the USA, more like a territory. That has its own laws and government but still has to abide by Americas general human rights laws(Like you cant chop someone's hand off because they stole type stuff).\n\nAs for casinos. The vast majority of Native Americans aren't wealthy casino tycoons. As with any business it's all about location. Some casinos make billions while others struggle to stay open. And while you're supposed to share the wealth with your tribe, it doesn't mean you have to with any of the other hundreds of tribes in the US. So while a few tribes are very wealthy most are just regular people. ",
"Politically, I agree with most of the replies so far. However I feel like they haven't given a full view of current Native American society (also, American Indian/ Native American are the same thing. Native American is typically considered more politically correct, but either is fine). \n\nYes, Native Americans don't pay sales tax because they are members of sovereign nations and have more leeway with casinos, however they are usually owned by the tribe rather than one person and the profits are split between members of the tribe. The size of the tribe typically depends on enrollment qualifications (blood quantum), for which each tribe has different requirements. The size of the tribe is also slightly correlated with its location, as western tribes were historically more successful in negotiating land rights.\n\nPart of understanding why Native Americans are treated as separate is understanding the cultural genocide that they were subjected to. They weren't even considered United States citizens until 1924. Even then, they were considered second class and in the 18th and 19th centuries were often used as slaves. Children were taken from their homes and put into boarding schools that would abuse them and punish them for speaking their languages or practicing any cultural traditions in order to \"civilize\" them. As a result of all this, there are very high rates of alcoholism, depression, and domestic violence among native peoples, as well as physical health problems like diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. \n\nThe good news is that many people are trying to revive the cultural health of many tribes. Schools often teach the native language and heritage alongside the normal curriculum. There are many health service providers specifically for Native American communities. There are also many universities and organizations that provide educational programs for everyone about native culture. \n\nSource: maternal side of the family are members of the Chippewa-Cree tribe, and some university courses on Native American language and history.",
"not to mention, alcohol is a huuuuuuuge issue on most reservations as well...at least in south dakota",
"Why are there no native Americans showing up at the top of this Thread?\nAt least a member of one of the nations should have a voice to lend to the conversation (whether or not they have any experience with the reservation system).",
"Just as a casual observer who drives through Ponca City, OK, a few times a year, there are casinos there, but there is also the ghetto housing project where tribal people live, and there are lots of signs for alcoholics who need help. I think a lot of them still live in poverty. I don't remember seeing any when I was in college, either.",
"Some of us live like anyone else would",
"it may be worth noting that many of them are very, very poor. in fact, often the poorest places in the whole country\n\n_URL_0_\n\nand they're poor because we took all their land. it'd be pretty douchey to tax them on top of that",
"I was trying to explain this to my Asian-Americans friends at work, and find I know almost nothing. They asked me why they never see a Native American in public places, I thought I could answer the subject with ease and found out I can't come up with anything ( I been in the US longer, and started from elementary school up to college here).\n\nOk, my friends and my own questions.\n\n\n\n1) Why don't the Native American chose to integrate fully to American society?\n\n\n\n2)Why are they choosing to live in reservation like that? because the trade-off of some degree of autonomy?\n\n\n3) Can they vote in US election? I mean why why why are they choosing to live like that? The US government is not forcing them or anything right? I failed so completely trying to understand the logic and reasoning of all these.",
"Have you been watching House of Cards? lol",
"Well, I don't know the specifics nearly as well as others here, but to understand the ultimate whys, you need to look at history.\n\nBefore European settlers came, natives were everywhere. There are disputes about population levels (/r/askhistorians would be a great place to ask for in depth info), and how they were effected by the spead of European diseases, but in any case they occupied the land long before the US was established. It's often said native cultures didn't have the same notion of ownership of land that Europeans did, which complicated relations, but i'm not sure of that's true.\n\nAs settlers arrived, they and their parent nations made deals with native tribes foe land. The natives didn't just automatically become subject to the colonial governments - they were completly sovereign and independent. Relations were sometimes cordial, sometimes hostile. The colonists w ould sometimes pit one tribe against another or renege on their treaties or just straight up murder them when they wanted more land\n\nThe whole early history of the US is one of a drive to aquire more land for settling. At different stages the British, French, and American governments signed treaties limiting their expansion and marking out what areas remained in native hands. They then ignored the treaties and took the land anyway, until there was very little left, all of it surrounded. The entire state of Oklahoma was once set appart as Indian territory, but then there was some kind of agreement or not and homesteaders were allowed in, and it was quickly overrun\n\n\nThe reservations are all that are left of indian lands. Often they weren't even places the tribe originally lived, because those places were more fertile and the settlers got them. Instead, the natives were shunted off to the most barren and useless lands available to live in extreme poverty. The Beureau of Indian Affairs is the federal agency that looks after them, provides some (usually piss-poor) services, and responds to their legal claims.\n\nAll they had going for them (and all many tribes still have) is what the Beureau gives them, charity, tourism, and a little aggriculture in better reservations, though they can't compete with big ag firms.\n\nBecause of this, the reservations are considered sovereign nations. They are governed by tribal councils, and have compacts governing relations with the federal and state governments. I'm not sure what rights the states hold over the reservations beyond whatever the compacts say, but I doubt it's much. The reason some tribes are able to build casinos is because their compacts with their state allow them to. California is one, and there are several Indian casinos in my area (Sacramento). They're quite nice, and have really put pressure on Tahoe. I don't know how much the tribe members benefit from the casino beyond employment (although they also hire from outside the tribe), but hopefully they do. I've heard in some places corrupt tribal leaders don't use the earnings responsibly, and the tribes suffer as a result.\n\nThat's all I can think of. Basically, when you ask if the US is one country, it is, but the indian reservations aren't really part of it.",
"I am Native American. Some of my family still lives on the Turtle Mtn. Reservation. They don't have to pay taxes there which is why some people go there to buy vehicles but I pay taxes elsewhere. I am currently in college and I get cultural diversity tuition waiver and one $1000/semester scholarship from my tribe the rest of my scholarships are purely academic related. Each tribe is different. For example: in Shakopee they are well-off from Mystic Lake Casino. Where I am from, I only receive the scholarship every semester for financial assistance the rest I pay on my own/student loans. (Sorry I didn't really read any other comments) ",
"Since your direct questions have been answered, I would like to add more general info.\n\nThis country was already occupied when Europeans (almost all English/Irish at first) showed up. The royal crown was granting land to the poor and religiously oppressed. The crown wasn't granting specific tracts that it bought or negotiated from Indian tribes. It was a piece of paper saying \"this dude can setup on 840 acres somewhere.\"\n\nSo now some peasant has a \"right\" to it. Land was so plentiful compared to the old country that it was a huge financial boon to an otherwise impoverished person. \n\nConversely, the Indians didn't believe that land was something to be owned. They didn't understand it. The natural state of their lives was one of poverty and transience. They weren't poor in their minds though. They were living a normal lifestyle. \n\nFlash forward to more white expansion and there became conflicts as real estate became scarce. The Indian tribes had no unification or \"bargaining power\" and were dealt with one by one. US officials would sign treaties and make promises. The group of elected officials would break it for financial gain.\n\nThe normal lifestyle was to hunt/gather over large areas. The eastern tribes were eventually shoved into relatively tiny areas. Sometimes tribes were all shoved in together or eliminated.\n\nThese areas weren't large enough for a normal lifestyle. The land was poor and not desirable for euro style agriculture. The Indians were robbed of their lifestyle in such a way that it destroyed their soul as a people.\n\nThe western tribes eventually saw what a menace the white men were. They were too late.\n\nIt's Darwinian but sad to think about. \n\nSome interesting stories are those of Crazy Horse, Geronimo, General Custer, and the Trail of Tears.",
" > I think the bigger question is why do they seem to get all these perks and special treatment, USA is one country isnt it?\n\nWhat's the deal with Wales, Ireland, and Scotland? They get some degree of autonomy because there's a long history of them being independent. Similar with Indians in the US ",
"I am part native and from Canada, and I think there is a little difference as to the rules and whatnot of treaties and reservations, but the principle of why is still for many of the same reasons. What I suggest to OP is to google residential schools. Google the percentage of native citizens that are alcoholic, drug addicted, abused, or homeless. This is why you think we have \"perks.\" Because my family and my people went to residential schools and were forced to give up the culture that I'm still trying to rediscover today. I'm not saying that I deserve to have priority placement into my university courses (to help promote natives receiving education in Canada most universities have in place that students of native descent have priority when it comes to a non-status student with the same grades and qualifications as you do), I'm saying that there are options there for those who need it. It's to help bring that percentage of alcoholics with no education down. It's to help better the reservations and better the living conditions of the people who weren't given a choice. I choose to utilize it because it is offered, I just wish more did the same so the world saw these things as help rather than perks for being a certain race. \n\nSorry, bit of a rant as I used to get picked on and degraded for taking help from native organizations. Felt the need to log on and state my opinion on the matter. \n \nOh, and link to residential schools for the lazy: _URL_0_",
"Its simple. Native Americans are a minority group in the US that has no voice in public discourse and they are routinely treated poorly. ",
"I could write you a book on my studies and personal experiences but instead I'll link you an amazing documentary and hope it answers your questions and then some.\n\n[Canary Effect](_URL_0_)\n\n",
"Just a suggestion, but if you're into books, read Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie. It cleared up a lot of stuff for me.",
"I'm Shoshone from Nevada and come from a little reservation that my great great grandma helped establish.",
"OP, Did you just watch an episode of House Of Cards on Netflix?",
"Don't know if this was mentioned but the only reason Firt Nations people are called \"Indians\" is because the guy who found North America thought he was in India so called the FNs Indian.",
" > I think the bigger question is why do they seem to get all these perks and special treatment\n\nAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA",
"1) Some tribes get some benefits as part of a treaty agreement that took \nALL of their lands. \n\n2) Only a few casinos actually make money for the tribes and only a portion of what is made actually goes to tribes. \n\n3) Native Americans want the same things as everyone else,\n AND to honor their culture. \n\n4) How many treaties were negotiated between the United States and Indian nations? How may were broken. All of them. Approximately 370 treaties were signed by all parties and ratified by Congress, and roughly an equal number were signed but not ratified. Treaties may be divided into several stages: 1600-1776 Colonial Treaties, 1778-1810 Treaties of Alliance, 1784- 1817 Treaties of Land Cession, 1817-1846 Treaties of Removal (represent the majority of the treaties), 1846-1864 Reservation Treaties, 1865-1868 Great Peace Commission treaties. In 1871 Congress enacted legislation ending treaty-making. After 1871, instead of treaties, the federal government enacted agreements, statutes and executive orders in dealing with tribal governments.",
"for Edit2:\n\nI am a Native American from the Navajo or Dine. Integration fully in to the American society has for the most part is done. The only real difference between being a Native on the Reservation versus a Native off the reservation is the opportunities available for the person. I was raised off the Reservation but did grow up with summers on the Reservations with my grandparents. So for three months a year I was immersed within my culture. \n\nThe only way I can probably explain or answer this question for your friend's Asian friends is to ask you and them are they Asian by look only i.e. \"My so and so are from the old country but the only real exposure I have is to the local Chinese/Thai/Japanese restaurant down the street.\"\n\nOr are they Asian by culture, by how they dress, their beliefs their food, do they still practice their ceremonial aspects of their cultures, like the tea ceremonies and such. The Modern Native Americans try and keep their own cultures alive by bringing in to modern societies their cultural identities. \n\n2. Why do they choose to live on the reservations, because it's their home. It's where their families are. Families play a HUGE part in your cultural identities. It's almost like asking why are you living in the cities or countries you're in. There's also a spiritual based need. In Navajo culture there four sacred mountains. They're encompassed within the boundaries of the Navajo Reservation. \n\nIf there's any Mormons out there it's almost about the same ideals of Salt Lake City or Navoo Ill. There's a spiritual or religious aspect to the land/ destinations.\n\n3. Yes we vote in the US Elections, in fact Senator Obama visited the Navajo Reservation during his first election bid. Try to think of the reservation as almost another state within a state. There's nothing to keep people there. There's nothing to keep people out. It's just there like Alabama, or Ohio or any other community. ",
"They've been screwed over again and again by the US government.\n\nBut then instead of basically letting them merge in with modern Americans, it was decided to give them special treatment and \"help\" them. Much like with any other group that the more liberal among us like to single out for help, things got a lot worse. They got stuck on the dole, and things are pretty sad for your average native american.\n\nIf liberal white people ever show up and tell you they want to help... Run. Run far far away. Because if you accept their help, you're headed towards a bad end.",
"Hi there! This is just my experience...\nMy grandmother is half Potowatomi Indian, and we actually receive monetary compensation from some of the casinos that my tribe own.\nThe way my grandma explained why she didn't feel guilty about it was this: \"When my mother was young, the government would come and round up all the children and make them attend certain schools to make them more 'civilized'. But the schools were far away and the children wouldn't come back. They tore families apart, they tore mine apart. So I don't feel bad at all about getting money for not doing anything but being myself.\"\n",
"i) All businesses pay local taxes in incorporated areas. This does not exempt them from paying state and federal taxes. The same rules apply off of a reservation in the US; they are referred to as unincorporated areas. Unincorporated areas do not receive the same public services as incorporated areas of the US though. If you're house catches on fire, you're SOL because the fire department doesn't get paid to service your area. \n. \nii) Reservations were formed as a part of \"treaties\" with the US government. Many times this was done to give settlers priority to the best farming land and forcing Native Americans to live on land one would generally consider in hospitable. Those reservations still exist because the treaties still exist. \n. \niii) Local law enforcement do have jurisdiction if their area of coverage is on those reservations. Cities in the US have their own police force, yet in metropolitan areas their ability to enforce laws ceases outside of their city/jurisdiction. This is no different on reservations. Some tribes have their own police force who have jurisdiction on reservations. State police officers have jurisdiction on reservations but they are rarely ever needed as their duties do not generally involve petty crimes, but they will still issue traffic citations. They will also assist federal task forces; such as the FBI, CIA, or ICE; on a reservation if needed. The FBI usually handles severe crimes such as homicide on reservations. \n. \n1) There was a period in US history called the Assimilation Era. It occurred around 1920-1950. During this time, the US government attempted to forcefully anglocize Native Americans. This was done by taking children away from their parents and putting them into boarding schools where they were taught by white people, usually religious, who would force them to speak English and raise them to be whatever religion the teacher happened to be. Many Native American languages were lost during this time. \n. \nOver time, the federal government saw that this was having a detrimental affect on Native Americans and stopped their assimilation policy. There were laws passed around 1960 to protect the languages of people in communities where there 5% or more people who spoke a language other than English. This however did not include Native American languages. It wasn't until the 1990 Native American languages Act was signed that the same policy was applied to Native Americans. The US does have laws to protect and encourage the diversity that exists here. \n. \n2) Getting off of a reservation is not as easy as it may seem. There are few jobs due to property belonging to the federal government. Land is leased to Native Americans so Native Americans do not actually own that land. A Native American cannot sell land that is leased to them to a business. Because of this, most companies will not open a store on a reservation because they prefer to have leasing rights or property ownership. Without jobs, it is difficult to save up the kind of money it takes to move off of the reservation. Also, if there were jobs, why would they need to move? \n. \n3) Yes, we can vote in federal elections. The second part to your question has to deal with mobility which is a problem not unique to Native Americans in the US. White Americans are just as likely to get stuck in a rut as any other race in the US. ",
"I had to do a paper on this for a cultural diversity class. It was so sad, once I started digging, I found that native Americans have some of the highest statistics for poverty and alcoholism in the US. ",
"Read \"On The Rez\" by Ian Frazier.",
"You are totally watching House of Cards aren't you?",
"I am Native American. Hello! (also I am at work so this response will be choppy). \n\n- You can functionally consider that the American Continent as an established Nation State with governance and citizens before Leif Erickson or Christopher Columbus ever sailed across the pond. This is how the early American Federal Government saw it. They, the Feds, recognized they were taking another Nation's lands for the United States of America. \n\n- The Feds fought for the lands, the Natives lost, a treaty was made between the two nations. \n\n- The Natives *reserved* traditional homelands for themselves. Reservations. These lands have a sovereign nation relationship with the Feds. Similar to Federal relationship with Mexico. But the sovereignty has eroded over the years. The local cops can't go an arrest someone for petty theft, but local Child Protective Services can remove a kid from their home. \n\n- Federal laws apply to Reservation lands, but state laws do not. Many states have individual gambling laws that do not apply to the Reservations. That is why certain gambling institutions are allowed on Reservations but not regular state lands. \n\n- Some tribes have successful casinos and some do not. Business entities like casinos are owned collectively by the tribe. Proceeds are used to fund: elder care, health care, schools, general gov things, and contribute to \"per-capita income\". The net profits after all their programs are paid for are divided among each member of the tribe. The Puyallup tribe of WA state is very successful with many business ventures. Each tribal member get's about 1200 a month. This is kind of rare, most tribes don't have per-capita incomes. \n\n- Christopher Columbus thought he landed in India, so the locals were referred to as Indians by Europeans. The politically correct term is \"Native Americans\". But Indians and Natives can be used interchangeably. BUT people of India are also called Indians. And there is roughly ~~three~~ one billion more Indians than there are Native Americans. \n\n- voting: Natives functionally have duel citizenship. We can vote in all elections related to where we live, like any other citizen. \n\n\n > 1) Why don't the Native American chose to integrate fully to American society?\n\nGoogle the phrase \"Kill the Indian and save the man\" there is a brutal history of trying to eliminate Native American culture (language, cuisine, spirituality, living practices). Anyway, in general America should be a melting pot / tossed salad. You can be a conservative Evangelical Christian, a very liberal pagan hippy, or an animist Native American. Hell, until the rise of Hitler the USA had many German Language news papers. There are many ethnic enclaves in America, there is no reason they should become homogeneous. \n\nYour questions 2 and 3 would require you to have some basis of sociological / anthropology courses. People aren't pure logic machines. ",
"Wow. Where to begin. First, a common mistake is assuming all American Indians belong to a monolith culture. Think of it as the Commonwealth all on the same continent. There are numerous different tribes who speak different languages and have different cultures. The Cherokee and the Apache nations have less in common than Jamaica and Kenya. \n\nMany American Indians are fully integrated into the culture. My family has lived around the Choctaws since the end of the Civil War. I have several relatives who are part Choctaw and many more who have married Choctaws. While there is Choctaw land, the Choctaws don't have to live on it. The ones I know lived in the same neighborhoods and went to the same schools as everyone else. There are some who choose to stick to stick to the traditional ways. For the most part, no one bothers them. \n\nI don't pay much attention to tribal politics but I'll explain it the best I can. The Choctaw Nation is technically a sovereign nation within the state of Oklahoma. As a sovereign nation it doesn't have to collect state or federal sales tax on the products sold there (tobacco, gasoline, and so on). Since they are a sovereign nation they can open gambling casinos and do other things on their land that they couldn't do in Oklahoma. Some of the tribes in Oklahoma issue their own car tags. The Choctaw Nation isn't a fixed plot of land and in recent decades they have chosen to buy land along the main highways to Dallas and open gambling casinos. On weekends traffic to and from these casinos stacks up for miles in all directions. \n\nWhile the state technically has no jurisdiction over what happens in the Choctaw Nation, they cooperate closely and state law enforcement will enter the Choctaw Nation if invited. As for the perks, they get those because in the early nineteenth century Union army put a gun to the heads of the American Indian leaders and told them they were going to give up their land and move across the country to a place they had never been and never heard of. In addition to the forced land swap, the Union agreed to pay them for the move. After the Civil war the Union changed the rules again. In 1907 when Oklahoma became a state, the Union still hadn't paid the tribes they had forced off their land what they had agreed to pay them. They started receiving these perks in lieu of the money they were still owed. Other reservations may operate differently. It depends on their tribal councils. As far as I know, American Indians can vote in state and federal elections. They're similar to dual citizens. \n\nI'm sure I didn't answer all the questions and I admit I don't understand all I know about it even though I grew up in what used to be the Choctaw Republic. Hopefully someone more knowledgable than ma can fill in the gaps and correct any mistakes I have made. ",
"My best guess to EDIT2 is because they don't want to. Now being Navajo from the four corners area, I am not involved or do not follow any political news dealing with government. With that being said I'm not entirely sure what tax breaks or how things work on that side of things but I have some relatives still living on the \"Rez\" because its their land. People like my greatgrandmother lived out on the Rez for about 95-ish years simply because she saw no need to \"integrate to American soceity\" plus she cant speak any english, which is hard and not many navajo to english translators out there to help. Yes we can vote in the US election because we still are considered american. ",
"Something I can maybe answer. At least the edit2 bit.\n\nI'm Native American, enrolled Quapaw.\n\n > Why don't the Native American chose to integrate fully into American society?\n\nThere are a TON of Natives that integrate fully into American society. My family and I being some of them, as well as many of the people I know. Not everybody lives on a reservation. Many people moved into the cities during and because of WWII. \n\n > Why are they choosing to live in reservation like that?\n\nI can't speak for everybody, or from my own experience, but a lot of times it's because that's where they grew up. It's where all their friends and family are. It's home.\n\n > Can they vote in US election?\n\nThey can. I know I have.",
"As for your follow up, as a native who has integrated I feel like I can answer some.\n\nIn the first, most aboriginals have integrated into society. However most people in society are very racist. English is my first language, but it's a second or third language to most aboriginals who grew up where I lived (first: Miq'maq, second: French, third: English). When an aboriginal speaks slowly and carefully so not to butcher the language we're portrayed as being idiots who are just so damned simple. Aboriginals tend to work in a lot of really really low paying jobs and receive lower pay for the same work as someone who isn't.\n\nI'm what they call a \"Metis\", a halfling. Still technically native, but most of the appearances of being a European descended person. In my work places where I was a foreman all of the laborers were aboriginal, any white person that came on the site was making an extra dollar an hour on them.\n\nIn a Canadian reserve it's really hard to leave the reserve. On reserves you get free housing and a minor allowance. You leave the reserve and now you have to take care of yourself... which just isn't that easy when you will be making less money than everyone else.\n\nBut like I said, most aboriginals (in Canada and the US) do live off of the reserve. They live in extreme poverty on and off the reserve however.\n\nAs for why they would choose to live here even when they're not forced, it's a crowd standard. So there is this country called Israel. Now no one in Israel HAS to live there. There's constant threats of suicide bombs, assassinations, paramilitary action and constant threat from 4-5 neighbors.\n\nThe Israelis could have chosen to simply pack up and leave. With the amount of wealth that was going through the state of Israel there are tonnes of countries that would take them. But they stood their ground against all opposition and held their small strip of territory. If enough Jews moved out of Israel the land would just get swallowed up and the Israeli people would die off.\n\nCultural genocide is a real thing and it's something that aboriginal tribes have been trying to hard to stop. There is a constant attempt by governments to wipe out our culture, our language, and \"integrate us\" so that we simply stop existing.\n\nSo I'm stuck in a weird position. I can choose to hunt and fish on my territorial lands and live in poverty, or I can leave it, abandon my people, abandon my way of life, and abandon my culture.\n\nAboriginals saw a lot of support in the 60s and 70s because of hippie's. The hippie's thought they were adopting aboriginal culture and started kind of making up Indian customs. At the heat of it all [Marlon Brando](_URL_0_) allowed an Indian girl to turn down an Oscar for The Godfather because of how aboriginals were being treated.\n\nYou have to remember that The Battle of Wounded Knee was a little over 100 years ago. 20 years later you would have WW1 and WW2 in which aboriginals are being sent to the front line as coded recon men in which an executive order was given to execute an aboriginal if he is caught.\n\nI think another important question you might ask is, why do black people choose live in ghettos? It's basically the same question. However it sounds far more racist when you ask it about black people.",
"An interesting follow up: Why do so many people claim to be Native American when they are not?",
"I want to point out, like Futurama did, that in some way (at least in CA) the casinos here seem to be owned by the Chinese. If you go to any of them within driving distance from L.A they are tricked to the teeth with Chinese people and decor. \n\n",
"Grouping all native american tribes into one big category is something that has always bugged me. Some tribes are better off then others and some are just as bad as a third world country.\n\nPaying taxes is one thing everyone in America has to do even if located on a reservation. I pay taxes, my parents and siblings. Businesses also pay taxes.\n\nA reservation is land set aside for us. By the US Govt. to basically watch over us. That being said they did a real shitty job being caretakers. More nefarious reasons included land grabbing for resources and other things.\n\nMost reservations have their own police force negating the need to have county or state LEOs come on to the rez. However any type of Suicide, VC that ends in murder or assault on a LEO, and any CSA on a minor has to be investigated by th FBI.\n\nAs for the perks you speak of I have never had or even heard of anything that would give you a reason to assume we have any.\n\n",
"Somebody has been watching House of Cards season 2.",
"Im a member of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe here in CT. Native Americans that have had their their tribe federally recognized are granted sovereignty, with that it allows us to govern ourselfs as long as we abide by federal law (Basically we are our own state in which we can create by-laws).With that in mind we dont pay state taxes, my tribe has their own fire and police dept. local police dont have jurisdiction. We chose to stay on our land because we want to preserve our culture, teach our childen the ways of our ancestors, and to stick together not only as a tribe but as a family. ",
"To also answer the other questions. Most native americans have had to intergrate thanks to the US Government. If you've ever seen Fight Club, Tyler Durden said it best. Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us.\n\nSecond there is no anonymity on a reservation everyone knows everyone. We work government jobs we all have social sercurity numbers.\n\nOf course we vote dammit. Do people still see the savage in us? Is that the image the world sees us as. The noble savage? Its quite a mindfuck when you realize. We dont choose to live like this. We can live however we choose, but for some tribes that is there reality. They dont have a choice. They are literally stuck in the same circle generation after generation. Most tribes or nations have their acts together.",
"ITT: Racist white people talk about Native American culture, of which they understand little to nothing. If you want to know about their modern lives, google it: \n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n\n\nThere are like 570 Tribes which are federally recognized. The Navajo and Cherokee are the two largest, with over 300 and 200 thousand recognized members, respectively. Most of the Navajo live in New Mexico and Arizona, whilst the Cherokee originate and currently reside in the South East (Georgia, South Carolina, etc.).\n\nThey are human beings with customs which often conflict with modern principles but they do what they can. They also tend to have an unfortunate genetic predisposition to alcoholism (alcohol was brought over by invaders).\n\nMost tribes have been eradicated, those with larger populations still maintain a sense of culture. Navajo are expert silvermiths and weavers.\n\n-#wikipedia",
"I'm half Cherokee myself, my father was raised on a reservation in Oklahoma and was trained since he was young to be a Shaman, due to our blood line. As he got older, my grandfather had some sort of life altering moment where he decided the tribes treatment of their children wasn't fair, the absence of choice in certain blood lines wasn't good anymore. So he took my father and left, wen to the Eternal Flame and burned his 'Medicine Books', Black and White.\n\nSince I was born I've been taught a lot about the Shamanism of the tribe, my families personal background within the tribe, and how it functions both for better and worse.\n\n/u/kenatogo summarized the majority of reservations I've encountered pretty well. Granted, being from the Cherokee tribe I am one of the more well off. If you'd like to see an interesting example of recent Tribe / Government headbutting research the \"Cherokee Freedmen\". It's still an ongoing issue, and a very recent example of the autonomous nature of the tribes being ignored, because to be blunt, the US Government can pick and choose when they want to respect that line. There are certain cases where in the Nations are told what they can and can't do, it's part of the trade off for the 'services rendered'.\n\nDepending on the sources you go to or who you talk to, the severity and frequency of these events vary. I know adoptions involving the tribe can get pretty crazy too, primarily Cherokee, as admittedly I'm not very learned on other tribes.\n\nAn issue my family has had recently with the Government / Tribe was then taking a portion of our blood away from us. That is to say, long story short, that when my Grandmother died (Dads side) we contacted the Tribe and Bureau of Indian Affairs to try and get copies of her paperwork. We were then told that they had no copies, and if we didn't, it was then a case of her never having been Native. Thing is though, about 1-2 years before she died her papers got burned in a fire. Father had been calling them almost monthly trying to get them to send copies and they kept insisting that they had. So then when he called after her passing, they suddenly had none.\n\nI will always tell everyone I am half Cherokee, because up until I was 15 years old that was the case. I've been a quarter for ten years now on paper, and my card says as much, Father has been arguing with them every chance he gets trying to get this redacted but it's not looking good. The reason, Father believes, that they are so stubborn about keeping this away from us is the amount of money available to a \"Half Blood\" Native American. I'll have to contact him for more details, but he is starting up another business soon (and has owned several in the past) and due to him being almost 3 Quarters Cherokee, the government matched his investments dollar for dollar. I'll reach out to him when I get a chance for more information if someone wants more information.\n\nAs far as Law Enforcement, The Cherokee Marshals are the tribes hounds of justice. They have the right, as far as I'm aware, to take any criminal on tribal lands (who is a tribal) to court for their crimes. Also, if someone of non-tribal background was to hide on the reservations, the Marshals would have to be contacted to go in after him, as it would break some agreement if the US Government sent in their own agents to gather them up. This could be outdated, it's been a long time since I've been really heavily involved in the tribe. Again, I'll get in touch with my father to try and find out more details for you folks.",
"\"why do they seem to get all these perks and special treatment.\" Perhaps you should take a course on US history. That might help you understand how \"perks and special treatment\" is such an outrageous statement.",
"As someone who is part Native, and avidly studies Native American studies, it is often frustrating to see some of these answers. Not that some of them aren't dead on accurate, but there are so many factors and so much to say when answering these questions and one must realize the history is often untold even here in America, so don't feel alone or ashamed in asking the questions you ask as it's something more people should be aware of.",
"Some of us are mixed enough to pass for white. We live in a world rejected by whites and Natives, because we don't look enough like either group.",
"Pretty much the native Americans got fucked over beyond belief. It seems they stick to the reservations because that is where you find any appreciable amount of them in one place and this gives them a sense of community that was stolen long ago. Unfortunately it seems that having to restart from scratch after we took everything from them, has really had long lasting repurcussions, understandably. Our civilization and it's progress has devastated their health. Too much alcohol, poverty and sugar has led to a lot of substance abuse and diabetes. Anyone who thinks any of the perks they have today are excessive really doesn't understand the history. They are essentially a race slowly going extinct.",
"As an American many times you will hear that slavery and the civil war were our darkest hours. I agree that this is a black spot on our history which is so full of bruises and mistakes, but i believe that the way we as Americans systematically stole an entire continent is surely our worst mistake. And just like African American still deal with the underpinnings of a post slavery society. Native people's live in the in the wake of a cultural genocide ",
"Caveat: I've been in these discussions far too many times and I always come away angry so I'm not reading anything being said.\n\nI'll try and keep this short and sweet.\n\nMost people are familiar with Hollywood Indians which are about as accurate as anything else the movies depict(not very) though there are people like [Matika Wilbur](_URL_0_), who are trying to change that.\n\nAs of 2013 there are [566 Federally Recognized Tribes](_URL_2_) in the US and a lot more recognized on the State level. We don't pay State taxes but we do pay Federal just like everyone else so tax wise we're just a state within a State managed by the [BIA](_URL_1_).\n\nRoughly [1/3 of the Tribes](_URL_3_) have some involvement in the [NIGC-National Indian Gaming Commision](_URL_3_)\n\nCasinos are the Reservation equivalent of State taxes and the funds are used to run the reservations and programs therein.\n\nReservations are Sovereign Nations because we learned that any agreement made with the Federal Government wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Most of us came to understand that treaties and the like were just another tactic used to get rid of us and take our land. So we Govern ourselves because they sure can't be trusted to govern us fairly(which is also part of the reason we keep to ourselves. Out of sight out of mind)\n\nFor the most part we are integrated, as integrated as we want to be anyway.\n\n > I mean why why why are they choosing to live like that? The US government is not forcing them or anything right?\n\nThere is no way I can explain this in a way you'll understand because I know nothing about you. And I have no desire to start the same old debate that always pops up when this is asked. \n\nI will say this, it may not be much but it's [all we have left](_URL_4_).\n\nEdit:Fixed link & toned down the language a bit.",
"I'm gonna try and address some of what you asked, in more of an ELI5 form. I'm also going to call them Indians, because this is how the US government refers to them today. \n\nThis all has to do with history. Indians were here long before there even was a United States. Once the United States became an independent country, the United States courts started to define the relationship between Indians and the US government (whether the Indians liked it or not). A group of Supreme Court cases from the early 1800s called the Marshall Trilogy established that, even though the Indians had been there long before the United States, since the United States was now a country, the Indians no longer owned their land. They couldn't sell it, for instance, to other non-Indian people, because they did not have title to the land. They were to forever be considered \"domestic dependents\" on the United States, and the United States would now have a responsibility to the Indians. Eventually, after all the dust had settled from the wars between the Indians and early Americans, Indian territories began being finalized and reservations were apportioned (by the United States). These territories, however, were not considered to be a part of any state, just a part of the United States. So when we see a map of a given state, the borders aren't really technically accurate because there are a number of Indian reservations that aren't technically a part of that state. \n\nSo, to sum up, if you were an Indian tribe in the 1700s, and then had your land invaded by future American settlers, by the time the US actually got its wheels turning, you were (technically) not a sovereign \"nation\" in the sense that we consider what a nation is today, but a sovereign nation in the sense that a state is sovereign from another state. The state of New York doesn't have to follow the laws of the state of Florida any more than the Seminole Indians have to follow the laws of the state of Florida. But, because the US courts decided it to be, everyone has to follow the laws of the United States. That is why Indians have to pay federal taxes, but not state taxes, because technically the Indian reservations are not a part of any one state. (There are exceptions to this by treaty between the US / the various states and the Indian tribes. But you can agree to basically anything by contract, I'm just describing the default rules as they came to be over time.) \n\nHowever, there was a problem with this. The federal government, especially in the 1800s, was a (supposed) limited government that cannot make the same types of laws that states can. You don't have federal speed limits any more than you have federal murder statutes. (This is debatable, but, again, this is the default.) So Indian tribes started making all of these laws for themselves and enforcing them in tribal courts. While this was generally okay within the reservations, the problem arose when non-Indians started breaking Indian laws. Or, when Indians broke Indian laws and the punishments didn't meet the community standards of the non-Indian neighbors, people got upset. So, the United States decided that it was going to let the Indians enforce Indian law, but only against fellow Indians. For non-Indians on Indian reservations, they became subject to the state laws where the Indian reservations were located, but because the Indian reservations weren't technically a part of any state, the federal government was tasked with enforcing these laws, mainly by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and FBI. \n\nAgain, there are many, many exceptions to this general rule. For instance, because the BIA and FBI are so terrible at policing Indian reservations, a lot of Indian reservations and states agreed to operate co-jurisdictional police forces. Nevertheless, for the Indian reservations that still rely on the United States to police their lands, crime is usually rampant at levels unseen in other parts of the country. \n\nLet me recap your questions: \n\ni) Indians pay federal taxes, but not state taxes, unless they've come to an arrangement with the state. There are over 500 Indian tribes, and they all have different arrangements. \n\nii) The Indian reservations are what was left over after the systematic removal of Indians during the settlement of the country. These reservations are not a part of any state, unless they agree to be, and are considered sovereign, although they still have to follow US law. \n\niii) The local law enforcement don't have jurisdiction (unless the tribes agree to it) because the reservations are not considered part of the state's land. They are sovereign from the state and are more like their own state in that sense. \n\n1) The question of integration is one that comes up often, but likely has a lot to do with the history of a given tribe. There is no one Indian nation, there are over 500, so it's difficult to give an answer without painting with too broad a brush. My guess, and I am not an Indian so I can't say with certainty, is it probably has a lot to do with the messed up 300-year history between the American settlers and the various tribes. It's easy to ask questions like that as an outsider, but I'm guessing an Indian who did not want to integrate would be better equipped to answer that than me. \n\n2) They are \"choosing\" to live there for much of the same reasons why anyone chooses to live anywhere. They were born there, or forced to live there, and their families, friends, and livelihoods are all there. They can always move, but that's like asking anyone why don't you move to another community, or another part of the country. There is, like you said, limited sovereignty that they would not get in other places in the country. \n\n3) Indians can vote in US elections, but they cannot vote in state elections unless there is such a relationship between the Indians and the states. The ability of Indians to vote in US elections occurred mostly by federal statute, which recognized Indian citizenship in the first half of the 20th century. I don't think the Indians ever \"chose\" to live like that, so your question is based on a misleading premise. The US government, has essentially written all the rules when it comes to Indian law, so in a way, they are forcing them to live the way they are with the current legal system they are bound by. \n\nSource: I am a published author on Indian law.\n",
"I'm not Native American, but I am Oklahoman. Not all Natives live on reservations. There are Natives at my school who live in the same neighborhoods as I do. The only difference is they sometimes get special treatments. Thus some DO chose to integrate fully to American society.",
"@EDIT2:\n1) history, mostly, as well as current biases and frankly, generally, not wanting to lose their culture. Historically Americans (and canadians) have treated their first nations populations like shit. This is recent history too, to the point where canadian residential schools happened to people who are still living today. That engenders a lot of distrust. As to the cultural aspect, why should they want to integrate into a culture when that likely means loosing theirs? \n\n2) Essentially yes, the autonomy and a desperate (and likely futile) attempt to hold on to their way of life, their language and their history.\n\n3)Yes, they can vote but they are a tiny proportion of the population and are understandably mistrustful of the american/canadian government.",
"I'm from Canada and aboriginal culture is a huge part of our society and the way the US treat their indigenous people is fucking disgusting. The lack of rights and acknowledgments is insane, like the fact that there's a team called the Cleveland Indians? That's like a team being called the Atlanta niggers. It makes no sense an it makes me sick ",
"Check out the documentary called \"Reel Injun\". It's on Netflix. ",
"Personally, as a Native American, I think it is very hard to group all Native \nAmericana into one group. First, there are federally and non-federally recognized tribes and therefore those two groups of tribes are treated differently in the eyes of the US government. Any tribe can become federally recognized, but if a tribe is not the are not eligible for many of the things that federally recognized tribes are. For example, a federally recognized tribe can open a casino and get funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Of the approximately 800 tribes, about 70% of them are federally recognized. On the other side of it, despite whether or not a tribe is federally recognized a tribe can be poor and have few resources, such as my own tribe, or a tribe can have a casino and thousands of acres of land and other resources at their disposal. It all just depends on prior treaties with the government, where the tribe is located, and what either party can contribute.",
"Innocent Question I hope - why can't someone on the reservation open a school for call center and sell the service of said call center instead of going overseas. Does this make sense or make me a stupid white Iowan?",
"I live in Massachusetts, my family came over to Plimouth Colony in the 1630's and I live minutes away from the seat of the Wampanoag tribe. I went to High School with a large native population and here is my short-answer to it. \n\nNative American tribes are very proud of their heritage, despite it being somewhat tragic. When the United States was settled, the land was used by the white settlers, and the \"savages\" were forced back into the wilderness (read: West). When the Eastern Coast of the US became populated, Americans began to move westward, forcing the Natives further back, into territory many of them were unfamiliar with. \"Manifest Destiny\" drove a western push by the settlers, and violence occurred on numerous occasions. In order to protect the settlers, the government set up reservations of area where Natives would be moved to (the trail of tears, was a route where natives were forced to march into unknown land). These reservations became the reservations that exist today. \n\n* Because the US government did not want to include the Natives, the reservations were not considered part of the US, and today have certain sovereign rights as a result\n\n* One of these rights is that gambling on these lands is not federally regulated, and as a result, many casinos are run by tribes as a method of making money for the tribe, attracting tourism to their area and raising awareness about Native American issues. \n\n* Indian is an antiquated and politically incorrect term today (despite the Government office in charge of all of this being the Bureau of Indian Affairs) The Proper term is Native American or their tribal heritage, if you know it (Mohican, Sioux, Chippewa, Cheyanne, etc.) \n\n* Businesses on reservations do not pay taxes because, again, they are sovereign. \n\n* Mostly, Native Americans get perks from the US because we kind of took their land, gave them smallpox plagues and forced them to starve to death. Like alot. (Welcome to the US, we're kind of dicks if you're different from us)\n\n* Many Native Americans do Choose to integrate with society, and many tribes do not have reservations. \n\n**Bottom line is this: They were here first and the US respects that *now* we're trying to make right all of the wrongs that took place over the past 400 years or so**\n\n\n",
"Are you serious? I'm not even American and even I know most of your questions are extremely ignorant. \n\nIf someone entered my house, molested my wife, spat on my kids and told me to live on my lawn, I sure as hell wouldn't pay him taxes. Or integrate into his way of living. Pretty much the same thing with Native Americans.",
"I am Alaskan Indian, (Tlingit) and there are no reservations in Alaska. From what I've seen, casinos are not something that are available to every tribe and those with casinos do not seem to be sharing the wealth. I live in Tennessee for now and there is a casino just inside the border in North Carolina and the few times I've been there I've not been impressed with what they offer. It's been difficult for us and to try and keep our heritage and assimilate is no easy task. My mother told me stories of how she was forced into a boarding school and of being berated and beaten if she was caught speaking in her native tongue. She was forced to learn Latin and English. I grew up hearing our language, but never learned it and I believe that the forced assimilation led to the destruction of our way of life. I consider myself fortunate that I am an artist and I can create the art of my ancestors and hopefully carry it on in my own way. The state of Alaska has instituted a program that is trying to revive interest in speaking Tlingit, through teaching it as an elective course in middle school, high school and college by recording interviews with elders or those who have been lucky enough to have been taught. This country owes so much to its indigenous peoples, so much has been lost because of broken treaties. I'm not holding my breath, I have assimilated fully into the white culture, but to them I am seen as Asian, Hispanic, or any other person with brown skin other than American Indian, unless I wear a friggin head dress. When I go back home I'm looked at differently too, I've been called \"citified\". This country has done so much damage in its race relations and not just to the American Indian, but all other minorities. Since Europeans landed it's been a steady and systematic destruction of our ways and will. We are 1.7 percent of the population, and 78 percent of the Native American population does NOT live on a reservation. so, what's seen as reservation life is a far smaller picture than what's being represented in the media.",
"If you do even a smidgen of reading about native Americans you'll quickly realize that those aren't really perks. \n\nAnd they certainly don't cancel out the history of bullshit. \n\n",
"The treatment of aboriginal/native people in Canada by either non-natives or our government was abhorrent. It's still not exactly a great state of affairs.\n\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"Let's not forget the a lot of the Natives, were being \"Assimilated\", as per George Washington's plans. By the time Andrew Jackson was president, the Cherokee had built a colonial style city in Georgia that rivaled Atlanta. It was the States that forced the Federal government to remove the Cherokee and other assimilated nations from they're well established homes. ",
"This is one of the more informative threads I've read in Reddit. Thanks all for that. ",
"If this blows your mind, look into American Amish. ",
"Ojibwe here, born and raised on a reservation. I will try to be clear and concise with my answers.\n\n*Disclaimer* This is just my knowledge/view, I don't know all the exact specifics.\n\ni) To my understanding our little slice of land is it's own sovereign nation, so within its boundaries we don't pay taxes, but if I were to say, go to a store in the next town over then yes I would have to pay taxes like everyone else.\n\nii) Reservations are basically ghettos. They exist because the tribes negotiated with the federal government for some of their land back.\n\niii) I'm not exactly versed in how the law affects us, so don't quote me. We are a sovereign nation so they can't really do anything (county) but I think if the crime is big enough the state will step in and take care of things. My friend almost got pulled over by the state sheriff when we were coming back to the reservation, he was trailing him for a while but when he crossed over into the rez he laid off, if that means anything.\n\n > why do they seem to get all these perks and special treatment\n\nThe government destroyed our culture and way of life. They made it their goal to assimilate us. Now they feel bad I guess.\n\n > USA is one country isnt it?\n\nI don't want to go too far into this, yes the US is one country but that country is split up into states, states have the power to govern themselves freely, (i.e. they are sovereign with their boundaries) with a few exceptions. The reservations are sovereign nations and have the power to govern themselves freely as well.\n\nBut, you say, how can that be when they are inside of the state? Federal treaties. They make the reservations (in a lot of cases) more powerful than the state and pretty much on the same level as the federal government. One example, During Wounded Knee the state couldn't do anything, the federal government had to come in and make negotiations.\n\n1) Long story short: They want to hang onto their culture and way of life.\n\nLong story: The youth seem to have moved away except for in a few aspects. They still fish, hunt, and spear. That's really the main things that separate them. Some would just be your typical \"ghetto thug\", others your typical \"nerd\", and everything in between. I have white friends, black friends, asian friends, latino friends. I watch the Walking Dead sometimes, I play videogames, I go to movies with friends, I go on vacations, etc. etc. For the most part we are just the same as you. I guess you could say some *have* fully integrated because they don't practice their rights. Essentially we have integrated, the only thing keeping us from full integration is practicing our culture. But then you could say that other races haven't fully integrated either, even say that noone has fully integrated since each has their own culture that sets them apart from each other. Then this brings up a whole other slew of questions that I'm not going into.\n\n2) Well it's not really choice but then it kinda is, most people are too poor to move out and make a better life for themselves, then they get stuck and have kids, then those kids get stuck and the cycle continues. Then there's the percap. Percap is extra money that the tribal government has left over so they distribute it to everyone. I think the catch is you have to actually claim it, it's not just deposited into your account so you have a few options\n\na. Live on the rez forever so you can claim your percap easily\n\nb. Have a relative claim it for you.\n\nc. Make a big trip to claim percap\n\nd. Don't claim percap\n\nPercap is usually around 1k give or take, so you would be missing out if you didn't claim it. The only other reason I can think that people stay on the rez is to be able to practice their rights, if they go off rez (even onto another rez) they cannot practice them.\n\n3) Yes we can vote in elections, and no we are not being forced to live like \"this\".\n\nAlso, I should emphasize that a lot of natives are poor by their or a close family members doing. If they really wanted to, they could pull themselves out.\n\nIf you have any questions or want to know more, AMA.",
"Okay A full-blood Native to clear up somethings. Many of the \"special treatments\" you speak of are actually clauses in Treaties between tribes and the U.S government, which many consider a seperate government. A lot of treaties guarantee things like food, education, and healthcare in exchange for us peacefully living on our Reservations. We are adamant about our treaty rights because the U.S has broke so many already. Our Reservations are the last remaining bits of land we actually own and can govern ourselves so we'll be damned if we're losing anymore.\n\nWe do not integrate into American society because of the cultural differences that just can't be overcome. Native culture is very different from American culture and a lot of what is acceptable in American society is down right odd to us. I mean the whole concept of being able to own land was completely foreign and still not fully accepted. You poison the land and are ruthless in your pursuit of material success. That's considered ass backward to my people. Everything was shared among the people equally. We didn't even have much of a social hierarchy. Chiefs did not hold the kind of executive power you often associate with leadership positions. Women we're considered equals in our societies. Honestly many consider the American culture to be the barbaric of the two. \n\nThere's a lot more to this an I'm on my phone so if my comment gets any attention I might answer some more of your questions.",
"Yeah, all those perks and special treatment. Like genocide, medical experimentation, displacement, eugenics, and soul crushing poverty.\n\nAren't we lucky.",
"I'm not sure how it works in other states, but in AZ and NM, there are huge reservations. This land belongs to a specific tribe. For instance, the Navajo Nation is a big reservation in AZ that belongs to the Navajo tribe. People have to be a certain % of the tribe to get certain rights depending on the tribe. Some tribes own worthless land in the middle of the desert and have big problems with poverty and a lack of resources. \n\nOther tribes have good land and make money from logging or hunting, which is usually redistributed to people of that tribe in the form of trust funds, scholarships, or monthly dividends. Some cities have grown to the edges of the reservations and even surround them. The reservations near the cities often decide to open casino for revenue, because AZ laws against gambling do not apply to reservations. This money typically goes to tribal scholarships and other services, plus to American investors. \n\nThe reservations have their own police, fire dept, and schools. They are able to have some autonomy in laws, but for the most part are subject to the same laws as the federal government, kind of like they are a separate state. One weird thing about this is driving through the Navajo Nation, my phone switches time zones, because although the state of AZ does not use daylight savings, the Navajo Nation does. \n\nYou asked why reservations exist. They were formed a long time ago to basically get rid of the natives for settlers. Native Americans were forced from their homes and moved to land that was unwanted at the time. This was very bad for them. The [Trail of Tears](_URL_0_) is the most well known instance of this. \n\nIn response to \"USA is one country isn't it?\" Each State has its own laws. There is federal supremacy, so when they directly contradict federal laws, the federal law is the one enforced. This is why the marijuana laws have been so strange. Many states have legalized marijuana for medical use and some fore recreational use. However, it is still illegal int he realm of the federal government. Sot he local police will not enforce it, but the DEA can come and shut down a dispensery that is in compliance with the state law. Other things are left up to the state. For example, in NV, gambling is legal and prostitution is legal but heavily regulated, while it is illegal in the rest of the nation. Also, some counties have banned prostitution within NV. Some states ban certain types of guns or require them to be registered. For example, most guns I have owned came with a big sticker on the case saying that they are illegal to own in CA. The way I understand it, the reservations operate as if they are their own county or state.\n\nHowever, there tends to be a lot of poverty, crime,and corruption on reservations. You asked why they stay on the reservation. The main reason is that most cannot afford to leave. The culture is also much different, so it would be very difficult to assimilate into American society, especially without a good education. There are also cultural reasons. Some tribes highly discourage marrying anyone outside the tribe or of a different ethnicity. I know one woman who was disowned by her entire family for leaving the reservation. Her tribe considered her a traitor and she was completely cut off financially.",
"1. Part of the deals worked out because we, you know, killed them all and stole their country.\n\n2. It's territory that belongs to them. They have control over it and everything that goes on in it. It exists because it was theirs to begin with. You know, before we killed them and stole their country.\n\n3. Because they have control over it, as I said in number 2. They have their own jurisdiction and law enforcement. They're like miniature countries in their own right in that way. You know, because we killed them and stole their country.\n\nFor the second set:\n\n1. Would you want to integrate fully with the country that killed your people and stole your land?\n\n2. Pride? They don't feel like they should have to leave when they were there first? Their ancestry and history is tied to that land? Moving is expensive? Where would they go?\n\n3. Yes, if they register, just like anyone else. They also pay federal, sales, and income taxes. If they live off the reservations then they pay state taxes too.",
"I just wanted to add that this is also not limited to the United States. There are similar conditions in Canada as well, with many natives paying less taxes and living on reserves. They also get free education, which unfortunately, most do not use.\n\nThe truth is that we (white europeans) really, really fucked them up. And it's still relatively recent that aboriginals were forced from their families and raised by religious white people who would beat them if they spoke their own language, or observed their own cultures.\n\nThe last residential school closed in *1996* - think about that.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI used to work in a prison in the Northern prairies region where 85 % of the inmates were aboriginal, most of them belonged in a gang, half of them were either *in* a residential school, or their parents were, and most of them had a substance abuse problem, and were not advanced far educationally.\n\nThey were basically tricked/forced into giving up not only their land, but also their way of life, which was incompatible with so called \"modern\" society (I actually consider their culture more tolerable, sustainable, respectable and moral). They have ever been the socially isolated little dark secret of North America, and have never been able to grasp their lives back.\n\nMost of them go from the reserve, to the street in urban areas. A small minority of the younger generation are growing into their own middle class with some social influence, but this is a very slow change.\n\nThey have also recently been protesting a lot in Canada, against the current Federal government which has once again, taken some of their promised \"rights\" away with the opening of waterways, and the trans-Canada pipeline proposal, that goes through their lands.\n\nRealistically, they know they can get money out of it if they make a ruckus, but the real root of the issue, is that we destroyed their fucking culture and created a marginalized population within a Country that claims absolute multiculturalism and acceptance.\n\nIts sad, and it's complicated now, and there is no easy fix.",
"It's basically reparations for the mass and long term genocide of Native Americans.\n\nLong story short: They lived here looooong before Europeans arrived. Europeans arrived(bringing disease that immediately killed many). Europeans received help and learned about the land from the natives. Europeans claimed the land as theirs. Saw the natives as \"savages\" and ignorant, slaughtered them, enslaved them, forced them out to the shittiest bits of real estate(many more died during the forced travel), forced into Christianity(even being forced to choose a Christian name for themselves), and forced to adapt the European way of life. People later felt bad, and tried to compensate with land rights and scholarships and such.\n\nBefore the arrival of the europeans, the natives were proud and had a very simple, but extremely efficient way of life. They believed there is a natural balance in the world. You take, you give back.\n\nI live in the southeast, and I'm 1/4 Cherokee. Things are cool here and I don't hear anything about racism or oppression. I've heard that on the west coast the natives still deal with some oppression, but I don't know the details of it. It could just be that they're still bitter about things that happened before their lifetime.",
"I'm Canadian and used to be a youth care worker that comprised of mostly aboriginal people. I once had to take one of the youth to their reserve and it looked like a fucking third world country. If anyone is curious on the highlights, I will go into detail. ",
"A very interesting specific case is that of the St. Regis Reservation, which is Mohawk and on the St. Lawrence river. It was drawn up in a treaty in Albany and pretty much forgotten about when they drew the new lines with Quebec. So it's now half in Canada and half in the US. On the NYS side, the treaty, which is the highest law by constitution, leaves it sovereign. On the Canadian side, they have another system. Neither the Troopers nor the Mounties are allowed on unless the tribal police ask them on. It is FULL of smuggling. Smuggle, smuggle smuggle! Both ways. The temptation is too great, anyone would be tempted to smuggle in a situation like that. It's pretty scary because God knows what the heck is crossing that line most days.\n\nTL:DNR? See the movie \"Frozen River\" to see a pretty dangerous messed up situation on an Indian Reservation on the NYS/Quebec border.",
"This will probably get buried by now but here is my take:\n\nI am a Native American and a member or one of the last traditional nations left. By traditional, I mean that we are still a matriarchal community (women run everything, head of household, etc) \n\ni) While it is true that Native Americans are tax-exempt, it is a pain in the ass to actually use your tax exempt in some places. While some business just require you show your nation identification along with a tax exempt number, others want you to have a form with several pages with all of your information and your chief's signature. I am unsure as to why we don't pay tax, but i think it may just be a benefit to use Native Americans just like various colleges provide us with opportunities to attend (Syracuse-Haudenosaunee Promise). \n\nii.) There are various theories as to why reservations were first formed. But I think that it is along the lines of leaders in government thought that they were helping Natives by placing them together on reservation land because they fought so hard against conforming to the \"white\" way of life. Some tribes are sovereign in some aspects. For example, it is illegal to smoke in a restaurant in New York right? Well at a casino on Seneca land you may smoke inside because it is sovereign land. This sovereignty is limited however. It doesn't permit you to abandon all local and federal laws, although I am unsure as to where the line is drawn. \n\niii) I dont' know how it is on reservations in which they have their own law enforcement, but on my reservation, a police officer is allowed to follow someone on to the reservation and pull them over or anything of the sort. But if there is going to be a drug bust or domestic call or something where police are called to an address, they must let someone in power (chief or clan mother) what is going to happen. The reason local law enforcement cannot treat reservations like areas outside of a reservation is because the land is sovereign and with that come a certain way of going about patrolling rez's. \n\nIt may seem like we get all of the perks and special treatment, but we are hurting just like everyone else. What you see in movies and tv isn't correct. Most people on reservations are poor. While their tribe may have a casino and provide them with a monthly allowance just for being enrolled, its not enough. People have become so comfortable with living on welfare, pumping out children, abandoning education, and becoming addicts to drugs and alcohol. Some people have become so comfortable with being so poor on my reservation that they don't even have running water...Its 2014!!!! It's sad to see, and it's frustrating when there are all of these perks and opportunities to escape. But unfortunately, it just does not happen. \n\nin response to /u/Hambaba:\n\n1) That goes back a very long time. Upon European arrival, we have always fought integrating into society. People don't like change. While we CAN integrate and not abandon our beliefs and traditions, the fear of losing them is a large driving force behind resistance.\n\n2) On my reservation, that is all they know. There are opportunities to escape the hardship and help your fellow members, but when you are born on a 10 sq. mile reservation and have lived on it your entire live and your entire family (and I mean ENTIRE) lives on there why would you leave? The fear of getting ostracized is real. Because it does happen. It's unfortunate, because you'd think families would be happy that their children are trying to better their lives but its just not what really happens. \n\n3) Yes. We can vote. We are citizens of the United States. The reason why most refuse to vote is the argument that people off the rez \"wouldn't come onto our rez and vote for our new clan mother, so why should we vote for their president\". This is a very narrow-minded view, but a large percentage of people on my reservation actually do believe this. \n\nHopefully it has cleared up for you a little bit! ",
"I think the most important thing to remember is that when European colonial power arrived on this continent, there were hundreds of nations already here with languages, cultures, traditions, and governments of their own. The colonial powers established government-to-government relationships with the indigenous nations, signed treaties, abrogated those treaties unilaterally, and then attempted numerous schemes aimed at genocide, forced assimilation, or both. Also, the doctrine of Christian discovery is still really at the heart of the plenary power that the federal government claims over indigenous nations.\n\ni) They don't pay federal taxes when the business operates on the reservation. The legal history of the relationship between the tribal governments and the federal government is a mess, but this is most often described as a result of the government-to-government relationship. The tribal governments are also not under the jurisdiction of the states for the same reason.\n\nii) Reservations exist because the federal government and owners of capital took away the land that the tribes owned, designated land they didn't want (sometimes inside of a tribe's traditional land use area), rounded up all of the indigenous people at gun point, and forced them on to the rez. For example, the US government signed the Treaty of Ruby Valley in 1848 IIRC with the Western Shoshone in Nevada. Under the treaty, the Western Shoshone kept title to their land and gave settlers safe passage across the land. When settlers didn't pass and started to stay, they found gold, at which point the federal government seized all of the land and gave the Western Shoshone a reservation with no gold. IIRC, the WS have been compensated something like US$140 million for the US$2B in gold extracted from their land.\n\niii) Tribes are their own jurisdiction. The US is a patchwork of overlapping jurisdictions. Cities have their own ordinances, but counties, states, and the federal government can all override the next smallest jurisdiction. Reservations are their own jurisdictions.\n\n1 and 2) They have their own languages, cultures, traditions, and governments. They have communities and histories and unique ways of life. Why doesn't Scotland just fully integrate with England and Wales? Because they don't want to.\n\n3) Members of tribes can vote in tribal elections (since tribes have their own governments) as well as in the jurisdictions in which they live. I live in Arizona, and members of indigenous nations weren't given the right to vote in state elections until 1948. Members of indigenous nations can and do vote in the jurisdictions in which they live. For example, the Tohono O'odham reservation is in Pima County in the state of Arizona, so if you live on the reservation you can vote for the county board of supervisors and all of the state-wide races (governor, superintendent of schools) and federal races (congress, president), as well as the tribal government. If you move into the city, you can then add city elections, too.\n\nOn genocide and termination:\n_URL_0_\n_URL_3_\n\nOn the beginnings of the reservation system:\n_URL_2_\n\nTwo examples for forced removal:\n_URL_4_\n_URL_1_\n",
" > Why don't the Native American chose to integrate fully to American society?\n\nWhy didn't the Jews choose to integrate into Nazi Germany? Settlers actively sought genocide against Native Americans, and they're still almost completely marginalized as a culture. Reservations are all they have left.",
"I am Native American born on reservation in North Dakota.\n\nSome of what you ask would not be discussed with an outsider BUT there are a few items that I may enlighten.\n\n1. ) No we do not vote in U.S. elections, first we really do not care what goes on in \"that\" world since we know first hand what troubles that world brings.\n\n2.) There are Natives who live on and off the reservation. Do not look at the reservation as something that has exclusion to U.S. society but look at it as total \"inclusion\" to the point of being its own sovereign entity. Why? Because many of us were massacre at the hand of the white men and the remaining of us fought to our last dying breath. So these are mutual (if you want to say mutual) concessions.\n\n3.) There are many stories that we have known for generations that many in mainstream America do not know mainly because it is purposely held out of general knowledge. \n\nFor example: Like how there were many tribes here on this land ranging from lighter brown skinned, red skinned and black skinned (yes black skinned natives that were NOT slaves). When the white men came, there was feuds between the red and blacker skinned tribes and since the white men were fighting blacker skinned men around the world, chose to join forces with the redder skinned native.\n\nThe white men, and red native fought and killed off most of the black natives then the white men almost killed off all of the red and light brown native.\n\n4.) Why do we or even should we integrate into \"American\" society? We are more American than American... right?\n\n5.) We are a sovereign nation, just like Canada, or Mexico, or India.\n\nHope I was able to give some insight. \n\nSaru Satu Sa olu\n\n",
"They are people just like the rest of us but they can fish/hunt for free and have a bad attitude about Thanksgiving.",
"Genocide. You need to google the hidden history of the US. NO ONE, not even schools fully explain the magnitude genocide of the Native Americans. Its just as brutal and grand as the holocaust if not worse due to it being a much, much, much longer ordeal. Thanks giving is just a way for Americans to be happy and not think out what was sacrificed by these people. The opposite can be said about black history month. I feel as if though it is deliberatly constructed to make black people feel hatred towards white people. It it not needed. The human mind doesnt fare well if it is only focused on negativity rather than the well being of society for a better dawn. ",
"I'm full Navajo and go to the reservation a lot. And like you I asked these questions not the business one. But the local authorities and reservation are run by a council of sorts even though there is a president. The local police only have authority on the reservation. Also any federal offense committed on the reservation is handled by the FBI. And people can leave. most reservation are pretty ghetto and a lot of violence happens. Driving around there are still a lot of dirt roads and mobile trailers or hogans, the only people who have real houses are people who have good jobs wielding or out of state jobs. Or some houses are built by the Gov. Out on the reservation almost everyone relies on the gov. Some people never leave the reservation because the gov is taking care of them. A lot of alcoholism takes place, even though the reservation dry. On average you'll see at least 3 drunk people stumbling somewhere. There are so many 40 bottles lying around or smashed on the ground that I will almost shed a tear. It is not a place for rich people. ",
"I'm only 1/4 Native American, but I grew up and lived on a reservation for 28 years. Also went to an all Native American elementary school (Oh, did I mention I'm half Spaniard so let me tell you how fun that was). I'm only speaking from my experience. \n\nWe don't pay taxes (or pay for water, sewer, garbage or even taxes on homes) on many things within the reservation. Why? I never looked into it. Sorry. Kind of useless there. \n\nI'd also like to point out that you must be half or full blooded Native American to live on the reservation (I am excluded) so not everyone gets the benefits. My tribe is especially confusing because they only recognize us fourths for certain things. For instance, they give my dad (since he's half) money every year for Christmas, I am excluded from this and living on the land because I am 1/4. However, I am included when it comes to them giving us free healthcare (hey, I'm not complaining) and if I commit a crime on tribal land. I can either be tried there or get kicked out of my tribe. \n\nLocal law enforcement does not have jurisdiction here and tribal cops don't have jurisdiction anywhere else either. We even have our own courts down here. Now you obviously can't just make things up since tribal land is federal land. \n\nOur tribe does have all authority to close down roads when they need to and they do for any dances they need to keep private. To my understanding there is nothing that the state can do about this, but don't quote me on that one. \n\nAs for why they don't integrate fully I personally feel because there are certain beliefs Native Americans have that must stay within our tribe. \n\nYes, we can and do vote in U.S. elections. We also have our own tribal elections we vote for too. \n\nThe more I go into this, the more useless I feel since my tribe is very confusing with things, but perhaps that answered or helped in some kind of way. Sorry for not being more helpful. ",
"Every American or Americano or Norteamericano must read Sherman Alexie. As a Latin American I can assert that there is good historic and anthropological research about the relationship between alcohol and post-colonial trauma. The Andes and its modern rites are a very good example of the problem. The colonizer had to find a way to numb the character and physique of the colonized to prevent \"problems\". So did England in China with the opium. ",
"These are very broad questions to a very long history. I tried my best to break it down by question.\nI'm a Native American living on Six Nations territory in Ontario Canada. I know the laws vary in the US, as does the history but I'll answer your questions from my perspective.\n1. Treaties with the government were made on a Nation to Nation basis. So in Canada, our treaties were made with the Queen and therefore are now the responsibility of the Federal Government. We do not acknowledge the Provincial government and their laws on our territory. Business registration and taxation is a provincial government issue.\n2. The ideal of a reservation or reserve can vary from band to band. (A \"band\" can be another name for a tribe. For example, I'm Cayuga. that's my tribe, or my band. I happen to come from a history of united nations, The Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy) My people fought against the US with Canadian forces. One of our Leaders at the time was a man named Joseph Brant, he was taken to meet the Queen, I believe there are portraits of him and his companions in your museums. Anyway, the stories of my elders claim that the Queen loved us. And she was very grateful for our help in the war. By siding with Canada, Joseph Brant and all of his followers would never be able to return to the US. Not all of the people of the Six Nations followed Joseph, some remained in New York state. And in exchange, the Queen granted Six Miles on either side of the Grand River to be a reserve for the Six Nations people. Other reserves and reservations have different history and different treaties.\n3. Local police. Once again, State police or Provincial police cannot come onto federal territory and enforce their laws. In Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police could become involved. On a reserve that is bigger and therefore has more resources, there might be a local police force. We have that here. I can call the police on my neighbor for all the same reasons you might call the police on yours. And I'll get the same response as you would. \n\nPerks and special treatment? I'm not sure what you mean? I have a treaty that says my people will be taken care of. For ever. That all this land would remain unmolested by settlers. That we could sell it. or keep it. And that any and all resources ever taken off that land, well... my people would get the money from that. And my people are different. My ancestors were never thinking of themselves. They always thought about seven generations in the future. And they wanted to make deals to ensure that the land and the prosperity would always be there. And when the Canadian government saw how rich the Six Nations and other Nations might become. They decided they needed a solution for their \"indian problem\" and they created things like residential schools. They decided to break up every family and take away the children. Stop the teachings and the traditions and hopefully make them all forget. Either make them Canadian or make them dead. And then they won't have to honour any treaties. Then the Native peoples started to realize that the government was stealing the land set aside in the treaties. And they wanted to fight for it. But then Government made it illegal for an \"Indian\" to hire a lawyer. When that law was finally repealed, a revision to the Indian Act in the 80's I believe, the court systems were immediately overwhelmed. The government has done other things to lower our population as well. Used to be that if you were a Native woman and you married a non-native man, well.. you just weren't native anymore. You or your children. I'm still looking for these perks you mention... So we don't have to pay state or provincial taxes. Makes cigarettes and gas cheaper when you take away all that tax. I'd settle for regular treatment. Health Canada says that 20% of first nations communities do not have access to safe drinking water. Over 600 missing or murdered Native women in western Canada and the police still don't want to investigate it further. I don't feel like i get special treatment at all. I know that from the time Canada starting not honouring our treaty, my people have been trying to fight them. We have never stopped fighting for what the Queen promised us. My 7th generation deserves all those things she promised. \n\nEDIT2\n1. I don't want to integrate. Why did these people get to move into my house and force me to live their lives? Why isn't my culture and history just as important? We made an agreement. One that I learned when i was very young and one that I get reminded of on a regular basis. Our ancestors agreed that we would always live in our own canoe. And that we would never try to steer each others canoe. And we would never get in each others path. My people have done and continue to do that. We have never tried to force our ways on you. We let you live your life and your traditions. We want to be left with ours. But settlers interrupted our way of life so much, that we're having a hard time adapting still. It's only been a few generations. For settlers coming here, the arrived and turned North America into a version of what they knew. They changed the entire landscape and decided that their way of life was better and attempted to force it upon us. All of that stuff was new to us. Except for the idea of hunting and farming, after all it was new food and animals, pretty much everything else was different. That's kind of a lot of trauma to inflict on a people in a few generations. we didn't have the words to understand \"owning\" land before contact. \n2. If i don't live on the reservation then where do i go? I come from a history of families living and being extremely close. Some families almost living in their own communities of 4 -15 houses making a small neighborhood. It's my history. It's how we raise children and have family. Aunties are treated no different than mothers. Uncles as fathers. Where will families go? What about Longhouse? Theres only a few thousand people in my community. I dunno.. Maybe 100-150 people going to each Longhouse. How do we do that now? How do we pass on our traditions and our history? Theres so few of us... if we all disperse how do we keep those things going? We don't want to lose those things. Those are important to us. Or is does your definition of \"fully integrating\" mean giving up our faith? which, btw, may be older than any of the written histories in the world? I don't know if i \"choose\" to be here. Like right here in the spot that I am now. But i do choose to be within my community. Surrounded by like minded people. With my people. My family. It's sometimes sad, that all we need now, for all of us is a small plot of land. But Native population is currently the fastest growing in Canada. \n3. I can vote in a federal election. The federal government makes decisions either directly or through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. The federal representation affects me so i can vote. As for provincial voting, we have no jurisdiction in provincial politics. We have two governing bodies in my community. Elected officials - done through a voting system forced on us by the government where only a few hundred people vote. And our traditional confederacy chiefs, who I believe have far more support than the electoral chief and councillors. \n\nI'd like to add something. I read a quote in the paper a few months ago, an elder being asked how he felt about the whole \"Redskins\" issue. (the football team being asked to stop using the racist name). He made a point by saying something like, when people see an old Jewish man and recognize him for being Jewish. They feel something in their heart for that man. Knowing even just a little about his history and the plight of his people. He might be a survivor the holocaust. A feeling of respect. No one looks at a Native person like that. They think heathen, drunk, unemployed bum and a whole bunch of other stereotypes. But they never think survivor. And that's what we are. ",
"You actually thought that television would give you an accurate depiction?",
"Imagine slavery, apartheid, the Holocaust and the movie Avatar (with a much sadder ending) all rolled in to one and that's pretty much Native Americans in the US. ",
"Where I'm from (Alberta, Canada) status natives don't pay liquor or tobacco taxes and receive a 10,000$ grant from the government when they turn 18. ",
"I'm sure this won't get seen, but being that I am part Native American, I needed to come on here and give my two bits. \n\nI am apart of the Ojibwa tribe from Northern Minnesota and I have lived and grew up on reservations my whole life. \n\nIt's not as bad as anyone would think. Some places are worse than others, but for the most part there are local convenient stores, schools and plenty of job opportunities for anyone growing up in these conditions to get out and live a perfectly normal life. I, for example, have recently graduated with an engineering degree and I am working as a contractor making 50k a year, starting. I came from a reservation, made good choices, and now I am ahead in life. I think that's one of the worst misconceptions that a lot of people have: That reservations are dirt towns and there is no escaping them. False. Most of the time people make bad, childish decisions and end up in a bad downward spiral thereafter. \n\nThe second part I wanted to communicate is that a lot of people will complain about the things that happened in the past. And don't get me wrong, Native American's did get the run-of-it when compared to the way they were trated... yes.. even worse than the African Americans.... But honestly we are at a point in time where we can no longer focus on the past. We need to drop everything and realize that we are all one people, regardless what happened, and move forward. I don't think that we will ever get over racism.. some of that will always exist, but we can't have the government give money to certain people of a particular race to try to make up for something they didn't immediately do. \n\nI believe it has a hinderance on Native's as a whole. What happened is the Natives became reliant on these government funds and stopped doing everything else because they could get by like that. So many family/friends/people I know live on food stamps and their $1000 check per month in well fare... idk.. its sickening. Not only that, but it makes Native American societies look bad as a whole, because they are free loading.\n\nTL:DR - Native American history is terrible, but from my experience as a Native American Engineer, all benefits and special treatments need to end to better Native American's as a whole.\n\n",
"Has anyone explained \"treaty rights\" to you in this thread? That is where it all starts. I'm too lazy to look.\n\n Here's a nutshell: when EUROPEANS invaded the Americas, they found thriving civilizations organized in city or regional states (think Aztecs) or as \"tribes\" with varying levels of socio political complexity. Those groups, naturally, thought of themselves as \"sovereign,\" as having inherent rights to self-governance and territory/resources. And many tribes fought between themselves for rights to use particular resources such as hunting areas etc.\n\n\n The early Europeans established treaties and agreements with the various tribes in order to minimize conflict, gain access to land/ resources, & establish trading rights. Then the USA was formed and honored some of those treaties and entered into new treaties as the westward expansion across the continent led to contact with more tribes.\n\n\n In this process of colonization of N America, untold numbers of individuals died mostly by disease brought by Europeans. (In Central/South America, though, war was also significant as cause of death). But there were also various \"Indian Wars\" as well in N. America. Eventually dozens if not hundreds of unique tribes were wiped out entirely. \n\n\nThe mid-western and western tribes, seeing what happened to the many Eastern tribes (decimation) then fought hard to maintain their sovereignty over lands and as self governing peoples. They mostly resisted the settlements of their lands, which often occurred in violation of prior treaties. Eventually many treaties were created whereby tribes gave up their larger expanses of lands in exchange for smaller territories (reservations), \"land use rights\" for fishing/hunting/ spiritual practices along with various services to be provided in perpetuity by the US government (like health care). \n\n\nThe point being that these legally binding arrangements eventually established what is known in American jurisprudence as \"sovereign dependent nations\" that have a nation to nation status with the US government. As such they are not bound by lower levels of governance (eg state). They are not however given quite the same status as, say, France or Germany which are sovereign INdependent nations relative to the US government. \n\n\nTribal nations continue to exercise self-governance that has been variously contracted and expanded over the decades according to the prevailing sentiments on the \"Indian problem.\" Nowadays, most \"federally recognized tribes\" ( > 500 including > 250 in Alaska ) wish to persist as this type of entity legally, and to preserve their unique cultures and languages, while also helping tribal members to live in the larger societal context. \n\n\n\"Assimilation\" is a bad word in this era because it implies the loss of unique cultural integrity AND that was the name of a policy popular at one time which WAS meant to eventually destroy the sovereignty of tribes and release their land resources from special protected status. \n\n\nAmerican Indian law is very complex and not uniform as each tribe can have its own history of legally binding treaties with the US. Whole regions also have unique commonalities based on the era in which the agreements were created (given whatever was popular Indian policy at the time in the US government). Example: Alaska had the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of the early 1970s which was required by the statehood act but which didn't get completed until the North Slope oil needed to be developed but could not because all these issues hadn't been worked out. It established regional and village \"corporations\" instead of \" reservations\" but the issues of sovereign control & self governance remains murky and contested. \n\n\nHopefully this helps some. Many comments describe the confusing present day situations without providing the fundamental context: these groups had & have a unique socio-political status founded on the fact that the US government negotiated with them as sovereign nations. They were here first. Despite the best efforts of dominant US culture to exterminate & assimilate, the nations persist & insist on their survival as indigenous peoples. Their survival is nothing short of heroic and miraculous, in fact. ",
"As a native that knows a bit about Indian law, the easiest way to put it is like this:\n\nA reservation is a sovereign nation within the US. It has it's own legislature but is till controlled by federal law. You can only become an official member of the tribe if you are a descendant. \n\nI'd be happy to answer any specific questions. ",
"Reading a history of the early french and british colonies that formed the North America we have today, it was shocking to learn of a 150 year period that had early american colonies contained on the eastern coast. The french had armed the natives and to the dismay of the french many of their own pioneers adopted the native way of life. The natives had a uniform standard for everyone due to social equality tribal members, there was a public store for food and supplies. \nThe fact that natives were assimilating colonists in numbers coupled with an emerging trend of complete military domination by the natives when they chose to fight became a major issue when the now american colonists began to look westward. \nThe ongoing war between Britain and France finally wound down and the latter was finally absorbed into Canada and they no longer were able to supply the natives that were along the expanding horizons of American colonies. \nAs seen in Canada and proved beyond a doubt many times, the fighting prowess of the natives was a terrible thing when coupled with supplies and tactical objectives. The early colonists were absolutely terrified of natives by this point and rightly so. When Britain tried to talk the Americans into rejoining the Dominion the Americans remained resolute in defiance (as it would beggar many of the founding fathers) and slowly spread west. \nThe resulting expansion seen the creation of the Army to deal with the 'savages' and then later peace negotiations and the establishment of 'reserves'.\nThe west coast natives in Columbia were dealt with differently were given treaties by the British. When the area was subverted by the now aggressive US it was divided and one half was deemed British. To this day the First Nations in BC have the Douglas Accord to use in legal proceedings.\nAs native power slowly declined in Canada(late 1800') they were increasingly disregarded and then actively reduced in political power. The situations on reserves today(up here at least) are a direct result of government policies enacted with these goals in mind. \n",
"Why do they get perks and special treatment? When colonists \"discovered\" America, we fucked them. We fucked them hard.",
" > why why why why\n\nWhat about if they don't want to integrate with the people who has killed their ancestors, stolen their way of life, their land and their liberty.",
"Well im saying this as a canadian, but I think we have a similar way of treating native americans. I can say the vast majority are not casino owning billionairs, a lot of them live in poverty and end up on the streets. there is land that is theirs the government cant charge taxes on. Yes they do get some speacal treatments such as housing on reservations paid for by the government\n\nSorry to sound blunt but its a small return for stealing their land, killing the majority of them and putting the remaining in residentail schools to learn their new way of life.\n\nBut in my opinion you cant buy back a culture that has been so tarnished, it only leads to drug and alcohol addiction. I seen the devestation of throwing money at the problem. No one in particular gets large amounts of money from the government, but those living on the reserves got no bills to pay. Which will cause problems in any community",
"My name is Wambdi Anawangmani. I am a descendant of Sitting Bull and Simon Anawangmani the last Chief of my people. I grew up on the Lake Traverse reservation In Sisseton South Dakota and I am a member of the Sisseton Whapeton Oyate tribe.\n\nThe very nature of your questions shows a very surprising lack of knowledge related to the over 600 year plight of my people. This is to be expected with the history books being written by the victor. I will hopefully be able to impart my own personal wisdom the story of my people and you will be able to understand our very unique situation a little better.\n\nAs for the \"Special perks\" we Natives receive, they are at best poor compensation for hundreds of years of genocide. Before the vikings or columbus or America as we know it my people lived in harmony with this land and for the most part each other. Yes we get special tax breaks and our reservations are considered a sovereign nation but all of this has literally come from blood spilled by my people.\n\n The truth is we never wanted to live on the reservations, we were forced at gun point to walk thousands of mile with little to no food clothes or water. We were then told if we left these reservations we would be killed, which we were. At one point in time it was even illegal to bring anything other than whiskey onto a reservation for Indians to drink. This was done intentionally to riddle our population with the alcoholism you see today. The reservations are currently the poorest places in America. They are literally a third world country within the U.S and no does anything because .... well frankly no one in the united states cares enough to try and change the way the system works and give the Native people what is rightfully theirs.\n\nYes we can vote in elections we have all the rights of any normal U.S citizen but after the hundreds of years of genocide and so called \"battles\" like Wounded Knee its hard for a lot of Natives to trust White people or the U.S government and rightfully so. I would like to ask that you take the time to read about some of the great native american leaders and medicine men. Their story shed light on the current situation and the reason things are they way they are today\n\nSitting bull\n_URL_3_\n\nBlack Elk\n_URL_1_\n\nChief Joseph\n_URL_2_\n\nGeronimo \n_URL_0_\n\nCrazy Horse\n_URL_0_\n\nI wish I could list all of my brothers and sisters, men, women and children that have died fighting for the land they love and the freedom of their people but this list is simply to long.....\n",
"It's important to realize to the sheer scale of the distances involved when we say reservations are isolated. The Navajo nation _alone_ is very close to 1/2 the size of England in km/2. Bear in mind there are few paved roads on the large reservations, very poor infrastructure, no public transportation whatsoever. These are extraordinarily poor people; just making their way to a tiny town with a grocery store or a crappy BIA clinic is possibly an insurmountable problem.\n\nYou can't just say \"why don't they assimilate and go to college and be successful\", that might be an option that is available to you, but you may as well expect these folks to fly to Mars in a rocket. They simply do not have that prerogative.",
"I am a full blood. This is what no Native media will tell you. And I will be called a \"troll\" for speaking the truth here.\n\n\n\n\n\nA large number of **federally recognized** tribes are full of whites with no Indian blood in them - the best example being the **federally recognized** Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma which has been close to 100% white for many many generations. \n\n\n\n\n\nBy \"full of whites\" I mean these **federally recognized** tribes have 100% white population with virtually no real Indians. **Many federally recognized tribes are whiter than Europe.**\n\n\n\n\n\nSuch white **federally recognized** tribes still get hundreds of millions in government benefits and casino monies. These are your taxpayer dollars that go to such white people.\n\n\n\n\nThese \"Indians\" like to claim they became white over generations because of intermarriage. But our Elders tell us this is not true. They were whites who were signed on by Indian agents. The Indian agents were under pressure to enroll Indians who refused to sign away their land. So they signed their own friends and relatives instead to get Indian land and Indian benefits. The descendants of these fraudulent whites make billions in taxpayer and casino monies. We are talking about BILLIONS of dollars here.\n\n\n\n\n\nWhites have always been trying to be Indian. Even today, we have whites in every European country who are trying to be Indian. They even live in teepes. Watch this pow wow in Denmark (_URL_7_). These whites from Denmark get no benefits in trying to be Indian. Or watch this pow wow in Poland (_URL_6_). These whites in Poland get no benefit from being Indian. Now imagine what would happen if these whites each got 160 acres of land for being Indian. That is exactly what happened. Whites were signed on as Indians, which is why our **federally recognized** tribes are full of whites.\n\n\n\n\n\nDon't take my word for it. Read what this Native American Yale professor has to say in her opinion editorial in a peer reviewed journal, The American Indian Quarterly - _URL_3_\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSometimes white casino interests will ensure that *one* white man or *one* black woman forms a **ONE-PERSON federally recognized** tribe that makes millions in casinos - read this TIME Magazine article _URL_14_\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhat is the solution? I am afraid I don't have any good answers because there are tribes like mine that are full of real Indians that live without water, electricity and heat. Then there are many real Indians whose tribes are too poor to have $35 million dollars it takes to get federal recognition, so these tribes get zero benefits. There are many full blood Indians whose grandparents belonged to different tribes, so they are not eligible to enroll in any tribe and these full bloods have no tribal enrollment. There are also many real Indians who were disenrolled from their tribes over casino per-cap politics. So I don't have a solution. I am just exposing the corruption in **federally recognized** tribes which the media will never share with you. Even the Indian media because our media is 100% controlled by whites with casino interests.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThis news is censored by capitalistic casino interests, so you never get to hear it. I won't be surprised if it is deleted on Reddit either - or heavily downvoted after the Indian listservs get wind of this. Please share widely. Thank you my brothers and sisters. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n*EDIT - 1: There is a long-term solution to this mess but it is complicated. Americans feel that tribes are \"given\" benefits. That is incorrect. Americans don't realize that tribes have prepaid for all these \"benefits\" in terms of land and lives or that these are nation-to-nation treaty obligations. But the long-term solution would be for us Indians to waive all those benefits and say we don't want them. The Haudenausaunee Confederacy had suggested that tribes should stop relying on the Feds for ratification, validation and financial support. Tribes have got to be self sufficient and decline all financial support from the Feds. Affirmative action has to completely end. We have to put an end to casinos and payday loan businesses. Once affirmative action is gone, casinos are gone and financial incentives for being Indian are gone, whites in our federally recognized tribes will see no point in being Indian unless they REALLY identify with us and 99% of them won't. They will go back to being the whites they are after affirmative action ends and financial incentives end. That, I think, is the long-term and only solution.*\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEDIT - 2: QUOTE \"The secret America does not know is that we (Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the BIGGEST tribe in America, **federally recognized**) have been close to 100% white for several generations now. This is because BIA agents got their white relatives to fraudulently enroll in the Dawes Roll to get Indian land years ago. Today we are close to 100% Caucasian. _URL_8_\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBy the way, we have been a white tribe for several GENERATIONS! All the Cherokee Nation Chiefs have also been white. Here, check them all out - my former Chiefs and the present Chief:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_URL_12_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_URL_13_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_URL_10_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_URL_9_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_URL_15_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_URL_1_ (this was our Chief way back in 1969 - whites even then).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHow about in the 1800's? Well, we have been white even then. Check out my Chief in the 1800s: _URL_2_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHere is another Chief of my nation from the 1800s, also white like everyone else _URL_4_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAnd yet one more Chief of the Cherokee Nation from the 1800's, also white like all: _URL_5_\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWant one more Chief from the 1800s? Here he is also white like the rest of the **federally recognized** Cherokees - _URL_11_\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMy tribe has always been a fraudulent tribes of whites who fraudulently got themselves enrolled in the Dawes Roll. And today, for the most part, we are parasites on the hardworking American people. As whites who have Native American status, we get a ton of free things, including benefits like affirmative action.\" UNQUOTE",
"This is also censored news. I am a fullblood and point #11 below is the most important one to people like me. I will undoubtedly be called a \"troll\" for speaking the truth.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHere is an e-mail sent to many of us by the Reservation Rats, a group of fullbloods who speak their language fluently and volunteer and live on Indian reservations.\n\n\n\"Almost 20 years ago, grandpa met a little white boy dressed up as an Indian on Halloween. The boy gave a squeal of delight when he spotted grandpa and asked, \"Are you a real Native American??!!!??\" \n\n\n\"Yes,\" smiled grandpa, a former Medicine Man, \"just like you are one today! But I don't look half as handsome as you do.\" \n\n\n\"Well, what can you teach me about being Indian?\" asked the little boy earnestly. \n\n\n\"This,\" said grandpa. Then he took his pack of cigarettes from this pocket and threw it in the trash can. \"These are very bad for your health. As an Indian today, you have to always keep your word, so promise me you will never smoke in your life.\" \n\n\n\"I promise!!!\" said the little boy as his parents mouthed thank you to grandpa. \n\n\nAbout 20 years later, I meet this blondie at Yale University who called herself Native American and waved her card at my face to prove it, even though I never asked her to show me any card or to prove her Indian status. The blondie recounted her own experience when she came across a little boy who was dressed up as an Indian on Halloween. She said, \"I went up to him, ripped up the feathers he was wearing. Then I told his mom - *I am Native American and I am NOT a costume! You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a RACIST!!* Then I marched away leaving behind a shocked mother and her equally shocked son who will hopefully never play Indian again. They learned their lesson well!\" \n\n\nIf the moral of the story isn't already apparent to you, it's this: These elite, highly educated, sophisticated Ivy League white blondes and blondies who are Native American only on paper don't realize that their behavior of screaming racism where there is none, and protesting innocent things like mascots and Halloween, is making the rest of America hate Indians and is portraying us as super-super-sensitive. When we are the exact opposite: Indians are extremely loving, very tolerant, highly accepting and have the most amazing sense of humor.\"\n\n\nThere is a saying on reservations that only whiteskins object to redskin because it reminds everyone that these Indians are white.\n\n\nMainstream Indians on reservations support mascots and names like Redskins. A UPenn-Annenberg survey shows that 91% of Indians support mascots. Our reasons for supporting mascots are briefly included below\n\n1) When white Indians offend sports fans or insult a little child who\nloves Indians and puts on feathers, they alienate the rest of America against brown Indians. Note that the white Indians blend in beautifully into the white society. No one even realizes they are Indian. But when an angered sports fan who is upset about losing his mascot screams “Fuck you sandnigger” or throws a beer can at us from a passing car screaming “MOTHERFUCKER, GO BACK TO YOUR FUCKING RESERVATION!!” they scream such obscenities at my father, my cousin, my brother and my family members who look Indian.\n\n\n2) The obsession with protesting mascots and names like Redskins is\nan obsession of white Indians. They protest mascots, children dressing up on Halloween and other silly things because it makes them feel Indian. It lets them scream racism. They know no other way of feeling Indian. They are totally disconnected from the real issues that affect mainstream Indians on reservations. They are fully Americanized. They have lost their language, culture, religion and even their skin color.\n\n\n3) Unfortunately the white Indians have the loudest voices. If we go\nagainst them, they hurt us in our careers and lives because they control our media, academia, government jobs, medical clinics, finances, who gets denied federal recognition, even our tribes – everything. They have the money and the power. We have the Indian-ness.\n\n\n4) Brown Indians on reservations have more important issues to worry\nabout. Like diabetes, how we get our next meal, crime on reservations, lack of electricity, lack of toilets, lack of running water, no heat when there’s snow outside, getting a relative to a dialysis clinic when there is no transport, finding a job when there’s near 100% unemployment, near 100% consideration of suicide among our youth, alcoholism, drug abuse, elder abuse, spouse abuse, land loss, culture loss, language loss, etc. Mascots are a NON-ISSUE to us.\n\n\n5) The Indian media should be screaming about the real issues.\nInstead their main focus is on mascots. The focus on mascots and meaningless debates about redskins detract attention from the REAL issues facing brown Indians.\n\n\n6) Indians should do an A-B-C analysis and focus on the A-items.\nMascots and names like redskin, or debates about whether the right word is Native American and not Indian, are not even C items. They are Z items. Unfortunately the white Indians obsess over these Z-items because that is the ONLY way they know how to feel Indian. If we twist America’s arm and get America to concede on the trivial items, the country will lose patience with us when we negotiate important A-items.\n\n\n7) We are offending our fan base. That little child who insists on\ndressing up in a costume and putting on some feathers loves Indians, but when white Indians insult his mom and dad by calling them racists, he grows up to resent those of us who look Indian. Indians were unflappable. Now even a silly word like “costume” that I used above instead of “regalia” raises hackles? Don’t forget, it’s the white Indians who come down and tell the rest of us to be offended.\n\n\n8) When these white Indians object to mascots, their vocalizations\nunite Indian opposition – the opposition finds forums and avenues to kindle hatred against Indians and rehash and reiterate hateful sentiments about Indians. They find a common ground under which those who resent and oppose Indians can unify together and gather in strength.\n\n\n9) White Indians who oppose mascots point to the Halloween\n“blackface” and ask, “Don’t you find that offensive???” And the answer is yes, some Halloween costumes are expressly intended to mock and degrade. Sometimes it is Mother Mary dressed up voluptuously in revealing breasts, sometimes stupid people dress up as a rabbi with a hooked nose eating a bagel and counting money. Sometimes people put on a black face that portrays African Americans with exaggerated noses and large pink lips. Yes, these are no doubt offensive. But mascots usually portray teams that their fans are proud of. The Washington Redskins are proud of their mascots and will surely never run down their mascot this way.\n\n\n10) The American sports lovers are our brothers and sisters. We love them and respect them and also understand they mean us no disrespect for the most part. Mascots represent their teams and sports fans love their teams. The clueless, identity-less white Indians drive a wedge between the mainstream Indians and sports loving fans causing mainstream America to hate us.\n\n\n11) **The vocal protests of these clueless white Indians have one more serious consequence: those of us who are poor, brown and Indian-looking cannot sell our Native art. Think about this for a moment. If Blacks made a huge deal about appropriation of African Americans, won't you pause for a moment before you buy a t-shirt with a black theme? These days because of all these protests over mascots and Halloween, Americans have become so sensitive about offending Natives that they are afraid of wearing Native jewelry and buying Native art pieces. Because they don't want to offend Natives who protest redskins and other forms or “appropriations”. Which is really hurting Native artisans who make such jewelry and Native art.**\n\n\n12) In the same vein, it is only the white Indians who obsess about identity politics and play Identity Police. On Indian reservations, we have a standing joke:\n\n\nQ: What do you call a nation full of white people?\n\n\nA: The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. \n\n\nThe all-white Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is the leading identity police. They have also been whites for quite a few generations now! Why is it that only the white Indians obsess about identity politics and play Identity Police? This is because such Indians are mistaken for Caucasian throughout the world. One way they can reiterate their sense of identity is by pointing out that \"he is not Indian\" or \"she is not Indian\" or \"they are wannabes.\" Indians have been through a holocaust and accusing someone of not being Indian is a very serious charge and something to be frowned upon, as is discriminating against Indians from tribes that have no federal recognition (the PC term is unrepresented tribes). What is noteworthy is that it is always the white Indians who play identity cops. Look at anyone who is accusing someone of not being Indian. With the possible exception of XXXX XXXXX (an identity cop who is African American with Indian status), almost all the other identity police are WHITE themselves. Such whites with Indian status get their sense of identity by accusing others of not being Indian.\n\nThe Reservation Rats\n\nP.S. So many of our all-Indian high schools have teams with the word redskin. If the word \"redskin\" was offensive, why would we be singing this???? _URL_0_\nThese are the lyrics:\n\n\n\n\"Take a look\n\n\n\nJust one more time\n\n\n\nBeautiful smile\n\n\n\nBeautiful eyes\n\n\n\n\nThat's a redskin girl\n\n\n\nShes so pretty\n\n\n\nShes so fine\n\n\n\n\n\nRedskin girl\n\n\n\n\nI'll love you all the time\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Bia-map-indian-reservations-usa.png"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_poverty"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_poorest_places_in_the_United_States"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system"
],
[],
[
"http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/canary-effect/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QUacU0I4yU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_social_statistics_of_Native_Americans",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_people"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/matika/project-562-changing-the-way-we-see-native-america",
"http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/index.htm",
"http://bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc1-023762.pdf",
"http://www.nigc.gov/Portals/0/NIGC%20Uploads/readingroom/listandlocationoftribalgamingops/abc1.pdf",
"http://www.dowsers.info/toronto/indian1.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Act"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_Bull",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_termination_policy",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosque_Redondo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Elk",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Joseph",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_Bull"
],
[],
[
"http://www.manataka.org/images/Smith,%20Chad,%20Cherokee%20Nation%20Chief.jpg",
"http://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Oklahoma-Cherokee-Nation-Chief-William-Wayne-Keeler-Press-Photo-/251069527624",
"http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=19551734",
"http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/american_indian_quarterly/v026/26.4shirt02.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Charles_Rogers",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Buffington",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fbb8vmxnAk",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKd7VEcTMds",
"http://i.imgur.com/Kxy1z4Q.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilma_Mankiller",
"http://www.cherokeephoenix.org/Docs/2012/1/5868_cou_120114_Seat1(1)_wc-L.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_B._Mayes",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_John_Baker",
"http://www.nativenewsnetwork.com/image-files/crittenden-joe.jpg",
"http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003896,00.html",
"http://www.pchs4allyears.com/old/onlinemuseum/vips/NATIVEAMERICAN/RossSwimmer2.jpg"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMopAla8ZPs"
]
] |
|
7kz4vn | why do soap makers spritz isopropyl alcohol between layers of soap? | I understand that it helps new layers of soap 'stick' together, kind of the same way slip does when you're making ceramics. However, I always assumed that rubbing alcohol was kind of an anti-stickying agent. Does the alcohol chemically bond the soap layers? Or is it more of a 'degreasing so they don't fall apart' thing, since soap is made up of mostly fat? I'd really like to know the science behind this. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7kz4vn/eli5_why_do_soap_makers_spritz_isopropyl_alcohol/ | {
"a_id": [
"drias07"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It basically dissolves oils and fats, which soap is made of. So when you put it between two layers, both layers melt a bit. once the alcohol is no longer chemically active, the two halves melt together and solidify, functioning like a single solid object."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5rg4hw | why do some have bigger or more visible veins on their arms than others? | Is there any significance? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rg4hw/eli5_why_do_some_have_bigger_or_more_visible/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd6yrmv",
"dd7357l",
"dd7cgy8",
"dd7co59"
],
"score": [
32,
8,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually it's due to a higher amount of blood running through the body, or, in general, a lower body fat percentage.",
"Most blood in our body is pooled in our venous system. The amount of blood we have is directly connected to our body weight. So if we're heavier our veins are more visibly filled with blood. On the other hand our superficial veins are in our fat directly under our skin, so if we have more fat they are harder to see.\n\nThis is the reason that tall, slim(or athletic) men have the veins you can see best. They have a lot of blood but not a lot of fat in their body. \n\nThe other factor is skin colour, if you're black then veins are hardly visible if they're not already bulging out of the skin level.",
"I lost a lot of weight and now have a lot of veins on my arms. My uncle told me I was a tweakers dream. Uhhh....thanks?",
"The amount of fat, genetics, and skin color all contribute to the visibility and size of your veins; however, training is also a large contributer.\n\nTissue in your body adapts to the demands placed upon it, and veins are no exception. If you look at the veins of bodybuilders and weightlifters, you will notice many of them have very large visible veins. This is adaption to the blood pooling in veins during heavy lifting."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3sqxmb | how are they able to get any combination of colored lights so quickly on monuments? is support for this pre planned? | I hate to ask this at such a time, but I've been increasingly curious the more I see: _URL_0_
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sqxmb/eli5_how_are_they_able_to_get_any_combination_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwzo2jw",
"cwzq0sj"
],
"score": [
17,
5
],
"text": [
"The light systems in place already have a number of different color bulbs, so they can do any combination they want whenever they want. The [Whitehouse](_URL_0_) is the same way.\n\nSo when they want to display a certain pattern or set of colors, they just enter it into a computer and that adjusts the system to display what they like.",
"A lot of this is RGBA LED architectural lighting now. In the days of incandescent bulbs, it was more difficult (or impossible) to change facade lighting 'on the fly'. In recent years however, many structures are being retrofit due to the energy savings and creative flexibility afforded since LED prices are going down and the technology is maturing. They are usually controlled by a PC linked to a media server. Special software (such as Jands Vista) is used to create looks and execute playback. \n\nEdit: These types of lighting systems are typically installed during construction or added later as a permanent, built-in system. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/liNCa7z.png"
] | [
[
"http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/610/img/photos/2015/06/26/86/57/WhiteHouse.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
g0wycj | what does an “instinct” actually mean? is it just some sort of feeling? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/g0wycj/eli5_what_does_an_instinct_actually_mean_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"fncbnh8",
"fncch25"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Human's have an instinct to hold their breath underwater. If you dip a new baby underwater, it holds its breath until you have pulled it back out. It's not a \"I have a feeling I should hold my breath\" sort of thing. It's just \"I'm holding my breath now\". No \"reason\" to do it, no thinking, just action.",
"Kind of, sort of. Feelings are involuntary for the most part. Feelings are usually instinctive, without conscious control. An instinct is simply behavior which does not originate consciously. Feelings are more specific to how one perceives the environment. Instincts are broader descriptions and covers actions as well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3q2xw0 | why is the political structure of the european union so complicated? | I'm taking a college course on the EU, and I'm told "explaining why the EU is so complex (in relation the the US system) would make a very good midterm question". | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3q2xw0/eli5_why_is_the_political_structure_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwbkqwg",
"cwbl63i"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Fist of all the EU is not a country. It is not a single government. It is an economic trade union comprised of numerous nations with varying political structures, economic structure, and social needs. Comparing it to the US is a false comparison. If you want to compare it to the US you would need to compare it to the NAFTA. _URL_0_",
"Mostly because it is a work in progress.\n\nThe idea is that eventually all nations participating will be part of all institutions, but many don't really want to join some aspects for one reason or another.\n\nYou have the EU and its various efforts like the Euro and Schengen and customs unions and other groupings that all have slightly different memberships and you have institutions like ESA which has many of the same members but is actually completely separate from the EU and you got dozens of other pan-european things like UEFA or Eurovision that have nothing at all to do with the rest.\n\nIt is complicated and any attempt to unify the whole mess has the obstacle that nobody can agree what the end goal is supposed to look like."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement"
],
[]
] |
|
1tf1ii | why do lcd displays slowly turn while cold? | I notice this every time my car is unusually cold, but don't know why electronics are so affected? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tf1ii/eli5_why_do_lcd_displays_slowly_turn_while_cold/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce79k9h"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"LCD = Liquid Crystal Display."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.