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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6e4lho | why aren't kids from all over the world held to the same general testing before university? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6e4lho/eli5_why_arent_kids_from_all_over_the_world_held/ | {
"a_id": [
"di7lb7e",
"di7lbsp",
"di7ltnu"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because different countries have very different standards and tests internally. I know my own didn't even use to have a national exam until fairly recently and every University used to just hold their own tests. Plus, how would one even create such a test, offer it, apply it and what would your grade actually be worth? What if someone cheats and it's decided that it's all compromised and it all has to be done again? I'm not sure such a test is practically possible, nor do I see why would it be that desirable (read: worth the trouble) in the first place.\n\nEdit: also, education is very different across very countries. Could you explain to me (basically, because I'm talking about school) which were the historical basis of the Brazilian economy up to industrialization and the role and decline of slave labor in the country? That's the sort of stuff I learned in school. Conversely, I know squat about the American Constitution, the Meiji Revolution and many other important topics that don't happen to be relevant to my country. Another example could be literature: I never read The Great Gatsby and you probably never even heard of Machado de Assis, and geography probably isn't very different. We might have learned a lot of the same stuff on chemistry, math and the like, but that's still a lot of variations.",
"We have no global government and so have no single institution to set laws and standards like you are suggesting. Every country, and in countries like the US every State within a country sets their own standards and laws regarding education. ",
"If you could get every government on Earth to agree to a common test standard to enter university you'd probably have a Nobel Peace Prize coming."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1necqp | why do i root for an anti-hero or villain on television that i would hate in the real world? | This quetion *may* be Breaking Bad by inspired. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1necqp/eli5_why_do_i_root_for_an_antihero_or_villain_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cchstup",
"cchthbe",
"cchwrvk",
"cci0puj"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You root for the villain or anti-hero when he is the protagonist. In every story you have a protagonist with an internal and external antagonist. While you are immersed in the story/show you have to empathize with the protagonist and follow his story and want them to succeed with his major plan (even if it results in death in the case of martyrs). If you simply root for them to fail, the story will be over and have no purpose. \nIn the end you are not really rooting for the \"villain\" or the \"anti-hero\" you are actually rooting for the protagonist of the story/show.\n\nEDIT: SPOILER ALERTS!!!!\nWalt is the epitome of the anti-hero/villain. You get immersed in his story and, of course, empathize with the character. He does everything that he does because he feels that it will be in the best of his family's interest. You see him doing many despicable things and accept it because his internal antagonist is to see his (all of his family, extended too!) become broken or poor because of his sickness/death. As the show progresses he has his external antagonist that he has to deal with, which is getting caught and other antagonists along the way (too many spoilers to mention other external antagonists). \nHis ultimate goal: Internal (Walt vs. cancer)- to make sure that he sees all of his family in a good economical position as well as safe and healthy before he passes. External (Heisenberg vs. his enemies)- to leave a Legacy after his untimely demise. ",
"A. You can bolster or ignore events more easily in a fictional world because what happens in it doesn't really matter. Even in real life I don't care that much about what Ted Bundy did, for example, because it was done to other people far away. And yes, that really is as callous as it sounds.\n\nB. You fallow the anti-hero around and get to know them, so you can sympathize with their actions more.\n\nC. Shady emotional manipulation. Movies are magic. Music, camera angles, lighting, the situation, who says what and how. The writer is God. And if the piece of art is engrossing enough then you will trance out as the movie hypnotizes you into believing what the writer wants you to believe.",
"My armchair/bonghit theory on this is that in a lot of stories the villain is the creative force and the hero is the destructive force. The villain builds the elaborate volcano lair, battle station, etc., and the hero just blows it up. The villain spends years discovering the secrets of necromancy or meth, meeting and overcoming challenges, wrapping pearlescent layers of ingenuity and dedication around whatever sand-grain of human tragedy forms their origin story, until the hero shows up with a knife, slices them open and eats them with butter and garlic. All their beautiful wickedness, melting, like tears in rain.",
"In the real world you only have the briefest exposure to criminals. You see a news report of a drug bust, or read an article about someone torching the world's oldest tree. You hear about them for 15 seconds, make a judgment, and then forget about them.\n\nYou don't get episodes or chapters telling all their backstory - how they grew up wanting to change the world, their puppy was run over because they left the gate open, they lost their college scholarship, their lover died in a botched surgery, the tragic turning point that made them what they are. Stories ask or imply \"why?\" and often answer that question. The *purpose* of every medium of storytelling is to tell stories.\n\nBad guys in the real world aren't there to tell their story. They aren't there for you at all. They're there because they were born and their life happened. If you spent hours reading about the entire life of the last hit-and-run driver or armed robber you heard or read about in the real world, they would probably be at least somewhat sympathetic.\n\nCriminals on TV are created by talented screenwriters and producers and portrayed by charismatic actors. Criminals in books are written by talented authors. Criminals in real life are dead-eyed creeps with greasy hair and meth sores."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
e6bqr5 | why does japanese sometimes use english characters? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e6bqr5/eli5_why_does_japanese_sometimes_use_english/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9p4067"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Because the Japanese find English to be cool. They wear T-shirts with English on it and like throwing English words and phrases into everything, because it makes everything cooler. Just one of the many bits of our culture that they like to borrow."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8g44ar | would a newborn baby from the stone ages, if brought to the modern day, grow up like any other child? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8g44ar/eli5_would_a_newborn_baby_from_the_stone_ages_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"dy8oklx",
"dy8qvmq",
"dy8r79q",
"dy8rjih",
"dy8tiqd",
"dy8tnnc",
"dy8tny9",
"dy8uyyf",
"dy8v1qa",
"dy8v9lc",
"dy8vlj4",
"dy8vo5y",
"dy8vroz",
"dy8whqu",
"dy8wtm4",
"dy8xf9q",
"dy8xi71",
"dy8y70o",
"dy8yr8w",
"dy8yrcr",
"dy91c4q",
"dy91tn4",
"dy920ab",
"dy9223f",
"dy924sk",
"dy928rt",
"dy92lpc",
"dy92n24",
"dy94f8g",
"dy98ig3",
"dy8ofld"
],
"score": [
335,
111,
25,
44,
6307,
55,
26,
16,
9,
57,
2,
13,
3,
16,
2,
9,
5,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
1941
],
"text": [
"I would say yes.\n\n10,000 years ago, the only human species left on Earth was our own, meaning that the baby in question would be an Anatomically modern human, so they would be physically and mentally our equal.\n\nEvidence shows that humans from all around the world had long been producing artwork depicting abstract ideas, such as the Lion-man, a mix between a lion and a man:\n\n\n\nSites such as Europe's Chauvet Cave and Australia's Bradshaw rock paintings bear ages greater than 10,000 years, and consistently depict artwork whose production would require some sort of spiritual, imaginative or abstract thinking:\n\n\n\nSo I'd wager than this person (lets assume he's male and call him Bob, to avoid too many \"him/hers\" and \"Baby Xs\") would be able to do abstract mathematics and get a PHD in Biology.\n\nBeing the same species as us, Bob would have a growth rate not terribly different from our own. Having similar mental capabilities here, I'm sure he'd be able to communicate and socialize with other humans and build relationships, and have healthy offspring.\n\nI should think that Bob wouldn't look too physically different from his/her contemporaries, nor would his peers think of Bob as an outsider, provided they didn't know that he was an anachronistic Pleistocene baby\n\n[Source ](_URL_0_)",
"It depends on the time you're talking about. According to wikipedia, the stone age lasted roughly 3.4 million years and ended between 8700 BCE and 2000 BCE with the advent of metalworking. So a person from 4000 years ago, would be obviously human. You wouldn't think twice if you passed them on the street, and they would be as smart as any of us. But modern humans only go back 250,000 years, so beyond that, you'd get Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus and Homo habilis all decidedly unhuman looking.",
"They would probably grow not as tall as humans grew around 10 cm on average in industrialized countries in the last 150 years. Only in that time tho. Examinations of skeletons show no significant differences in height from the Stone Age through the early 1800s.",
"Biology plays a role in the development of a child, but also the environment that the child is raised in also has an effect. Immune responses would be an issue as over the last ten thousand years or so, viruses have mutated significantly.\n\nVaccinations could mitigate the effect, but there are still likely to be problems.\n\nHistory is full of examples where isolated cultures were decimated by what were viewed as common/everday illnesses among those not of that culture.",
"From what I remember hearing from a podcast is that you can take a human from up to 200,000 years ago and they would function just like anyone else, if you keep going back beyond that you start losing brain size and intelligence which depending on who you're comparing them to could probably still fit in today's society.",
"There's a lot of things to take into consideration for this: They would be smaller, not immune to certain diseases, and may have various health issues we no longer happen that we don't know about.\n\n\n\nIn terms of them as a person, though, yes, they would grow up just like us. If you took one of our kids back then and one of their kids up here, and ignored the potential for death from diseases, the kids would grow up completely normal for their times.",
"A neolithic baby would probably be indistinguishable from a modern human. The further back you go, the more you have to deal with speciation of humans, and if you go back far enough into the stone age, you will be dealing with different races of humans as H. sapiens wouldn't yet exist. At this point, there would very likely be differences in development.",
"I'm curious about the inverse. How would a modern day newborn be received in the stone ages?",
"First you have to assume we could vaccinate the child against all the new germs he would encounter. ",
"Yes for the most part. The only drawback is that there would be a plethora of diseases which his mom never encountered and therefore never passed on the necessary antibodies. Once he gets on the time machine and joins our present time, he will need to receive a lot of vaccines. If he makes it past that, he will live a normal life completely indistinguishable from other people.",
"There are a whole lot of answers here from people who obviously don't have any idea what they're talking about. Guys...for real, why are you answering at all if you're just gonna guess? If you mean stone age as in cavemen and neanderthals, then the answer is a definite no. We are not the same species as them anymore. That kid would not be as smart as other kids. If you mean later than that, I don't know and I'm not going to pretend that I do. Unlike some people.",
"Yes and no. You wouldn't notice much of a difference because the genetic composition of humans hasn't changed much in the last thousands of years. Yet we're studying a new concept called epigenetics, which refers to changing of the expression of genes without an alteration to the genes themselves. That could mean a lot in terms of 'proneness to disease', for example. I could explain more on epigenetics if you wish, but right now I'm on my cellphone. Source: I'm a psychiatrist who is studying the epigenetic factors to certain psychiatric/psychological disorders. ",
"I remember wondering about this all the time when I was a kid. I totally forgot about how I liked the daydream and think about this. Thanks for posting :D",
"The theory is somewhat controversial, but there is partial evidence that stone age people were unable to be fully conscious in the sense of an integrated single personality as opposed to a separation of thinking self and feeling self. \n\nFor the whole argument for this theory, see Julian Jaynes' \"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.\"",
"I think a good case could be made that the reverse is also true. Modern humans, faced with a collapse of society (after a massive epidemic or a nuclear war, etc.) could easily revert back to Stone Age behavior and levels of technology.\n\nAreas of the U.S. in which significant portions of the population refuse to be educated are kind of approaching this. Without the scientific knowledge and modern understanding of how technology works, we could easily find ourselves living an existence akin to that of the 1880's or even earlier. Look at Detroit, once the Powerhouse of U.S. Industry, where some areas are reverting to *farmland.* It doesn't take very many people behaving like savages to cause social collapse. Two or three good riots could do it.",
"I feel like there'd definitely be some digestive issues. A new born baby from the stone age would have gut bacteria built on the diet of it's mother. The food we eat today would likely cause some issues in the short term.\n\nI also expect there may be some immunity issues. Probably some bone structure differences, they'd likely be a little shorter than average, and their facial structure would be a little different than the 'average' of today.\n\nSource: my ancestors lived in the stone age, and i live in the modern day.",
"There is a tribe in Africa distinct from all others , with nearly 100,000 years of genetict drift between their nearest related tribe.\n\nThey are still modern humans.",
"There was this great t.v. movie I remember seeing once, about a baby who conceived from the sperm of a Iron Age Man but brought up in modern day. It was a pretty interesting movie, and it went with the idea that no, the kid didn't belong here.",
"They would probably get sick a lot more, their immune system wouldn't be built to handle the diseases ours are.",
"it would possibly die of what is today considered a really common/nonlife threatening illiness, but then again some modern humans could die that way too\n\nthey might be arguably \"smarter\" or learn faster as sapiens of the past had a larger brain vs body size compared to modern humans",
"As other have said, yes they would grow up pretty much the same. This is something I don't think people appreciate about humans of the past, they were were born with the same natural amount of brainpower as we are. If we are to be considered more intelligent, it is only our education and infrastructure that allow it. Though they were just as clever, applying their intelligence to solve different problems.\n\nIn fact, it's possible the child might actually grow up healthier. Certain gene expression tendencies (epigenetics) can be passed from generation to generation. For example, the child of an obese couple is much more likely to be insulin resistant. There are similar finding related to anxiety/cortisol. ",
"Australian Aboriginals were pre-stone age and separated from the world for 40,000 years. White man came only 200 years ago. Obviously a lot of aboriginals live urbanly now, but some still on the land.\n\nThe answer to your question is a clear yes.",
"The real question is: why did you bring a child back from your time travel?",
"Sadly not. As much as I love Time Travel, the great killer of that dream is viruses and immune systems.\n\nTraveling to the future will kill you from being around everyone. Traveling to the past will kill everyone from being around you.",
"Kurzgesagt actually made a video on this. According to them, you can go back up to 70,000 years to get a behaviorally modern human\n\n_URL_0_",
"Wouldn't they be lacking the immunities and genetic developments that protect us from dying over things like the flu?",
"Omg i wanted to ask this for the longest time ever but kept forgetting..\n\n..glad to see someone else finally asked it with a bunch of replies!",
"Archaeology student here. I have a teacher that have repeated over and over again that ever since we became Homo sapiens sapiens, we have the brain capacity to do anything we do today - the exemple he uses is \"build a rocket and fly to the moon. They were just as smart as we are, they just didn't have the same database that we've build through the years.",
"Probably not like any other child. Sure, they would grow and develop like normal but the teasing from the other children in school would make him cold hearted and bitter. Driving the child to study hard and become highly skilled in his hobbies. The inheritance left to him by his dead-for-200k-years parents would've grown into the trillions from the interest so on his 18th birthday he'd leave the abusive foster home which reared him and buy a modest hatchback to leave the countryside and move to the city.\n\nAfter the legal battles fought with his foster parents over the fortune are resolved, he buys a coffee shop next to a law firm. Meanwhile, his foster sister taken as a newborn from the future turns 18 and becomes his roommate. She's beautiful and was popular in high school but was always kind to him. Little did he know, she was sent from the future to stop him from complete world domination.\n\nHer ploy works and she stifles every attempt he makes to use his wealth to grow in stature and power. They grow old as best friends but she comes down with an aggressive cancer. On her death bed she reveals to him the diary her parents sent her with. In that future, he funded clean water and free energy for everybody and took over the world and established peace. This killed her parents arms dealing business to terrorists.\n\nSo, no. I don't think a stone age baby would grow up like any other child. ",
"Yes, but the better question is if the child would survive do to difference between bacteria/viruses in the stone age to modern day.",
"More or less yes.\n\nThere would be differences genetically, we're talking about ten thousand years or more of drift, but functionally speaking the child would grow up and fit in exactly like any other child.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.quora.com/If-you-were-to-take-a-newborn-baby-from-prehistoric-times-say-10-000-years-ago-and-raised-him-her-in-modern-times-would-this-child-grow-up-to-be-like-us-Could-he-she-go-to-school-do-a-PhD-in-Genetics-or-any-other-thing-that-we-can-do-now"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/dGiQaabX3_o?t=3m"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bua5ip | what causes the weird feeling in your head/teeth when you need to pee really badly? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bua5ip/eli5_what_causes_the_weird_feeling_in_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"ep92xq3",
"ep9d244",
"ep9gymt"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Good heavens, I have never experienced or heard of that.\n\nDo you know other people who get this besides yourself?",
"I’m not gonna lie I have no idea what feeling you’re talking about, have you talked to other people who experience this?",
"Can confirm! This happens to me as well. Any answers welcome. I always thought I was alone...."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
z96g8 | the large hadron collider and how it could potentially cause a black hole. | All I know is it splits atoms. And apparently that can cause a lack hole. How does it split the atoms and how can that cause a black hole? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z96g8/eli5_the_large_hadron_collider_and_how_it_could/ | {
"a_id": [
"c62nmqf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The LHC doesn't split atoms. It accelerates protons to significant fractions of the speed of light and collides them. The particles that come out of this are made from the kinetic energy of the protons that were accelerated."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
xa9qy | why was st. louis such an important city earlier in the 20th century and why did it fall from such importance? | It seems like St. Louis, MO used to be a very important city in the US (World fairs held there, the Olympics). It seems like it used to be a world city, but now it clearly isn't any more. Why is this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xa9qy/why_was_st_louis_such_an_important_city_earlier/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5klihf",
"c5kll9n"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The Mississippi river used to be pretty important for shipping and trading. St. Louis became an important place for a lot of industries to build. However when those industries started to move away, the city never really recovered. The highways came in. After WW2 the old neighborhoods experienced a lot of change as poorer African Americans moved in and the middle class fled out to the suburbs. ",
"Rivers were hugely important to commerce in the early US, and St. Louis sits at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. It was also the Gateway to the West, serving as a lifeline to the frontier and a convergence point for west bound railroads.\n\nAs the 1900's progressed, the west got tamer, and the frontier moved further out, with cities like Kansas City and Denver taking over gateway duties. Rivers gave way to roads and automobiles, so St. Louis's special location became less important. And with the onset of cars, residents started to flee the crowded urban corridor and move out to the suburbs. Most of these residents were white, and St. Louis suffered greatly from the white flight than affected the urban centers many large cities in the 60's and 70's."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1lgq6c | the experience of psychedelic/ hallucinogenic drugs. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lgq6c/eli5_the_experience_of_psychedelic_hallucinogenic/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbz2jur",
"cbzcnhv"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your sensory perception ( sight, hearing, touch, smell etc) is altered as well as the processing of those senses and the way you thik may be changed too. What happens precisely depends on multiple factors and is different for every person, substance, dose and multiple other influences. ",
"Depends on a drug and a person. Drugs may make you happy for no reason, or anxious for no reason. You may hear and see things that aren't there, or you might lose the sense of where your body parts are. They may make you sleepy or make you hyperactive...\n\nIt really varies greatly from drug to drug. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3apces | why does a smart car make little to no noise, but an electric razor is then times as loud. | The bigger the battery the less noise it makes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3apces/eli5_why_does_a_smart_car_make_little_to_no_noise/ | {
"a_id": [
"cseomf6"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"What you're hearing isn't the battery. It's a combination of imbalance in the motor and friction. Because an electric razor is twelve bucks, its got a cheap, crappy, weak motor. There's a little vibration there and a very quiet hum.\n\nThe big noise is the blades passing under the guard. That friction makes a lot of noise. In a smart car, that friction is expressed as rubber on road, which is quiet, because there is no sliding."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5ybmrl | how does the divisible by 3/9 "add up the digits" rule work? | When I was in school, the quick way to figure out if a large number is divisible by three or nine was to add the digits up and see if those numbers were divisible by that number. It always seems to work, yet it doesn't feel very mathematical or scientific. Is there any specific reason this works, perhaps the way you use 10 as a base number? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ybmrl/eli5_how_does_the_divisible_by_39_add_up_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"deoq3bf",
"deorkde"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"I believe this trick will always work for factors of the base - 1. So if it's Base 8, you can do this trick to find if it's divisible by 7. Base 16, the trick works for 3,5 and 15.\n\nJust to prove it out, 21 in Base 8 is 25. 2 + 5 = 7.",
"These divisibility rules are due to the way our numbering system, known as \"base 10,\" works. If you want to write out a number 12345 in base 10, then what you're really doing is writing: \n\n 12345 = 5(10^0) + 4(10^1) + 3(10^2) + 2(10^4) + 1(10^5)\n\nWhen you want to see whether a number is divisible by 3, the question you are really asking is whether the remainder left over when dividing by 3 is exactly 0. Computing these remainders is known as \"modular arithmetic\", and it's typically written in math or computing syntax as either of the following:\n\n remainder of 15 divided by 3 = 15%3 = 15 (mod 3) = 0\n remainder of 16 divided by 3 = 16%3 = 16 (mod 3) = 1\n\nNote that instead of computing the remainder of the division of my original number 12345 by 3 (or 9), I can just as easily sum up all the remainders when dividing each of the digit terms by 3 (or 9). Now here's the trick: 9, 99, 999, 9999, etc are all exactly divisible by 3 (and also 9). **Sidenote**: the above sentence can indeed be proved - see if you can do it! So 10^j will always leave a remainder of 1, and so any digit*10^j will always leave a remainder of that digit.\n\nNow, we can finally answer your question. We already showed that the remainder of any digit times a power of 10 is always going to be the digit itself. So, by adding up each of the digit terms, we get:\n\n 12345 (mod 3) = 5+4+3+2+1 (mod 3)\n = 15 (mod 3)\n = 0\n\nSo the original number's remainder when dividing by 3 (or 9) is exactly the same as the sum of the digits' remainders when dividing by 3 (or 9). Therefore, we have our divisibility rule: If the sum of the digits of a number are divisible by 3 (or 9), then the original number is divisible by 3 (or 9)!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
nsjcx | how does a black light "light-up" stains from bodily fluids? | I always see this on CSI shows, so can someone explain how it works? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nsjcx/how_does_a_black_light_lightup_stains_from_bodily/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3bmasb",
"c3bmasb"
],
"score": [
9,
9
],
"text": [
"A black-light emits something called ultra-violet (UV) radiation, which is a certain \"color\" of light. You can't normally see this color because it is outside of the visible range of the [electromagnetic spectrum](_URL_0_). The colors we can see are from red to blue, but that's it. \n\nWhat gives a photon (light particle) its color is its *energy*. So, inside of the visible range, a higher energy will correspond to a bluer color, and a lower energy will correspond to a redder color. If you go above the blue energy you get ultraviolet, and if you go below the red energy you get infrared. \n\nImagine the photon energies as denominations of money. So maybe anything from $1 to $9 is in the visible, blue corresponding to $9 and red corresponding to $1. Above $9 and below $1 there is still color and light, but the human eye can't directly perceive it. A UV energy might correspond to $10. \n\nNow, the materials that show up under a black light have the special property that they can take a photon of a certain energy and split it into two photons of lower energy and shoot them back out. So they could take the \"invisible\" $10 ultraviolet photon and spit back out two \"visible\" $5 photons. When you shine a black light on something, therefore, you are seeing the $5 photons that the material splits the $10 UV photon into. In a way, this makes it look like the material is producing its own light, rather than straightforwardly reflecting the light around it, so it appears to glow, and it lights up.\n\nIf everything is dark and you go around shining a black light on things, boring objects (that don't glow) will just reflect or absorb the UV light, so you won't be able to see anything, but exciting objects (CSI bodily fluids, etc.) will turn the UV light into visible light in the way mentioned above, so all that you end up seeing are the exciting things.",
"A black-light emits something called ultra-violet (UV) radiation, which is a certain \"color\" of light. You can't normally see this color because it is outside of the visible range of the [electromagnetic spectrum](_URL_0_). The colors we can see are from red to blue, but that's it. \n\nWhat gives a photon (light particle) its color is its *energy*. So, inside of the visible range, a higher energy will correspond to a bluer color, and a lower energy will correspond to a redder color. If you go above the blue energy you get ultraviolet, and if you go below the red energy you get infrared. \n\nImagine the photon energies as denominations of money. So maybe anything from $1 to $9 is in the visible, blue corresponding to $9 and red corresponding to $1. Above $9 and below $1 there is still color and light, but the human eye can't directly perceive it. A UV energy might correspond to $10. \n\nNow, the materials that show up under a black light have the special property that they can take a photon of a certain energy and split it into two photons of lower energy and shoot them back out. So they could take the \"invisible\" $10 ultraviolet photon and spit back out two \"visible\" $5 photons. When you shine a black light on something, therefore, you are seeing the $5 photons that the material splits the $10 UV photon into. In a way, this makes it look like the material is producing its own light, rather than straightforwardly reflecting the light around it, so it appears to glow, and it lights up.\n\nIf everything is dark and you go around shining a black light on things, boring objects (that don't glow) will just reflect or absorb the UV light, so you won't be able to see anything, but exciting objects (CSI bodily fluids, etc.) will turn the UV light into visible light in the way mentioned above, so all that you end up seeing are the exciting things."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://i.imgur.com/Xdxwc.gif"
],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/Xdxwc.gif"
]
] |
|
2chmtm | how did hereditary genetic disorders first start? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2chmtm/eli5_how_did_hereditary_genetic_disorders_first/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjfk8lb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They start as random mutations. Basically, errors in the genetics as they get passed down. \n\nThese same kinds of errors are responsible for evolution too! "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
24odfi | why do my mental emotions feel physically painful, especially in my chest? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24odfi/eli5_why_do_my_mental_emotions_feel_physically/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch93y09",
"ch95t75"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It's because mental emotions cause the same physiological responses as physical pain would cause you. \n\nThe fight/flight response increases the rate of flow to the heart, changes your breathing etc, so it makes sense that your brain associates that sense of fear/anxiety with physical pain. The more that you allow the brain to reaffirm that association, the worse it will get. \n\nYou have to treat depression/anxiety/fear/anger like any other feeling - and accept that it will pass. Once your conscious brain can force that on your subconscious brain, the physical pain won't be so bad.",
"Your emotional body affects your physical body. (and vice versa). It can do harm, maybe your body has some harm, so its easy to trigger the bad feelings there. You can work on both sides to solve the problem."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2fp65y | what is the difference between a fit person's veins that "pop" so they are visible from the naked eye and eg. a grandma with clear veins on her hands? are they a good sign of health? | For those who dont understand what I mean, typically when you see a very fit person's arms or legs, you can see veins running down them. But then if you look at an eg. Grandma's hand, there are several veins there also. She doesn't do weights, or not exactly the same amount of exercise the 'fit' person does, so whats the difference? Also is it a good sign of health? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fp65y/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_fit_persons/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckbdw8x",
"ckbe67f"
],
"score": [
18,
2
],
"text": [
"It has to do with the mechanism by which the veins are visible. In younger people, the veins are visible because the muscles are pushing them up against the skin and there's no fat blocking them in. In older people, it's usually because the skin is thinner and becoming more pliable meaning it forms around the veins. The visibility of veins is not in and of itself healthy, plenty of malnourished people have visible veins and they are arguably not any healthier than a person of average build without veins showing. It usually just indicates a high muscle-to-fat ratio or looser skin.",
"Veins \"pop\" out more when youre working out or playing a sport, or exercising more to get blood flowing to the muscles that are doing the work. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
9ufujh | why are burritos so good at causing an upset stomach when the ingredients are so simple? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ufujh/eli5_why_are_burritos_so_good_at_causing_an_upset/ | {
"a_id": [
"e93ybkl",
"e93yoh3",
"e93ywnf"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There is nothing special about putting them together that does any magic on your gut. If you had them all in 1 sitting but not together it would do the same thing. \n\nIn general large quantities of grease/fats (meat, cheese, sour cream) and fiber (beans/veggies) can cause intestinal problems if you don't regularly eat those foods. As for the fast foods, I assume you mean taco bell and such and that's because they use fattier meats which both increases flavor and decreases cost. That means more grease and can upset a gut that isn't used to it.",
"It depends on what's going into your burrito.\n\nIf you're loading it up with refried beans, sour cream, and cheese - that's a lot of fatty food.\n\nIt may also be the speed of eating, or the giant bag of chips you've having alongside it.\n\nA typical burrito also has a lot of ingredients that can cause heartburn, which contributes to their reputation.\n\nLastly, the typical Westerner with a low-fiber diet is going to have some issues digesting a fiber-heavy bean burrito. ",
"Okay I've never had intestinal or stomach issues after eating spicy foods, burritos, Chinese takeout, tacobell etc. I think the people who complain about this must have poor diet to begin with and therefore their intestinal flora is fucked and can't properly digest these foods when they are ingested. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
cvv4me | cnn: “corporate insiders are selling stock at a pace not seen since 2007.” how is this not insider trading? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cvv4me/eli5_cnn_corporate_insiders_are_selling_stock_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"ey6liky",
"ey6llmh",
"ey6m2q8",
"ey6r06p",
"ey6s2re",
"ey6svma",
"ey6tb48",
"ey6txxu",
"ey6ukxe",
"ey6w2xc",
"ey6wuca",
"ey6wzvd",
"ey6z8se",
"ey6zusx",
"ey702sf",
"ey718tu",
"ey75e28",
"ey75ke5",
"ey79dm3",
"ey7cg99",
"ey7e0an",
"ey7k6nj"
],
"score": [
4893,
19,
269,
44,
2,
14,
136,
66,
3,
5,
4,
7,
19,
4,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Insider trading means that someone buys/sells stock in their own company because of knowledge that isn't publicly available. For example, if a boardgames maker were about to acquire a software company, and neither company had announced this publicly, then for someone from boardgame co to invest in softwareco before they announced the merger would be insider trading.\n\nIf these investors are making guesses about the economy is about to do, them That's fine. If they were operating on secret knowledge specific to the companies being bought/sold, that would be insider trading.\n\nMerely anticipating a crash and selling stocks first... Is working how the market intended",
"Insider trading applies to information that's not publicly available. General economic indicators or publicly available information about specific companies do not constitute insider trading, even when you're trading shares in a company you're a part of.",
"“Insider trading” means trading while in possession of material nonpublic information about the issuer that the seller had access to as an insider. \n\nWhen there is something material and nonpublic going on at a company, executives will be instructed not to transact in company stock until the material thing has been disclosed to the public and the markets have had a chance to react. \n\nAlso, insiders often make pre-programmed periodic sales through an independent agent to avoid the appearance of insider trading. \n\nThe sales could reflect an overall pessimistic view of the economy as a whole or a specific industry, not material nonpublic information regarding the issuer.",
"there are many good answers here, also, when \"insiders\" sell stock, they usually have to file in advance to do so... there are any number of sites that keep track of those filings. \n\nthat's all nice and legal...\n\nask Martha Stewart and the Enron peeps about the illegal aspects of using insider info before unloading stock...",
"From a legal perspective, there are a few elements required to establish insider trading. Acting on non-public information is only one of the elements. You also have to establish: (1) materiality of the information and (2) a breach of a fiduciary duty among other elements. \n\nIf you're some rank and file member of a company, and you heard through the internal grapevine of some lawsuit, M & A, etc. and make security transactions based on that information, you likely did not commit insider trading even though the information you received was likely non-public.",
"Publicly held companies have a dark period before earnings are announced where you cannot trade if you're above a certain level in the firm.",
"I am on the “restricted” trading list for my employer. That means that, outside of a certain time period (typically just after quarterly earnings are release), and without prior approval, I cannot sell my stock. If I trade company stock outside of those conditions, I’m top of the list for “insider trading”. \n\nI also have a decent amount of company stock. Why? Because it has become a very common form of compensation. Companies (like mine) try to make themselves more attractive than the competition by offering things like options and restricted stock units (RSUs). \n\nIt is not uncommon for people in a similar situation (including others in my company) to sell that stock once it vests. I have hung onto mine so far, but I totally get the idea of selling as the RSUs vest so that you can diversify. And when those people sell, it is published publicly, so these kind of stats are easy to obtain. \n\nThis trend isn’t stock holders saying “I think things are looking bad so I’m going to bail”. It’s simply adjustment to new compensation methods.",
"Okay, let me give you a hypothetical scenario based off of publicly known economic conditions.\n\nPork belly prices have been dropping all morning, which means that everybody's waiting for it to hit rock bottom so they can buy cheap and go long. Which means that the people who own the pork belly contracts are goin' bat-shit. They're saying, \"Hey, we're losing all our goddamn money, and Christmas is just around the corner, and I ain't gonna have no money to buy my son the G.I. Joe with the kung-fu grip, right? And my wife won't f... my wife won't make love to me 'cuz I ain't got no money, right?\" So they're panicking right now, they're screaming \"SELL! SELL!\" to get out before the price keeps dropping. They're panicking out there right now! I can feel it! They out there!\n\nThat's knowing the market, insider trading requires \"insider\" knowledge like the CEO of a pork belly company being told by their factory supervisor \"Hey, all of our pork has pig AIDs so we can't sell this.\" and then they sell their stocks an hour before the public announcement that all the pork has AIDs.",
"For people who are that high up the ladder they have to jump through a ton of hoops , have to announce they are selling ahead of time and only during certain time periods. SEC does not fuck around.",
"An Insider who trades isn’t always engaging in “insider trading”. \n\nInsiders can legally trade in the shares to which they are an insider so long as they meet certain criteria (in broad strokes, that they don’t possess material, non public information about the company). \n\nThis is what the headline is referring to. \n\nMost people assume that insiders still know more about their companies than other people, even absent MNPI (such as next quarter’s results or a pending m & a transaction).",
"There are 2 kind of insider trading, legal and illegal:\n\nIllegal: a scientist buys stock of the drug company because he knows the drug is going to pass FDA approval.\n\nLegal: officers of the company buy and sell stocks of the company. There are certain restricted periods, but excepts those, as long as they declare the transactions it is perfectly normal.",
"\"insider trading\" is different than \"trading done by insiders.\" insiders are allowed to trade their own stock. if they werent, people would be stuck with highly illiquid investments. however, when insiders DO buy or sell stock in their own company, they need to file with the SEC days ahead of time letting the public know their intentions and rationale. sometimes, company execs just want to buy a home or take a vacation. now if it turns out that they were dumping their stock right before the announcement of a major loss, an acquisition, etc. that would be insider trading",
"Just so you know, CNN will sensationalize almost everything. Try not to take it too seriously.",
"Don't forget. Congress passed the law.. making Congress allowed to partake in insider trading.",
"Some good answers, but one thing to consider is higher ups getting much of their pay through their company stock combined with the concept of diversifying your investments. \n\nNo matter how much you believe in a product or a company, it is foolish to have 100% of your retirement invested in that one company. Corporate big wigs that get stock as their salary are usually held to maintaining a certain percent of that stock in that company and are given stock on a yearly or quarterly basis. \n\nWhat does this mean? It means that the smart thing for these high up big wigs to do is to immediately sell as much stock as they are allowed to whenever they receive it and invest it in other things to diversify. \n\nMany times you'll see an article \"Company X that just declared bankruptcy had CEO that sold X shares 3 months earlier\" but what you don't see is that the same CEO sold shares annually right after he received them from the company in an effort to diversify their portfolio and never actually deviated from their normal investing strategy.",
"There are two types of insider trading: \n\n(1) Trades legally initiated by insiders who currently hold stock. Most executives are compensated through stock plans. When an executive's stock vests, h/she may sell the stock. The SEC has specific rules about how these transactions can take place, but generally, if the insider discloses the sale of their stock it's perfectly fine and happens [all the time](_URL_0_) (just like in your article). Companies that issue stock to employees may enact \"lockout periods\" where inside shares cannot be sold. Usually this proceeds a major announcement or a regulatory filing (10K, S-1, etc.).\n\n(2) Illegal trades. This is the juicy stuff. (Think Marta Stewart.) There are all kinds of regulations on what constitutes *illegal* insider trading. The most famous is Rule 10b-5 which states that any (A) exchange of securities; (B) made on the basis of; (C) material non-public information; (D) for which a fiduciary duty is owed to the issuer of the security is prohibited. This is the most common form of insider trading. Notice the exact language though: in order to be liable for insider trading you need to be both a fiduciary (i.e., a person who owes a special duty to put the needs of the company before your own) *and* trade on the *basis of* that knowledge. In other words, if you can prove that you made a trade based on information that was *not obtained* through your channels as a fiduciary, you're not liable. Also, not everyone is a fiduciary of the company. \n\nThe Martha Stewart case is a good example of this. Martha was *not* a fiduciary of ImClone. So she actually was *not* liable for insider trading based on this theory. Martha was liable as a \"tippee.\" Martha received her non-public information from Steve Waskal who was the company's CEO. Waskal was liable under the first theory (he was an insider, who made a trade on the basis of information not available to the public and his position--CEO--made him a fiduciary). Martha was not a fiduciary. But she *did* act on information that a fiduciary gave to her. Tippee liability goes like this: if someone who *is* a fiduciary gives the tippee (Martha) non-public information and the *tippee* trades on it, the tippee is *ALSO* liable for insider trading!\n\nHope that answers your question on the types of insider trading -- what's legal and what isn't!",
"Also, a lot of these corporate insiders are nearing retirement in the next few years and are selling their company stock and moving their money into less risky investments.",
"Jesus Christ. Why are these posts allowed?\n\nOf course people are going to cash out. \n\nMarket uncertainty\n\nRecord valuations\n\nVested shares. \n\nWhat would you do?",
"In most instances its not insider trading but rather probably an overall assessment that its time to cash out if reading the economic tea leaves. But some will have to be very careful to not cross into insider trading level, and the higher up one is the more careful they need be. \n\nI suspect fed enforcement of insider trading rules is fairly lax under Trump (but I do not know that for certain and please chip in if you have more knowledge on this) but I think if the Dems get in, particularly Bernie or Elizabeth, you wont be able to run far enough as I think they will ramp up enforcement including a real sweeping review as far back as statute of limitations allows, certainly the entire period of the Trump presidency.",
"Oh look! Another exaggerated news article about doom and gloom that will be completely irrelevant and forgotten about in a month! What's the next one going to be?!",
"It's not insider trading because it's the opposite someone would do, you buy when the market is going down and sell when it's rebounded up. Plus it's usually a matter of a single company about to make some sort of announcement which will affect the stock price and letting friends/family in on it before it happens. These CEO's are getting out because they're expecting a further crash by selling while it's heading down. \n\n\nDo I think Trump is manipulating the market a bit and perhaps doing so with tweets to make money, yep. He tweets and makes the trade war worse for 2 weeks, the market goes down 1000+ points in that time, then he suddenly switches gears and makes a deal he could have made 2 weeks before, the market will rebound at least temporarily but enough so it gains 1500 points for example. \n\n\nThen he advises his friends/family to sell before he tweets out something else that will bring it down again. His position gives him the power to manipulate markets with tweets not even firm policies. This isn't good because if there is one thing any market seeks is stability and he's bringing nothing stable to the table unless it's a horse. \n\n\nImagine if he came down for a press briefing tomorrow with a completely shaved head, how many points will the dow drop in 7 minutes? Only the US President has that kind of influence.",
"How come senators and congressman can trade stocks when they pass laws that affect said companies? How is that not insider trading?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://articles2.marketrealist.com/2019/08/after-bezos-zuckerberg-sells-facebook-shares/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
xvyx2 | how netflix works? | How do their get their movies and deals? How do they get paid? How do the owners of the movies get paid?
Is it some sort of giant license deal? Or individual movies? Or on a pay-per-play basis? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xvyx2/eli5_how_netflix_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5q1s2y",
"c5q2cao"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Users pay between about 8 and 40 dollars a month for a subscription. I suspect that they have a deal with the film companies and the post office for bulk purchasing films, and shipping.",
"A window is defined as the right to distribute a media property for a set time in a set area. So for example The Comedy Network has exclusive rights to distribute new episodes of South Park in the USA.\n\nNetflix works with the people have the distributation rights of movies (Weinstien Company, Disney, etc.) to purchase the non exclusive rights to distribute movies and television in a area online. This is why Netfix Canada and USA are different. They then pay the distributor a set amount of money who distribute it to individuals based on they're distributation contracts. Netflix then charges they're consumers X amount of dollars a month for the right to view their content.\n\nHBO has a similar service purchasable through you cable company that pushes for exclusivity. This is in part why movies and television shows take so long to come to Netfix if they are on HBO."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
69r0y0 | what makes certain jenga blocks looser than others? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69r0y0/eli5_what_makes_certain_jenga_blocks_looser_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh8q17s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The big factor here is center of gravity. To keep it simple, an entire object's weight can be placed in one point. \n\nThis is why when you (or your cat), pushes something off of a ledge, half the object needs to go over the edge before the object falls. That point is still technically on the table until half the object is off the table, then its over the ledge and the whole object falls off. \n\nIn Jenga all the blocks are not perfectly similar. Some are fatter or more skinny then the others. Since there are only three blocks, the weight is always over the middle block.\n\nIf the middle block is fatter then the other two then you can remove the left and right block. If the middle one is super skinny, then you can pop it out since there is actually a little space between it, and the next level. It's when all the blocks are really similar that certain blocks may be harder or impossible to remove. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
32g2pm | how exactly does a video game get corrupted when turning it off while saving? | Edit : I meant Video game save file. Sorry :p | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32g2pm/eli5_how_exactly_does_a_video_game_get_corrupted/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqaupyd",
"cqb0qz6"
],
"score": [
24,
3
],
"text": [
"Imagine you were wring a shopping list, and halfway though writing it I rip it from you hands and give to to your partner to go shopping with. They wont have the full list of things you want, and there might even be a item at the end that doesn't make any sense (What is a \"cerea\"?).\n\nWhen you save a video game, the computer makes a list of all the weapons you've got/levels unlocked/high scores/whatever. If you turn it off before it is done, it makes an incomplete list. That is a corrupted game.",
"When your computer runs a program, it reads the data off of your hard drive and loads it up into your computer's RAM so It's ready to play. When you save your progress, the opposite is happening; Your computer is taking the data off of your computer's RAM and writing it to the disk. If you cut the power in the middle of this process, your hard drive won't have a completed image of all the data that is needed to safely load up your last save file, so it becomes corrupted because it is missing important data."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
l1u0q | why is the economy so bad? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/l1u0q/eli5_why_is_the_economy_so_bad/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2p44vl",
"c2p4xpk",
"c2p7fg6",
"c2p44vl",
"c2p4xpk",
"c2p7fg6"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
2,
15,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's been a slow moving trend of manufacturing jobs leaving America for places that have cheaper labor which has left America with higher unemployment, less tax collections, and oh by the way, fighting two wars while trying to maintain a large military presence across rest of the planet has left Uncle Sam strapped for cash. \n\nThe other problem is getting credit. Because so many banks got burned by the Let's Give Everyone Home Loans They Can't Possibly Afford orgy a few years back, now banks don't want to lend money to anyone. This makes it harder to start a new business or expand a small business, and employ more people.\n\nSo in summary:\n\n* Chinese labor is cheaper than American labor, so not as much factory work in America\n* American banks don't want to lend money to Mom & Pop Inc. to expand or start something new\n* Uncle Sam has a costly obsession with maintaining military presence everywhere at all times\n* Large American corporations are sitting hoards of cash and won't start hiring until someone else does first\n\n\n\n",
"The way I see it, there are actually four problems:\n\nProblem 1: In 2007, all commercial banks (banks used by corporations) stopped lending money at the same time. That harmed many good businesses, because even good businesses periodically need to borrow money. Some of these businesses failed completely, others survived through layoffs. Either way, lots of good people lost their jobs. The banking crisis is over, but the damage was done.\n\nProblem 2: The economy should be recovering, but it seems to be unable to recover. It's like the banking crisis inflicted a wound, which should be healing by now, but it's not healing. The reason for that is hotly debated. I can only voice my own opinion - I believe that businesses won't hire until they have more customers, but people won't become customers until they get hired. It's a vicious cycle, and it won't end until somebody takes action to break the cycle.\n\nProblem 3: There's a much bigger problem in the long term: when you have a job, you produce lots of wealth. Of that wealth, your boss takes a cut, your boss's boss takes a cut, the investors take a cut, the bankers take a cut, and you get what's left. In the past, you used to take home most of the fruits of your own labor. That's not the case anymore: most goes to the people at the top. This problem has been in the news a lot recently. Even if business were to recover, individuals would still feel squeezed, because of this.\n\nProblem 4: When all the money is concentrated at the top, businesses naturally experience a shortage of customers. If you sell giant TVs, but only rich people can afford to buy them, you just don't have enough people buying your TVs. It's much better for you if everyone has a share of the wealth, then you can sell big TVs to everyone. The concentration of wealth creates persistent problems for businesses, who try to find people who can afford their services, and can't. This feeds into problem two - the vicious cycle of not enough customers leading to not enough hiring leading to not enough customers.\n",
"[Too big to fail](_URL_0_)",
"There's been a slow moving trend of manufacturing jobs leaving America for places that have cheaper labor which has left America with higher unemployment, less tax collections, and oh by the way, fighting two wars while trying to maintain a large military presence across rest of the planet has left Uncle Sam strapped for cash. \n\nThe other problem is getting credit. Because so many banks got burned by the Let's Give Everyone Home Loans They Can't Possibly Afford orgy a few years back, now banks don't want to lend money to anyone. This makes it harder to start a new business or expand a small business, and employ more people.\n\nSo in summary:\n\n* Chinese labor is cheaper than American labor, so not as much factory work in America\n* American banks don't want to lend money to Mom & Pop Inc. to expand or start something new\n* Uncle Sam has a costly obsession with maintaining military presence everywhere at all times\n* Large American corporations are sitting hoards of cash and won't start hiring until someone else does first\n\n\n\n",
"The way I see it, there are actually four problems:\n\nProblem 1: In 2007, all commercial banks (banks used by corporations) stopped lending money at the same time. That harmed many good businesses, because even good businesses periodically need to borrow money. Some of these businesses failed completely, others survived through layoffs. Either way, lots of good people lost their jobs. The banking crisis is over, but the damage was done.\n\nProblem 2: The economy should be recovering, but it seems to be unable to recover. It's like the banking crisis inflicted a wound, which should be healing by now, but it's not healing. The reason for that is hotly debated. I can only voice my own opinion - I believe that businesses won't hire until they have more customers, but people won't become customers until they get hired. It's a vicious cycle, and it won't end until somebody takes action to break the cycle.\n\nProblem 3: There's a much bigger problem in the long term: when you have a job, you produce lots of wealth. Of that wealth, your boss takes a cut, your boss's boss takes a cut, the investors take a cut, the bankers take a cut, and you get what's left. In the past, you used to take home most of the fruits of your own labor. That's not the case anymore: most goes to the people at the top. This problem has been in the news a lot recently. Even if business were to recover, individuals would still feel squeezed, because of this.\n\nProblem 4: When all the money is concentrated at the top, businesses naturally experience a shortage of customers. If you sell giant TVs, but only rich people can afford to buy them, you just don't have enough people buying your TVs. It's much better for you if everyone has a share of the wealth, then you can sell big TVs to everyone. The concentration of wealth creates persistent problems for businesses, who try to find people who can afford their services, and can't. This feeds into problem two - the vicious cycle of not enough customers leading to not enough hiring leading to not enough customers.\n",
"[Too big to fail](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/9DQv5.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/9DQv5.jpg"
]
] |
||
2nob2z | if you were a multi billionaire, say you had 100 billion dollars. and you liquidated all your assets into cash. then you burned all that cash. what would happen to the economy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nob2z/eli5_if_you_were_a_multi_billionaire_say_you_had/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmfc5hc",
"cmfc68y",
"cmfd6gs",
"cmfenea",
"cmffzhu",
"cmffzti",
"cmfghoc",
"cmfir4n"
],
"score": [
58,
232,
3,
75,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You'd be a poor fool and you'd probably die from the smoke from the fla--oh what what would happen to the economy? I assume you mean the US economy? \n\nNot much. \n\nThe US GDP is $16.8 trillion.\n\nWorld GDP is estimated to be $84.97 trillion just for context.\n\nEDIT - You'd do more damage *not* liquidating your assets and just invest in the stock market, invest in really necessary and influential companies and then, right before they announce they're going to have their most profitable quarter in history, sell sell sell! That my friends, is how you cause a Great Depression.",
"The government would reprint the cash to keep the dollar value steady. \n\nCongratulations, you've just given $100b to the government! ",
"\"As of July 2013, currency in circulation—that is, U.S. coins and paper currency in the hands of the public—totaled about $1.2 trillion dollars. \" (from the New York Fed website). So…100 Billion is 0.1 Trillion dollars, or a little over 8% of the world's paper US currency. \n\nI doubt it'd have much of an effect on the economy, but it might make $100 bills hard to come by for a while until the mint caught up. You would actually probably end up increasing the statistics on currency in circulation until people figured out you'd burned it. So if you burned it in secret, you could really throw some numbers off. That's probably about it. ",
"Fantastic question, and one that requires a lot of \"thought experiment.\" \n\nFor reference, I have an MBA specialized in economics and finance, and I work as a real estate investor, so I am somewhat qualified to answer, but there are gaps in my knowledge. \n\nFirstly, I would distinguish between the concepts of **microeconomics** and **macroeconomics.**\n\n**On a macro scale, at first glance, we could assume that almost nothing happens.** That $100B isn't a significant part of the US or global GDP (yearly production of wealth), capital stock (accumulated wealth), or money supply (total amount of money in existence). Everybody else's dollars would go up in value slightly because dollars would be slightly more rare, but not enough for them to notice. \n\n**Increasingly, however, economists are looking at macroeconomics as a sum of microeconomics. That is to say, each household, firm, industry, and tiny decision adds up into a whole economy. So let's look at the micro-economic decisions.**\n\nFirstly, what assets do you hold and how do you liquidate them? **If all your assets are of one type, you might actually cause a significant price change in that asset.** For example, roughly $200B of gold is traded daily, so your sale would increase that by 50%, causing a small but noticeable dip in the price of gold. Other assets, however, are traded less frequently. Perhaps you own stocks and you sell $10B worth of shares in 10 companies each worth between $15B and $30B total. Those shares would drop drastically and you could cause a bankruptcy in those companies if they have borrowed against their own equity. You might also bankrupt thousands of individual investors. **You could potentially kill all the projects that those people/groups are working on, including any world-changing technology.** These micro-changes could create genuine and significant macro changes. \n\nSecondly, how do you get your liquid assets into actual paper money? Banks don't tend to have a lot of money lying around waiting to be withdrawn. If you show up to the ATM and ask for $100B, it won't give it to you. It's your money, however, so you can eventually get it out. Citibank, for example, has over $400B in cash and cash equivalents. Smaller banks do not have over $100B. **Taking that much money out (or making it public that you want to take that much money out) would cause a bank run, which means that more people try to get their money out than the bank can afford to pay at one time.** Unless the government saves it, the bank goes bankrupt. People often panic when there are bank runs, so people might go to other banks and demand their money. This causes contagion. A bank run on Bank A can make Banks, B, C, and D go bankrupt too. **Since banks are the core of the financial economy, killing a handful of banks has major impacts on the global economy. Everybody who has a mortgage, student loan, business loan, or savings account with them is impacted negatively. Hundreds of thousands of people could risk losing everything., and not just in the USA.**\n\nBut you don't care. You are committed to the cause. \n\n**You now have $100B in a pile, and you have hired security guards to shoot trespassers on site,** so far killing 48 and wounding 17 (a lot of people would risk their lives to get at some of that money). \n\nEach bill weighs a gram. Assuming you got $100 bills, that's a million kilograms or a thousand metric tonnes (about 1100 imperial tons if I remember the conversion correctly). **That's 1kt of CO2 that you will emit when you burn it all.** Since the average American is responsible for 17t per year, you would increase your carbon footprint by 59 times. \n\n**So now let's add all that up. On a micro-level, you bankrupted a few companies, financially harmed thousands of investors, possibly bankrupting many, caused several bank runs on major financial institutions, precipitated a small government bail-out, killed or injured 65 people, and marginally increased your country's carbon footprint.** \n\nDepending on which companies, banks, and investors you take down with you, it is possible that you cause major macroeconomic repercussions. \n\nEdit: you would also probably consume the news cycle, which means that for 24 hours, politicians could get away with anything. \n\nEdit 2: I forgot to discuss company control. Maybe your sale of shares gave new people/groups control over the companies in question. Maybe one firm you invested in was developing a revolutionary green energy product. If you sold your controlling shares to an oil company they might kill it, but somebody else might improve it and take it to market faster than you could have. The same could be said for a medical device, drug, battery, or piece of safety equipment.",
"Not a lot, really. $100,000,000,000 is a lot for an individual, or even a company, but your burning of the cash (literally) would have almost no real effect, considering the GNP of the USA is around 17.06 trillion dollars. That means your $100 billion is less than 1/2 of 1% of the total economy. Of course, that depends upon how you achieved 100 Billion; was it through a lottery? In that case, the money would just literally be wasted. Was it through business? Then liquidating assets would mean hundreds, if not thousands, of people out of work. Locally, that would be devastating, but again in the general, overall economy, a mere blip on the unemployment scale - let's say 2,000 people are put out of work. Considering the \"official\" unemployment rate in the US is around 6% of 316 million puts the number of unemployed people in the US at around 7 million, which is almost as man people living in New York City. Your 2000, or even 4000 or 8000 would be less than 1/10 of 1% of the total unemployment in the USA.",
"I'd imagine the government would just reprint it and you'd got to prison for tampering with money.",
"You would have almost an impossible time trying to withdraw $100 billion. All your banks would try to sue you. If you are successful in withdrawing that kind of cash, you would render several of your banks and financial institutions bankrupt. The market would fall into an impetus panic and potentially a bank run.",
"If you tried to do this rapidly, the effects would depend on exactly what procedure you followed. What were the assets in before you liquidated them? Over how much time did you do it? What banks did you work with to turn it into paper money, and over what period of time? How public were about the all of these steps? How did you avoid getting arrested and prosecuted under Title 18, Section 333? \n\nIf did all of these slowly and with little fanfare, the net effect would be very little. The US Treasury would benefit by whatever the interest rate is on $100B in treasury debt, indefinitely.\n\nThat is because, to keep the money supply at the desired level, a corresponding $100 billion in treasury debt would bought by the FED from their previous (most likely private) owners, and the interest on those bonds would then be remitted to the treasury. If the FED knew what you were up to, they would probably buy long bonds, which pay about 3% interest. If they didn't know what was going on, they would probably buy shorter bonds at much lower interest rates."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
las2b | how does a horn amplify sound without adding any energy to it? | I was watching a tuba player the other day. The buzz of a guy's lips can be amplified to the point where it shakes you. Horns seem to defeat the first law of thermodynamics. What is going on here? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/las2b/eli5_how_does_a_horn_amplify_sound_without_adding/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2r5ao3",
"c2r5iow",
"c2r5ug0",
"c2r6it9",
"c2r6n3h",
"c2r70x8",
"c2r75e3",
"c2r7qfj",
"c2raj9b",
"c2r5ao3",
"c2r5iow",
"c2r5ug0",
"c2r6it9",
"c2r6n3h",
"c2r70x8",
"c2r75e3",
"c2r7qfj",
"c2raj9b"
],
"score": [
3,
119,
32,
8,
14,
3,
5,
2,
2,
3,
119,
32,
8,
14,
3,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I believe it just helps to focus the sound in one direction. So you're wasting less energy off to the sides.",
" Your lips, instead of just vibrating nearby air, vibrate the horn which in return vibrate the air inside the horn, thus making the amount of air originally vibrated much larger, and the sound stronger. In addition, the shape of the horn focuses the sound wave in a certain direction.",
"sympathetic resonance. you get the vibration flow through the horn, and bounce back, then those waves are added to the new vibration you're adding.\n\nyou know how in a small room, certain pitches get really loud and resonant? it's because the length of the wave matches the width of the room, and it's bouncing back and forth and adding to itself.\n\nor like in a bathtub sloshing back and forth in rhythm, the waves get bigger and bigger. the tub isn't adding energy, you're just layering the energy on.",
"This law of physics doesn't just apply to sound but any form of energy. \n\nIn space when something generates energy it is usually an isotropic radiator. That is to say that it's a sphere which sends energy in all directions equally. Down here on earth that's not very practical because gravity does this funny thing where not everything's a sphere.\n\nThat being said you mouth is slightly directional. The sound wants to travel in all directions but the walls of your mouth and your tongue and even your teeth bounce the sound around so that the only way out is through the small opening in your mouth. \n\nNow imagine your mouth is very long, and your mouth is very very reflective and smooth so that all of the reflections go in the same direction. Eventually you're going to have a very concentrated form of energy. It's the same amount of total energy but it's going in a straight line instead of everywhere.\n\nNow it can travel much further through the open air without dissipating (free space path loss) and therefore is louder when it hits your eardrum. ",
"It's not that the horn adds energy, but that its shape causes less energy to be wasted, allowing the feedback that causes resonance (which other people have explained).\n\nFor example, let's say that instead of a horn you stick a pillow on the end of the tuba. Obviously, nobody would be able to hear a thing, because it absorbs all the sound. A bare pipe is better than a pillow, but it still wastes some of the energy because it absorbs the vibration but not in a resonant way. Adding a horn is one step beyond removing the pillow.",
"Second, but related question:\n\nAre there limits to the amplification that you can get through a horn?",
"I feel like this really should be on [askscience](_URL_0_). Anyone including discussion on the first law of thermodynamics in their question can certainly understand an answer from there without having to deal with all the un-cited speculation in the comments here.",
"Think about it in the opposite way.\n\nThere's 10 sound-waves coming at you from different directions. Instead of catching just 1 wave with your ear, the horn catches all 10 and delivers it to your ear.\n\nSoundwave+Soundwave+Soundwave+...+Soundwave+n = Stronger/Louder than 1 Soundwave. Amplification/Interference at work.",
"Wow... so many wrong answers here. Just because we're simplifying our answers doesn't mean that rampant speculation is called for.\n\nA [horn](_URL_0_) is the acoustic version of an impedance matching transformer. What that means is that the horn's shape spreads the sound pressure waves over a larger area in order to maximize their ability to propagate through the air. With a horn instrument, you've got the amplification effect of resonance on top of that, but there are plenty of resonating instruments that don't use horns to make themselves louder.",
"I believe it just helps to focus the sound in one direction. So you're wasting less energy off to the sides.",
" Your lips, instead of just vibrating nearby air, vibrate the horn which in return vibrate the air inside the horn, thus making the amount of air originally vibrated much larger, and the sound stronger. In addition, the shape of the horn focuses the sound wave in a certain direction.",
"sympathetic resonance. you get the vibration flow through the horn, and bounce back, then those waves are added to the new vibration you're adding.\n\nyou know how in a small room, certain pitches get really loud and resonant? it's because the length of the wave matches the width of the room, and it's bouncing back and forth and adding to itself.\n\nor like in a bathtub sloshing back and forth in rhythm, the waves get bigger and bigger. the tub isn't adding energy, you're just layering the energy on.",
"This law of physics doesn't just apply to sound but any form of energy. \n\nIn space when something generates energy it is usually an isotropic radiator. That is to say that it's a sphere which sends energy in all directions equally. Down here on earth that's not very practical because gravity does this funny thing where not everything's a sphere.\n\nThat being said you mouth is slightly directional. The sound wants to travel in all directions but the walls of your mouth and your tongue and even your teeth bounce the sound around so that the only way out is through the small opening in your mouth. \n\nNow imagine your mouth is very long, and your mouth is very very reflective and smooth so that all of the reflections go in the same direction. Eventually you're going to have a very concentrated form of energy. It's the same amount of total energy but it's going in a straight line instead of everywhere.\n\nNow it can travel much further through the open air without dissipating (free space path loss) and therefore is louder when it hits your eardrum. ",
"It's not that the horn adds energy, but that its shape causes less energy to be wasted, allowing the feedback that causes resonance (which other people have explained).\n\nFor example, let's say that instead of a horn you stick a pillow on the end of the tuba. Obviously, nobody would be able to hear a thing, because it absorbs all the sound. A bare pipe is better than a pillow, but it still wastes some of the energy because it absorbs the vibration but not in a resonant way. Adding a horn is one step beyond removing the pillow.",
"Second, but related question:\n\nAre there limits to the amplification that you can get through a horn?",
"I feel like this really should be on [askscience](_URL_0_). Anyone including discussion on the first law of thermodynamics in their question can certainly understand an answer from there without having to deal with all the un-cited speculation in the comments here.",
"Think about it in the opposite way.\n\nThere's 10 sound-waves coming at you from different directions. Instead of catching just 1 wave with your ear, the horn catches all 10 and delivers it to your ear.\n\nSoundwave+Soundwave+Soundwave+...+Soundwave+n = Stronger/Louder than 1 Soundwave. Amplification/Interference at work.",
"Wow... so many wrong answers here. Just because we're simplifying our answers doesn't mean that rampant speculation is called for.\n\nA [horn](_URL_0_) is the acoustic version of an impedance matching transformer. What that means is that the horn's shape spreads the sound pressure waves over a larger area in order to maximize their ability to propagate through the air. With a horn instrument, you've got the amplification effect of resonance on top of that, but there are plenty of resonating instruments that don't use horns to make themselves louder."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_%28acoustic%29"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_%28acoustic%29"
]
] |
|
2r578j | the differences in the responsibilities of a producer and director. where credit due for ____? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r578j/eli5_the_differences_in_the_responsibilities_of_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnck7hq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Directors direct the actors, cameras, and other details on a scene-by-scene basis. They are responsible for discerning useful shots and takes from garbage.\n\nThe producer is the chief story-teller. They are responsible for putting together the various takes and deciding what subplots to include or exclude in order to control pacing, tone, and what the audience knows at a given time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
40av1r | do cats know when they're playing with a toy or do they think they're actually on the hunt and that they're attacking a prey? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40av1r/eli5_do_cats_know_when_theyre_playing_with_a_toy/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyss482",
"cyssdye",
"cystej7"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
20
],
"text": [
"Commenting because I want to know the answer too and I don't know another way of finding this again easier",
"Cats that live all (or most) of the time in homes don't really have to grow up. For them there's not really a difference between playing and hunting. ",
"They don't know until they are 6 months old but toys are must for brain developing. Cats are just like human babies with toys; they dream and think about that toy, make sounds and examine it. Cats can get bored too and toys are good for working-out. But if you close a cat in a room with lots of toys it might get nervous and unhappy because it wants to play them with you, just like a human baby. And you must let them win :)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
mr1oe | cisgender and cissexual. | I've almost completely memorized their technical definitions. All I get from them is cisgender is a man who thinks of himself as a man and likes being a man and cissexual is a straight person who acts straight and likes being straight. Am I missing something, because with what I understand them to be, they are two of the most unnecessary terms in English. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mr1oe/eli5_cisgender_and_cissexual/ | {
"a_id": [
"c335yf8",
"c337arv",
"c335yf8",
"c337arv"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"I haven't heard either of those terms, but from a chemistry/biology point of view, cis and trans are opposites. Trans means different, and cis means the same.\n\nI'd just guess that cisgender is a definition opposite of transgender, it's just the 'normal'.",
"To really simplify it, you use the prefix cis so that your terminology doesn't imply that transgendered people aren't normal. It's giving both gender identity statuses prefixes instead of only having it for the minority group.\n\ncissexual is less useful though because the term heterosexual exists as an evenly footed match to homosexual/bisexual etc.",
"I haven't heard either of those terms, but from a chemistry/biology point of view, cis and trans are opposites. Trans means different, and cis means the same.\n\nI'd just guess that cisgender is a definition opposite of transgender, it's just the 'normal'.",
"To really simplify it, you use the prefix cis so that your terminology doesn't imply that transgendered people aren't normal. It's giving both gender identity statuses prefixes instead of only having it for the minority group.\n\ncissexual is less useful though because the term heterosexual exists as an evenly footed match to homosexual/bisexual etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
phl5b | poker tells | Do poker tells really exist or is that something just created for television and movies? For example, do players always do the same thing when they are bluffing? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/phl5b/eli5_poker_tells/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3pg50u"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"If there's a field you're knowledgeable about that appears a lot in movies (such as computers, medicine...) you know the hollywood logic: realism is ditched in favor of impressive and obvious effects.\n\n\nThe same goes for poker tells. They do exist but are not accurately depicted in movies. You'll never find a player who scratch his ear everytime he bluffs or sings god save the queen when he's got aces.\n\n\nTells are the ways you subconciously show emotions with your body language. It can be leaning closer to the table (shows interest) or having your hand slightly shaking when betting in a big pot. However they are difficult to interpret: when a player shows confidence by betting fast and almost throwing his chips, is he really happy and doesn't bother to hide it, or is he overcompensating because he's bluffing and tries to intimidate his opponents? The more you know a player the more you can interpret.\n\n\nNovice players tend to show more tells, but also make mistakes in estimating their hands: they can be genuinely happy with their hand when it's not that great. Good players usually adopt the \"poker face\": they try to not show any emotion. Some others will be very talkative to hide their tells in a bunch of noise.\n\n\nBut most importantly, tells are just the cherry on the cake, they are overrated. The vast majority of decisions are made by analyzing the hand, the opponents style and betting patterns. If you happen to catch a tell which just confirms a decision you would have made anyway, it's perfectly useless. Only in a few close decisions they can tip the balance one way or another.\n\n\nOf course, this whole hand analysis would be boring in a movie: that's why they make a big deal of tells.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3plzw8 | if our outer skin layer is dead and constantly replaced, how does our skin retain its tan? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3plzw8/eli5_if_our_outer_skin_layer_is_dead_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw7fegb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The skin cells may be dying constantly, but your body is still telling your melanocytes ( cells responsible for pigment located inside your squishy ass deep skin layer) to produce melanin ( that black shit that blocks UV light) at a faster rate than usual in order to protect you. Eventually when you stop exposing your skin to sunlight, your body will tell the melanocytes to fucking quit wasting calories. If you do decide to hop back in the sunlight for a long time, your body will send signals to produce more melanin. Fun fact black people and white people have damn near the same amount of melanocytes, but the melanocytes in black people work their asses off naturally, so they get that UV sheilding goodness 24/7."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1ptvvk | how does scratching a needle on a vinyl record produce actual music? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ptvvk/eli5how_does_scratching_a_needle_on_a_vinyl/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd5za53",
"cd5zgoq"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"The groove in the record is cut in the shape of the sound wave. The needle follows this groove, vibrating in time with said wave. The cartridge the needle attaches to acts like a microphone, turning these vibrations into an electrical signal that is amplified and reproduced at higher volume from the speakers. \n\nNotice that if you have the speakers turned off, you can hear the music faintly from the needle itself.",
"A vinyl record has a spiralling channel through which the needle travels. This channel has minute peaks and valleys that translate to sound-waves. \n\nAs the needle passes over the peaks and valleys, it vibrates. The end of the needle in the cartidge (at the end of the record player's arm) vibrates in the presence of a coil in a magnetic field (like a guitar string vibrating over a pickup). The current that the vibration induces in the coil is an audio signal that is sent on to a receiver to be routed, processed, and amplified. This signal is sent to speakers where it is turned back into vibrations that push a cone which pushes air which create the sound-wave."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1on36i | if there was going to be a third political party, how would that happen and what it would mean? | I think that a poll said that 60% of voters wanted to see a third political party, from where likely would the politicians and voters come from? Would a splinter party gain traction or an independent entity grow out of the woodworks? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1on36i/eli5_if_there_was_going_to_be_a_third_political/ | {
"a_id": [
"cctjgwe",
"cctjhnb",
"cctjm7h",
"cctk586"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
23,
9
],
"text": [
"You know there was an independent running for president, right? ",
"A third political party is likely to come from the centre or the extremes of the political spectrum. Initial politicians would be those who fervently believe in what the party stands for, but subsequent politicians might well defect from one or both of the Democrats and/or Republicans. Splinter parties are often easiest to run initially, because there's a clearer public understanding of what the party's positions are, and who is running it. \n\nThe problem with third parties in the US is that the system is massively biased against them - from very high requirements for signatures to be put on a ballot, to the other parties eventually borrowing/stealing their policies to recover the voter base.",
" > If there was going to be a third political party\n\nThe US has five [major political parties](_URL_3_), and 28 [minor political parties](_URL_1_).\n\nThe problem is that our [first-past-the-post](_URL_0_) voting system naturally settles into having two dominant parties. The only real way to change that is to change how voting for congress works (switch to a [proportional representation](_URL_4_) system), and/or changing to an [instant runoff](_URL_2_) voting system to remove the spoiler effect of third parties.",
"The problem is math. The math favors two parties.\n\nHaving 0% support is about the same has having 40% support...you might mess with the other parties, but your guy is not going to get elected. Same is true the other way, 60% support is just as good as 100% support, your guy will always win, so why bother trying for anything more?\n\nBetween 40% and 60%, you get within margins of error and temporary fluctuations so that your guy might win some of the time. And there is only room for two parties to live there.\n\nSo in order for a third party to be relevant, on of the other two must go. And historically, that is what has happened. Third parties would occasionally can prominence, like the Reform party in 1990's, but will always quickly fade, or replaced an existing party, like how the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the mid 1800's."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Minor_political_parties",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Major_political_parties",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation"
],
[]
] |
|
1lq4zh | caption bot | What is it and what does it do besides caption memes?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lq4zh/eli5_caption_bot/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc1nd8o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"nothing else. that's exactly what it does. Some people Reddit at work and are behind a firewall that prevents them from accessing the images. But we've all seen the pictures before, so telling what picture it is and what the words are is enough to communicate the joke. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
fkuub1 | how would the government passing out checks to everyone in the country help/save the economy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fkuub1/eli5_how_would_the_government_passing_out_checks/ | {
"a_id": [
"fkuxjr8",
"fkuzk6o"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Short answer, it wouldnt. It's been proven multiple times that short term stimulus do NOT benefit the economy, especially in recessive times. People save their checks and cut their spending.",
"The premise is: lots of people losing jobs or hours at jobs or ... So no money to pay rent/buy food etc. This can quickly cascade, you don't pay rent, landlord can't buy food or pay mortgage or ... You can't pay bills others get laid off ...\n\nSo quick fix, hand out cash. Problem, it is a quick fix and this isn't an ultra short term problem (a month or so). Cases still appear to be growing. \n\nMy GUESS - \"best case\": The \"short term\" recovery zone (e.g., restaurants, bars, movies) is probably 3+ months. The longer term recovery (e.g., stock market) is likely a 9-18 months out. Mid term recovery (ramp up domestic production) is likely in between. The \"likely case\" adds 3 months to each of those and \"worst case\" could be longer. Fear + loss of savings = cautious consumers = large reduction in discretionary spending.\n\nSecond issue: is the government check \"free money\", \"money we later pay taxes on\" (that likely had no withholding on so \"surprise\" at tax filing time), OR a loan against your taxes (\"billed back\" at tax time, somewhat like the payroll tax cuts of some previous administrations) in which case \"big surprise\" at tax time."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5o9jbr | how does a cancer like breast cancer kill the host? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5o9jbr/eli5_how_does_a_cancer_like_breast_cancer_kill/ | {
"a_id": [
"dchnw7o",
"dchobw7",
"dci2n31"
],
"score": [
13,
209,
4
],
"text": [
"Breast cancer, even after apparently successful treatment, often spreads to other areas of the body. This is called metastasising. The cancer in the areas it spreads to is usually the main cause of death.",
"Cancer is basically uncontrolled reproduction of cells. The cells in your body all have a job and a timeline. So for example, and this is not an actual number, but a bone cell will replicate itself 10 times and then it dies. Or if it gets damaged it sends out a signal to other cells \"hey! I'm not going to make it!\" And it's broken down and absorbed by the body.\n\nCancer starts with a single mutated cell that replicates and replicates and now you have a tumor. It's a damaged cell but it doesn't send the \"kill me now!\" signal. And that tumor just grows and grows and develops more mutations that allow it to get nice and cozy where it's at. At a certain point it gets the body to send it blood with it's own system of vessels. Then pieces of it travel through the blood or lymphatic system and nestle in and grow more. This is called a metastasis. These growths put pressure on the tissue, organs, etc around it. They also steal blood from the surrounding tissue. \n\nAnd it's completely unregulated because the body thinks it belongs there. Because it's made of your own cells. So it just takes the resources your body needs and pushes your organs and tissue out of the way to make more room and takes more blood and more nutrients while destroying functional tissue in making room for itself.",
"In the beginning stages of many breast cancers, the cancer cells are contained in a limited area like the milk ducts. If left undiagnosed and untreated though, the cancer can spread. \n\nIn an ideal treatment, there would be a single tumor in a non vital area that could be easily removed. In an un-ideal situation there are many tumors spread throughout the body and manually removing could kill the patient, or is otherwise not possible.\n\nIn the case of breast cancer, the cancer cells can spread to the rest of the body (Metastatic breast cancer), growing new tumors. This not only makes it harder to treat, but depending on where those tumors grow, it can be deadly. For instance imagine one growing in your liver or lungs, or even your brain. It could damage the organ and cause organ failure. The organ failure in turn leads to a painful death as the organs shut down and the body slowly dies. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1haxe9 | encrypting a computer file | What does the computer actually do when it is encrypting a file | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1haxe9/eli5_encrypting_a_computer_file/ | {
"a_id": [
"caskdci"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hi there -- > jk vjgtg\n\nencryption code: +2 alphabetically\n\nOne of many examples. Basically, you change the text in according to an algorithm (in this case, substitute every letter for one that's two letters ahead in the alphabet). If somebody intercepts the message, they can't read it without knowing the algorithm."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5wnavs | why do you get tax breaks when married? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wnavs/eli5_why_do_you_get_tax_breaks_when_married/ | {
"a_id": [
"debdzxt",
"debe0j6",
"debjotc",
"debzvd3"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"A very symplistic view: it's in the interest of society that you have children. A good birth rate that can help with the aging population is what every country need to sustain the system.\n\nNow, how to encourage having children? By allowing families to have more money. Usually (not necessarily) people get married first and then have kids. So, by allowing young couples to save, you are increasing the money available for raising children (yes, children cost money). In some countries, tax breaks increase with the number of children, so that the family is stable and doesn't go bankrupt when facing all the financial challenges children pose.",
"You don't necessarily. You get tax breaks for owning a home and having kids, but my ex wife and I lived in an apartment. When we filed jointly we got much less than we would have had we been single.",
"There aren't tax breaks for being married, per se. There are higher tax brackets for married couples filing jointly based on total income. But this is only really a difference when it's a single income household or one makes greatly more than the other partner, as it effectively spreads one income over two people. But if each partner makes roughly the same amount, there isn't any benefit to being married w/ regard to taxes.\n\nFor example, let's say a dating couple have incomes of $20k and $100k. When married, they'd pay slightly lower taxes on a joint $120k income than separately. But if they made $58k and $62k it wouldn't much matter.",
"You don't necessarily get tax breaks just for marrying. What you can do is file your taxes jointly. Essentially you're taxed as if you both made half of your total income (it's not exactly the same, but close enough). This can result in a lower tax bracket if one person makes vastly more than their spouse. For example, if 2 people who make identical salaries got married, things would be roughly the same, but if one person makes $100k and the other makes $20k, they're taxed as if they both made $60k, which results in a lower income tax bracket for part of their income.\n\nThe rationale behind this is that if one partner doesn't work, or only works part time, their spouse's salary is supporting 2 people instead of just 1 and should be taxed accordingly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4j9ltq | how can an owner of a large company be voted off by their own company? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4j9ltq/eli5how_can_an_owner_of_a_large_company_be_voted/ | {
"a_id": [
"d34u8fl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If the company got very big, they probably took on a lot of investment. Founders trade a voting share of their company for cash, whether public or private. It is very often the case that founders end up with less than a majority stake. If the board has enough controlling power to vote the founder off, they can do that. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4kftgq | how chinese decide what will characters for a new words look like? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kftgq/eli5_how_chinese_decide_what_will_characters_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3elbg5",
"d3elruq",
"d3elzma"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
15
],
"text": [
"I actually know the character for film. It is made out if the characters for electric and shadow. If you think about it it makes sense. \n\nThe character for good is woman + baby. \nI would imagine you could be creative and a new word would need to be used frequently to be accepted. ",
"It's just like English. Somebody had to compile our existing letters to create a word (to use the example of u/algorhythm : FILM) So, in Chinese, the character for 'electric' and 'shadow' are compiled to create the word holding that meaning.\n\n\nEdit: changed character to word",
"So, just to clarify, it's not like every new word gets a new character. New words generally come from old characters. For instance, the word for quark is 夸克 *kuākè*; the word for laser is 激光器 *jīguāngqì* (something like 'stimulating light tool') or 莱塞 *láisài*. Quite often, the characters already existed.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1xr3kt | what did people use before lip balm? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xr3kt/eli5_what_did_people_use_before_lip_balm/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfdviad",
"cfdzrn3"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"People used goose or other animal fats on their lips and faces, especially in cold areas to protect against windburn and cold, dry air. Also, beeswax and oil. The Burt's Beeswax brand that I use now is essentially just that.",
"Frequently they used nothing.\n\nI've lived in cold, dry, elevated environments most of my life. And only rarely have I felt the need for a lip balm. When properly hydrated lips can adapt to weather quite well."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
xb6cb | gas prices. i remember them staying at about a buck a gallon back in the 90's. how did we get to this $3 and $4 mess? | Gas prices stayed around $1 a gallon during the 90's. We invaded Iraq and they went to $1.50. Then Katrina and it was $2 and change. In '08 something weird happened and they got up to $4 a gallon.
So how are gas prices determined? What made them jump up so high, and why are they not going back to a reasonable price? Gasoline is the only thing I can think of that jumps $0.10 in a day. If beef or milk jumped $0.10 in a day there would be civil unrest, but with gas prices, it's just another day.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xb6cb/eli5_gas_prices_i_remember_them_staying_at_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5kw33k",
"c5kwwxv"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Also, China and India are developing economically, more folks in those countries are buying cars now. Worldwide demand for gasoline has gone up.\n\nNot to mention the dollar is weaker than it used to be.",
"Quite simple really. Gas is a limited resource gaining popularity everyday and inflation. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3uauto | why do pizza boxes have lids that fit inside the bottom, as opposed to most other boxes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3uauto/eli5_why_do_pizza_boxes_have_lids_that_fit_inside/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxdcsbv"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Well, pizza boxes' lid relies on friction to stay closed. If you put the sides of the lid on the out side, without some sort of tab or a piece of tape, it'll just swing open.\n\n---------\n\nAlso, it is more cost effective to product a box from a single cardboard (one machine) rather than pumping out lid and the container separately (two unique machines + more labour involves). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
lj9w6 | how do hash checksums work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lj9w6/eli5_how_do_hash_checksums_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2t516t",
"c2t8qt5",
"c2t516t",
"c2t8qt5"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"If you are to transmit information over a wire, how would you do so robustly, if the transmission is vulnerable to corruption and noise? The simplest thing is to send it twice.\n\n\nA hash function generalizes on this idea. Instead of transmitting X (or even {X,X}), you transmit {X, h(X)}. Upon receipt, the receiver checks that h maps the first number into the second number. If so, the receiver would have more faith in the data being uncorrupted.\n\n\nFor it to be useful, a hash function would have to be efficiently computable, and responsive to small perturbations. e.g. h(X) != h(X') when X and X' are very similar yet distinct. (This would protect better against the case in which both X and h(X) are corrupted.) You would also want the hash to be small.\n\n\nA very basic hash function is the parity (sum of all digits in a binary string, modulo 2.) Other hash functions are complex varieties of this, in which you basically perform some arithmetic operation on each of the bit, and combine the results somehow.",
"A checksum is a verification code that's used to verify that there's no error in data. The code is calculated from the data in a specific way, so different data will result in a different checksum code. The data can be data that is stored on a computer, or data sent between people, or a credit card number...\n\nLet's take a simplified credit card number as an example: that card number is 5 figures, and there's a 6th figure which is a checksum code. It is calculated like this: add the first five figures together and take the last figure of the result as the checksum.\n\nFor example if your number is 52641: 5+2+6+4+1=1**8** so the checksum is 8. The full code written on the card is 526418.\n\nNow, you want to buy something with your creditcard on _URL_0_. They ask for your card number, so you type it in but you make a mistake and type 626418. Amazon will try to verify the number: they add the first five figures (6+2+6+4+1=1**9**) and verify that the last figure is 9. It isn't! So Amazon can warn you that the number you typed is wrong, and you can correct the mistake.\n\nIn real life, the checksum function (the way the checksum code is calculated from the data) is going to be more complex than just adding the figures, because this system would not know if you switched two numbers for example. And the data can be letters instead of numbers.\n\nAlso, a checksum doesn't always work: you can have errors in the data and still have the right checksum. In the example above, where the checksum is just one figure, there are only 10 possible checksum values (from 0 to 9). This means that, if there's an error or more, there's one chance out of 10 that the resulting checksum will still be the right one, out of pure dumb luck.\n\nYou can catch more errors if you use a bigger checksum. A checksum in 3 figures has 1000 possible values, so it will only let 1 error out of 1000 go undetected. The choice of the size of a checksum is a balance between making the detection more efficient but not making the checksum too big.",
"If you are to transmit information over a wire, how would you do so robustly, if the transmission is vulnerable to corruption and noise? The simplest thing is to send it twice.\n\n\nA hash function generalizes on this idea. Instead of transmitting X (or even {X,X}), you transmit {X, h(X)}. Upon receipt, the receiver checks that h maps the first number into the second number. If so, the receiver would have more faith in the data being uncorrupted.\n\n\nFor it to be useful, a hash function would have to be efficiently computable, and responsive to small perturbations. e.g. h(X) != h(X') when X and X' are very similar yet distinct. (This would protect better against the case in which both X and h(X) are corrupted.) You would also want the hash to be small.\n\n\nA very basic hash function is the parity (sum of all digits in a binary string, modulo 2.) Other hash functions are complex varieties of this, in which you basically perform some arithmetic operation on each of the bit, and combine the results somehow.",
"A checksum is a verification code that's used to verify that there's no error in data. The code is calculated from the data in a specific way, so different data will result in a different checksum code. The data can be data that is stored on a computer, or data sent between people, or a credit card number...\n\nLet's take a simplified credit card number as an example: that card number is 5 figures, and there's a 6th figure which is a checksum code. It is calculated like this: add the first five figures together and take the last figure of the result as the checksum.\n\nFor example if your number is 52641: 5+2+6+4+1=1**8** so the checksum is 8. The full code written on the card is 526418.\n\nNow, you want to buy something with your creditcard on _URL_0_. They ask for your card number, so you type it in but you make a mistake and type 626418. Amazon will try to verify the number: they add the first five figures (6+2+6+4+1=1**9**) and verify that the last figure is 9. It isn't! So Amazon can warn you that the number you typed is wrong, and you can correct the mistake.\n\nIn real life, the checksum function (the way the checksum code is calculated from the data) is going to be more complex than just adding the figures, because this system would not know if you switched two numbers for example. And the data can be letters instead of numbers.\n\nAlso, a checksum doesn't always work: you can have errors in the data and still have the right checksum. In the example above, where the checksum is just one figure, there are only 10 possible checksum values (from 0 to 9). This means that, if there's an error or more, there's one chance out of 10 that the resulting checksum will still be the right one, out of pure dumb luck.\n\nYou can catch more errors if you use a bigger checksum. A checksum in 3 figures has 1000 possible values, so it will only let 1 error out of 1000 go undetected. The choice of the size of a checksum is a balance between making the detection more efficient but not making the checksum too big."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"amazon.com"
],
[],
[
"amazon.com"
]
] |
||
2u7e8c | - how come astronauts take off vertically? | How come astronauts take off vertically, as compared to commercial airliners? Wouldn't it be more economical to just take the shuttle and take off a runway and gradually ascend out of earth's atmosphere, considering the amount of fuel needed for vertical take off? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2u7e8c/eli5_how_come_astronauts_take_off_vertically/ | {
"a_id": [
"co5skuq",
"co5svhc"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The problem is that, unlike an aircraft, anything headed into orbit (or beyond) needs an *insane* amount of speed. At the speeds involved, air resistance becomes a **much** bigger hurdle than you see for things like airplanes, which move at a nice, slow 500 mph. \n\nAt 500 mph, air resistance is just a minor nuisance (and by \"minor nuisance\", I means that it's like being hit by winds twice as powerful as an F5 tornado). But for a rocket going upward of **10,000 mph**, going through the air is akin to perpetually ramming into a solid wall. Not only does it place stress on the launch vehicle, but it also requires *huge* fuel expenditure to keep moving.\n\nSo the solution is to launch vertically, punch through as much of the atmosphere as you can as quickly as possible, and then shift to start adding sideways velocity once the atmosphere thins out enough to be a bit more manageable.",
"If we're talking about the shuttle, I don't think its wings are very good at producing lift (made to survive hypersonic reentry). Therefore, to reach a high altitude, it would need to be going pretty damn fast. But to do that (efficiently) you'd probably need huge rockets, or powerful air-breathing engines(ram- or scramjet). But rockets don't carry enough fuel and jet engines don't work in space, becoming dead weight above atmosphere. Therefore we bypass an efficient and shallow climb and use brute force to get into space. \n\nSource: Kerbal Space Program :P"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1vamrw | how much counterfeit currency can be in circulation before it starts to have a measurable effect on an economy? | How much counterfeit currency can be in circulation before it starts to have a measurable effect on an economy? And what would the effects be? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vamrw/eli5_how_much_counterfeit_currency_can_be_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceqdpnp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It depends on how that money is used.\n\nYou could actually argue that most of the money in the economy now is counterfit, seeing as most it was created out of thin air by banks via loan interest."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
31pzdc | cities with skyscrapers | I once read that the city of has as deep as 25 stories of tunnels going back 200 years, not to mention the subway tunnels. So my question is how do cities like New York for instance not collapse on themselves? New York has huge buildings that weigh a lot obviously how do the buildings not fall over or all of the tunnels underneath collapse? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31pzdc/eli5_cities_with_skyscrapers/ | {
"a_id": [
"cq3vxv3",
"cq3vzaf",
"cq3w8bt",
"cq3wqz8"
],
"score": [
9,
14,
6,
19
],
"text": [
"Manhattan is made of a very sturdy granite (CORRECTION- SCHIST). It is not prone to earthquakes, and engineers/ architects know how to build good foundations and reinforcements .",
"New York City is a huge rock. When a skyscraper gets built, the rock removed for foundation placement weighs more than the entire building. So, every time a skyscraper gets built, the city weighs less.",
"The bedrock in New York is incredibly thick [\"tens of kilometers thick\" according to this link](_URL_0_) and stable so can withstand the weight. Think of it, if the rock is 10 or 20 kilometers thick the weight if a skyscraper is negligible.\n\nEvery city with skyscrapers needs a solid foundation of bedrock, or it will not work. The buildings on the West coast are a lot smaller than on the East Coast, and are at higher risk in an earthquake.",
"Architect here. I do not know the NYC particular case, but you do not need rock to firmly set down a building. Sometimes you need to do some \"very tall foundations\" (which here in Spain are called 'pilotis') to rest the columns of the building. How they work? Just by friction. They stay in contact with the ground, they are corrugated, so there is a lot of friction between the land (even a not rocky one) and the pilotis. That friction prevents the building from collapsing. For analogy, take a rod and try to push it against the sand in a beach: you won't get too deep. Now imagine a 30m deep and 1,20m width rod encastated into the ground... Also, sorry about my English, I am not a native speaker."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~arihuang/academic/abg/landscape/index.html"
],
[]
] |
|
3697pg | steam community levels and trading cards. | I sort of get that you trade and combine cards for backgrounds and emoticons, but what are booster packs? And what are gems? And what does your "level" symbolise at all? Does it unlock features or put you in the loop for special offers or something? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3697pg/eli5steam_community_levels_and_trading_cards/ | {
"a_id": [
"crbwfzy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Booster packs nets you extra cards for a certain game.\n\nGems allow you to craft extra booster packs. (In general this is not worth it, and you're better of selling your cards on the market place, and buying the ones you need/want).\n\nHigher level allows a larger friend list, more showcases, and more chances of getting new booster packs. Oh, and from level 10 onward you get a chance of getting shiny \"foil\" cards.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://steamtradingcards.wikia.com"
]
] |
|
6awac0 | when did 101 become associated with tutorials? ex: reddit 101 | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6awac0/eli5_when_did_101_become_associated_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhhxrf9",
"dhhxsi0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"University classes are traditionally enumerated with the hundreds digit representing the course level and the rest of the digits representing particular interests. The overview courses are generally 00 and 01. So 101 means \"first year level overview course\", basically.",
"College course numbering system. Classes below the 100 level are remedial. 100 is the start of college level material, and the higher the number, the more difficult the class (level 300 and 400 classes are usually very specific and have a long list of prerequisite). 101 is basically the introduction to a new topic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
fzkpup | when pavement is really hot and seems to be emitting heat waves over the top of it, what exactly are we seeing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fzkpup/eli5_when_pavement_is_really_hot_and_seems_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"fn4o6es"
],
"score": [
23
],
"text": [
"Specifically what you're seeing is light bending at the boundaries between different densities of air. Hot air rising off the basement is less dense than the cooler air above it (which is why the hot air rises). As the two temperatures and densities of air mix, light refracts at the boundaries between them. Since they don't mix evenly all at once, it's not a smooth transition and you get ripples."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8rli2q | how can someone wealthy have mass amounts of debt but not pay it off? | For example, Kanye West has a net worth of something like $150 million. But he is also in debt $53 million as of 2016. How is this possible? Couldn't he just pay it off? This is just an example, but the question goes for anyone wealth with large amounts of debt.
Apologies for the repost. My post was removed last time because I put the example in the title and I guess it was interpreted wrong by a mod. He also told me to search but I couldn't find another post with this exact question, and didn't link me to a question like this. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8rli2q/eli5_how_can_someone_wealthy_have_mass_amounts_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0s8xbo",
"e0s918x",
"e0s9ie3",
"e0sbzr4"
],
"score": [
14,
10,
9,
4
],
"text": [
"You can't pay a creditor with a house.\n\nSomeone can have lots of wealth but have it in the form of things that are not easily transferable.\n\nSomeone with a net worth of $150 million almost certainly has far less than $50 million they have access to on even moderately short notice.",
" > How is this possible?\n\nIt's easy. He has a lot of assets and money (net worth) but also a lot of debt.\n\n > Couldn't he just pay it off?\n\nYes. But why would he? Given his fame and wealth he can likely borrow at a pretty cheap interest rate. If he can get a return on his money greater than that interest rate then he is making money on his loans. If that is the case, why would he give the money back? He's profiting from it.",
"Let's say you take out a loan to buy a $30/k car. The repayment schedule on that is $550/mo for the next 5 years.\n\nYou're now $30k in debt. Does that mean you need to pay off the car before doing anything else with your money? Should you skip buying dinner & paying rent?\n\nNo. Borrowing money from banks for shit like houses & businesses is a *completely* different situation from borrowing $20 from you friend or even using a credit card. Most rich people carry some sort of debt because it's stupid to use your own money for everything when somebody will loan it to you at a really good interest rate & repayment scheduled over the next few years.",
"Here is one scenario. You invest the money you would have spent on repaying your debts all at once on high yield investments. For example, you own an online store and you use the money to buy inventory. Yeah, you might have to pay, let's say 4% interest on your loans, but maybe you are making 20% yield with the money you are not having to spend immediately. To recap: It would make sense to borrow money (even if you currently have the cash to pay for something in cash) so you have money free to invest."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3zx89f | how can the lottery and things like publisher's clearing house afford to give away money so often, even at times when the economy is bad? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zx89f/eli5_how_can_the_lottery_and_things_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyppqyq",
"cyptpgm"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"[From the identical thread yesterday:](_URL_0_)\n\nIt's actually $5,000 a week, not per year. That's $260,000/year. Most PCH customers are pretty old so they really don't pay out that much comparatively.\nPublishers Clearing House brings in $840.6 million in revenue per year as of 2013. $260k is chump change.\nThey can afford it the same way the lottery works. Millions of people pay into it for the chance to win, like 0.00001% ever win shit.\n\nLotto is the same way. Millions of people pay into it, one wins eventually. Even then, the government taxes your winnings like 50%. The vast, VAST majority of people don't win shit, and are basically throwing their money into the bucket. It costs the government nothing and is a good revenue source.\n\nEven when the economy is bad, people are still stupid with their money. In fact, with more people stretched thin financially, more people start hoping that a miracle will happen and that they will win. Lotto participation doesn't decrease. ",
"but PCH is free- there is zero cost to enter (unlike a lottery). So where do they get their income?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zszf5/eli5_publishers_clearing_house/"
],
[]
] |
||
121sot | why do landlords prefer moneyless vacancies over selling spaces at a discount? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/121sot/eli5_why_do_landlords_prefer_moneyless_vacancies/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6rgd5x",
"c6rgs9f",
"c6rhe22",
"c6rhu8j",
"c6rjo5a",
"c6rlomj"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
9,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Opportunity cost. When a landlord leases an apartment to a tenant, it means that they lose the opportunity to lease it to someone else. \n\nIf the market is bad enough, then a landlord will probably reduce their rent. However, if the market is good, then a landlord knows that he can wait maybe a month and lease it to someone else for full price, and probably make more money than if he gave it to you now for a hundred bucks off a month. \n\nPlus, as long as there's no one in the apartment, the landlord has more options as far as what to do with it. Maybe he wants to paint it, add new carpet, bring his mistress back to it, or any other number of things he couldn't do if you were living there. ",
"It could be also seen as a beginning to a race to the bottom, where the lower price might condition any potential tenants against what is considered a \"normal\" price. So other landlords may start lowering their prices as well, and in the end, all of them will get less for providing the same service, just to stay in business.",
"In a lot of countries you have rent-control laws, which means that while an apartment is occupied by the same tenant, the landlord can't raise the rent by more than n% a year (usually based on the inflation rate). \n\nThis means that if you're a landlord and rent control exists, it's worth waiting a few months to find someone who'll take the apartment at the higher rent, because if you give up and lower the rent you're stuck with that low price for as long as the tenant decides to stay. ",
"Not an ELI5, but my experience of looking for a place to live.\n\nAt least where I live, vacancies are a very rare occurrence. (London, UK)\n\nWhen I was looking for a room, I had to view about 12 rooms before I got \"accepted\". The landlords have the luxury of many people looking per vacant room, so the current tenants get to \"interview\" their prospective house-mate, and choose the one they get on with best. I found it harder to find a room to rent than to get a job. ",
"Apart from Opportunity Cost, the big one most here have missed:\n\nThe **rental rate can determine the building's value** and the landlord's bank can change the landlord's (the borrower) **interest rate, repayment amounts and borrowing capacity** based on the bank's assessment of the property's value according to the rental return.\n\nCrazily, perhaps, a zero rental return is sometimes better for the landlord than a small amount - because the bank uses the last known/posted/proven rental returns to determine, in part, the building's worth. (Edit: In principle, you can see how this makes sense; if all rental returns fall, then the building values should fall too, or if they rise, then the building's value rises. Rental return is a good indicator of what buildings are worth).\n\nIf a bank suddenly reassess the value of a property downwards, then this destroys the **equity** (capital growth) in the property - and the owner can no longer leverage (or borrow against) this equity to buy more properties. When the property value falls, the debt to equity ratio increases. The bank may even begin to regard the owner as at risk of not repaying the bank loan, and increase their interest rates accordingly, resulting in higher repayments for the Landlord. \n\n(Discovered this from chatting with many owners of big empty buildings in Australia - I presume it's the same in the States).",
"With the commercial property we rent out we expect a five year lease agreement. Discounting the property to fill would bring back less money over the term of the lease since adequate demand exists. Saying that, where we have 3 new shops side by side we let one with a short term lease at a discounted rate to a start up. Already having one business there made the other two more attractive to potential clients. \n\nI rent the apartment that I live in. This I rented at a substantial discount in 2009 after the US economy collapsed. It had been vacant for about 6 months and it is about $500 per month below comparable asking prices. \n\nBut typically landlords hold out for more money simply because they believe that is what a property is worth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
63a7a2 | is some sort of time travel possible if humans are able to move almost as fast as the speed of light? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/63a7a2/eli5_is_some_sort_of_time_travel_possible_if/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfsh5as",
"dfshhoo"
],
"score": [
6,
21
],
"text": [
"Sure, forward in time.\n\nBut we sort of already have that kind of time travel - we travel forward at the rate of one second per second.\n\nBut yes, if you somehow were to accelerate up to near the speed of light, and then slow back down again after, you'll have aged less than the people who did not accelerate up and down again. This is called the *twin paradox*.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_",
"Theoretically, yes. A human could effectively \"move into the future\" relative to other humans. Time is experienced more slowly at higher speeds (\"time dilation.\") The effect ramps up sharply as one approaches the speed of light. At 2/3 the speed of light it's only about 34% slower, but at 99% of light speed it's over seven times slower, at 99.9% almost 23 times slower.\n\nSo, let's say we find a brave ~~astronaut~~ chrononaut who gets on a spaceship, flies away for six months at 299,500 km/s (99.9% light speed) then six months back at the same speed. He would find that almost twenty-three years had passed on Earth, with his friends and family considerably older, yet he would only have aged a year. For my money, that's time travel.\n\nPractically speaking, mass also increases sharply as one approaches light speed, so getting up to relativistic speeds isn't easy. Relativity corrections do have to be made to GPS satellites, which go fast enough to experience time just a little slower relative to us."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iJZ_QGMLD0",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg9MVRQYmBQ"
],
[]
] |
||
3d6cwk | the jungian archetypes. | So i was watching Batman Begins yesterday, and there is this scene where Falcone is in the institution and is blathering "Scarecrow" over and over again. Rachel remarks on this and Crane says something along the lines of, "Patients suffering from delusions tend to focus there tormenters on an outside force, usually one conforming to the Jungian Archetypes, in this case, a Scarecrow. So ELIF what are the Jungian Archetypes? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d6cwk/eli5_the_jungian_archetypes/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct27dt8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Carl Jung, a Swiss psychotherapist and psychiatrist, believed that there were elements (which we could also call concepts of subjects) that exist within everyone's conscious, as a result of growth within a basic human life. So basically, a word which represents a concept universal to human minds would be considered an archetype. Some examples (from wiki) are the trickster, the mother, the father, the teacher. Do these words conjure a vague, general image? What about birth, death, a wedding? A scarecrow? These are jungian archetypes. Things get a little different when you get into the archetype of self, or anima.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes"
]
] |
|
2h3a4s | why do some helicopters need tail rotors and others do not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h3a4s/eli5_why_do_some_helicopters_need_tail_rotors_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckozxi4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The main rotor on top creates lift, but the drag from the blades as the go around rotates the helicopter so it will tend to turns in one direction (which way depends on the model of helicopter). When the helicopter is moving forward quickly the tail stops the helicopter from turning. However at low speeds the tail rotor is used to stop the helicopter from turning.\n\nThere are four ways that a tail rotor isn't needed:\n\n* If it isn't actually a helicopter but an [autogyro](_URL_2_) which has a propeller at the back so it can use a normal tail to provide sideways thrust (although an autogyro generally doesn't need this as much)\n\n* If it has a [fan inside the tail that creates sideways thrust](_URL_0_) so it doesn't need an exposed rotor.\n\n* If it has [two main rotors that turn in opposite directions](_URL_1_) to cancel out the torque\n\n* If it has a front and back rotor (or more) that turn in different directions \n\n* The are apparently tip-jet rotors, but those are very uncommon"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAR",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra-rotating",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro"
]
] |
||
3vrhaf | when police officers are sued in civil court, why does the police department pay the monetary compensation awarded by court instead of the individual officers? how is this even legal? | I really don't understand this. I am not an American, although I frequently see on the news that a police officer has been abusive to a civilian and his department pays the civilian monetary damages awarded by a civil court. This seems to be common all around the Western world, from what I understand.
If a police officer is sued in a civil court for wrongful acts that he did during his duty, his employing department pays the monetary damages awarded by court.
It should be the individual police officer, who should be held accountable for his actions, and any and all monetary compensation awarded by a civil court should be paid out of his bank account. Instead, the police department he is under, steps in to shield him from taking his responsibility and pays up the monetary award from their own funds.
Not mentioning the ethical and moral implications, how is this even legal? Please explainlikeimfive. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vrhaf/eli5_when_police_officers_are_sued_in_civil_court/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxq1red",
"cxq30ad"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"This applies much more widely than just police officers - you're just unlikely to see news stories about the other cases. \n\nThe actions of an organization are carried out by the employees. Just like the shops and utilities you deal with, if something goes wrong, you seek redress from the organization, not the individual you dealt with. \n\nIf they weren't following the rules set by their employer, that's for the employer to take up with the individual. \n\nThere's also the practical matter of getting paid. A court ruling you are owed $1million won't get you anything if the person that owes you is broke. ",
"As for how it's legal, because the law would always allow someone else to pay all of the police officer's bills. That would apply even if the purpose of the judgment was to punish the officer, because it's legal to give money to someone. This is true in every Western country, to my knowledge.\n\nFurthermore, the purpose of a civil judgment is *not* to punish the officer. Lawsuits aren't meant to be punitive, they're meant to be compensatory. That's why one speaks of \"damages\" and not \"fines:\" the goal is to compensate the victim for the damage caused to them. It's a bit more complex when you work in the idea of \"punitive damages,\" but the overall point of the process is still compensation. Punishing the officer is a task for internal departmental proceedings and for criminal proceedings. In most Western countries there's no such thing as punitive damages; there, there's not even a little bit of \"hold the officer accountable and punish him for his misdeeds\" in a lawsuit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
bj1iwm | what is benford’s law or benford’s analysis? | Also how can it be used in auditing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bj1iwm/eli5_what_is_benfords_law_or_benfords_analysis/ | {
"a_id": [
"em4l9d3"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In real world data like (from the wiki) electricity bills, street addresses, stock prices, house prices, population numbers, death rates, lengths of rivers, physical and mathematical constants... The numbers seen aren't uniformly distributed.\n\nThat is, you're NOT just as likely to see a 1 in the first significant digit (not counting leading zeroes basically), as you are to see a 9. 1 occurs much more commonly.\n\nSo if there's a huge mass of accounting data that you suspect might be faked in a fraud case, you can, as a smoke test, check the frequency of occurence of the leading digits and see whether they follow Benford's Law. If they differ significantly, then it might be fake data."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1r0unt | this might be a stupid question, but how can companies make almost exact copies of name brands, (oreo's, cereal brands, etc) and not be infringing copyrights? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r0unt/this_might_be_a_stupid_question_but_how_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdihy58"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Food can't be copyrighted. It can be patented though. You can make a generic oreo, call it a black and white cookie and sell it. The name isn't to close to an oreo, and the cookie itself isn't patented. \n\nIn order to get any patent, it must be useful, novel, and non-obvious. Putting creme between two chocolate cookies isn't novel, or non-obvious.\n\nYou can patent processes, for example, the machine that builds the cookie, so all other generic oreo companies have to find their own way."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
72xwn4 | how do apps like instagram sharpen your photos using their own filters? | For example, the 'structure' feature [here](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72xwn4/eli5_how_do_apps_like_instagram_sharpen_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnm6vay"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The filter looks for small changes in the image and increases them. For example imagine you have a string of color values:\n\n1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 4, 5, 2, 1, 1, 2\n\nThe filter might set a threshold of 3 and below which it will ignore, but anything larger than that it will amplify by 5. So you end up with a string like this:\n\n1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 9, 10, 2, 1, 1, 2\n\nYou could even get more clever such as looking for a change of a given amount from nearby pixels within a certain range, and amplifying that difference if it is great enough."
]
} | [] | [
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YFXODgZniOs/VltSTr3qAbI/AAAAAAAAIMQ/bpV-Uq_Gwpw/s1600/orion%2Bnebula%2Binstagram%2Bstructure%2Bedit.PNG"
] | [
[]
] |
|
2bgp9u | if an aluminum can can get recycled into another aluminum can why do we use plastic bottles? | I've read somewhere that aluminum cans can be recycled indefinitely at a fraction of the energy required to make new cans. Why would we use plastic bottles for most of our pop containers when they can only be down cycled into something else, where aluminum could in theory be milled once and used forever? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bgp9u/eli5if_an_aluminum_can_can_get_recycled_into/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj5688v",
"cj56b7b",
"cj59s23"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
9
],
"text": [
"Plastic is cheaper and is less likely to react with the beverage in it altering the taste. ",
"I don't know about the costs, but marketing does play a big part. Next time your in any convenience store take a look at single sodas and single beers. If it's like my area, you won't find any single beer in a plastic bottle. (Come to think of it, I haven't seen any beer in plastic bottles!) Note the size of the cans and then compare the can size of soda. Why isn't soda put into the same size can as beer? All marketing.\n",
"Several reasons:\n\nRecycling rates are not 100%, so some of that initially-more-expensive aluminium goes to waste instead of being recycled. And the recycling process itself is not perfect so you don't even get all of the aluminum of the cans that do get returned for recycling.\n\nYou can enclose more drink with the same mass of plastic than you can with aluminum (ie plastic is lighter), which reduces shipping costs.\n\nYou can make a transparent bottle, but not a can.\n\nSome people have mentioned it but cans can alter the taste for it's contents, as a result of lot of cans also have epoxy (or other material) coatings in them. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fzwafe | rent vs mortgage payments | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fzwafe/eli5_rent_vs_mortgage_payments/ | {
"a_id": [
"fn6dtoi",
"fn6dx5b",
"fn6g7wf",
"fn6pa76"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Your rent payment doesn't really say anything about how you manage money. A person can rent a room in a crackhouse for $50 a month or they could rent a two story condo in New York for tens of thousands of dollars a month. Just telling you this doesn't tell you how much money that person makes - you can make *assumptions*, but it's easier to deal with actual facts (i.e., how much money the person actually makes and can therefore actually afford) rather than guessing based on their living circumstances.\n\nMaybe a person pays $3,500 a month on rent, but they only make $4,000. The bank has to wonder, if something happens to that person's income, are they going to be able to continue paying the property? Are they going to be able to maintain it?",
"This is just my beliefs.\n\nMortgages are a little bit more expensive, and have a more logical trajectory. In addition to the cost of the house, you are likely also paying mortgage insurance, as well as taxes and hazard insurance. Being able to afford $1200 in rent doesn't correlate to a $200,000 house because there's so many other factors to consider, and these change pretty much every year.\n\nIn looking at how much mortgage you can afford, it's best to discuss that with your lender, who goes over your finances with a fine tooth comb. \n\nThe history of making payments is like a credit rating. It's good at saying how much they should trust you, but not what you can afford.",
"There's a truism that says, Rent is the maximum you will pay to live there; mortgage is the minimum. When the AC breaks in your rental unit, you don't pay extra to have that fixed. Your landlord has to pay to fix that, and maintenance costs are kind of built into your rent to cover things like that. When the AC breaks in the house that you own, the bank that owns your mortgage is not going to fix it for you. That is an additional out of pocket expense for you. Not to mention other things like furniture and appliances that *might* be included in your rent but are *definitely* not going to be included in purchasing a house.\n\nAdditionally, there are \"hidden\" costs to buying a house. There are inspections and appraisals and lawyer fees and signing fees and taxes and other \"closing costs\". These are *not* part of your mortgage payment. Along with the down payment (and since 2008, it's *very* difficult to get a loan without at least 3% down payment), these are costs that you must be able to afford before you even begin making your mortgage payment, basically as one lump sum. I bought my house for around $100k and after all of those costs and the down payment, I spent probably around $6,000 within a month.\n\nThe point being that you need to have already saved up a bunch of money before you purchase your home. Renting requires a security deposit and fees totaling maybe $2000ish at most, and you get most of that back. Being able to pay your rent doesn't necessarily indicate any ability to save *more* that you will need to buy a house or pay for anything else above your mortgage.\n\nFinally, if you fail to pay your rent, you get get kicked out and the landlord doesn't really lose money. They will take your deposit. At worst, they just *don't* get paid while the unit is empty. When you take a loan from the bank, the bank has paid someone already. You owe them money because they gave that money to whoever owned the house before you. If you fail to pay your mortgage, the bank doesn't get *their* money back. They can take your house and foreclose, but that is a gamble. They probably won't be able to sell the house for enough to make up for what they paid.\n\nSo they are understandably a lot more cautious about who they give the loan too. They want to know for sure that you are capable of taking on this responsibility. You can walk away from a rental property. The term of your lease is probably not more than a year. Even if you break your lease early, it won't cost you more than your security deposit (probably). You *can't* walk away from a mortgage that easily.",
"* Mortgage payments are only part of the cost of owning a home. \n* Home owners also have to pay:\n * Property Tax\n * Home Owner's Insurance\n * Mortgage Insurance (if their down payment wasn't large enough)\n * Regular maintenance on the building/appliances/HVAC system/property\n* When you pay rent, all of these items are built into the price, plus typically some profit for the landlord. \n* So just because you can afford $1500/month in rent, doesn't mean you could afford the rest of the costs associated with operating a property that has a $1500/month mortgage payment requirement."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
22u5bf | why is there no coefficient in e=mc^2, when newtonian equation for kinetic energy is e=1/2mv^2 (and practically every other newtonian work/energy equation has the form e=1/2ab^2)? | I'm assuming it's derived from elsewhere, but its so close to the kinetic energy equation. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22u5bf/eli5_why_is_there_no_coefficient_in_emc2_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgqer70",
"cgqer7s",
"cgqgb7b",
"cgqht7b"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The other formulas are mostly special cases of integrals, which add in the 1/2 coefficient.",
"The relativity equation isn't about kinetic energy. It's about the equivalence between matter and energy, which does not have anything to do with how fast said matter is going. Different consideration entirely.",
"Isn't C^2 a coefficient? It is a constant after all. ",
"This is because the Newtonian equation is derived from momentum of a particle, or P=mv. if you take the integral of that you will get 1/2mv^2. in the case of E=mc^2 it states a correlation between mass and energy. It is also derived from momentum only in a different way.\n\n-------\n \nThe full story:\n\nEinstein used a brilliant thought experiment to derive this equation. He asked himself: \"How can a photon have momentum, but no mass?\". Einstein’s great insight was that the energy of a photon must be equivalent to a quantity of mass - and hence could be related to the momentum.\nEinstein thought about the following experiment: there is a box with a mass in a dark room in a vacuum. inside the box a photo is emitted from the left wall, it travels from left to the right. conservation of momentum states that the box recoils to the left. some time later the photon gets absorbed on the other side of the box, stopping the box. No external forces acted on the box, but the centre of mass has moved, this is a problem. Einstein solved this by saying \"There must be a mass equivalent to the energy of the photon.\"\nIn equation form:\nThe photon has a momentum \n\np=E/c (Maxwell) (1), \n\nthe box recoils according to \n\np=mv (newton) (2).\n\nNext, the box moves, the speed of the box is: \n\nv=delta x/ delta t (3).\n\nWith delta t being the time it takes the photon to travel to the other side. delta x is the displacement of the box. \nWith conservation of momentum we get the following equation: \n\nm * delta x/ delta t = E/c. (4)\n\nthe box is f length L, we can work out delta t:\n\ndelta t= L/c (5).\n\nWhen we substitute this in the momentum conservation equation (4) and rearrange it we get: \n\nm*delta x = EL/c^2 (6)\n\n\nokay we are getting somewere... we need to work out the delta x part. This is quite tricky. we need to assume that the photon **does** have a mass. than we can work out the centre of mass of the system, and we assume that the centre of mass does not change. after a few steps we get: \n\nML = m *delta c (7)\n\nwith M being the \"mass\" of the photon. \n\nIf we substitute 4 into 7 we get:\n\nML = EL/c^2 (8)\n\nRearranging 8 gives us the final awesome equation:\n\nE=Mc^2 (9)\n\n\nMith M being the \"mass\" of the photon. This solves the problem of the changing position of the box.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
42jmnc | why do women have to push so much when birthing a child? | For something that is obviously a natural, and vital, part of the human life, why do women have to put so much concious effort into pushing a baby out? Is it simply a case of hastening the whole process? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42jmnc/eli5why_do_women_have_to_push_so_much_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"czaw3us",
"czawk9c",
"czayk70",
"czb0gyv"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It has to do with our trade off to become bipedal and how we retained the general hip width of our ancestors but our heads/brains are far larger. We give birth horribly, the babies head actually has to spin to even make it through the pelvis, AND we have to incubate for like 6 years to not be considered useless. But what happens after all those hardships is pretty remarkable, I suppose. ",
"Big heads. Women pay the price, unfortunately. Of course nowadays it's a hell lot better with epidurals and C-sections and stuff.",
"Partially because they're lying down. In some cultures, women actually give birth standing up in a squatting position, so that gravity can do some of the work for them. Some say that this is a more comfortable position. \n\nThere are benefits to lying down though. The position of your body will affect how easy it is for the fetus to travel down the birth canal, and it's easier to get into the appropriate position if you're lying down.",
"If you have an epidural (drugs injected into your spine to numb your lower half), pushing is very, very difficult for most. Also, stress. Stress can make the whole event last longer and when you have everyone running in and out of the room and staring at your vagina, that may stress you out some. \n\nAnother factor is whether or not this is the first birth; my first child I was pushing for an hour and five minutes, while my second was out in less than two minutes of pushing. \n\nAnd positioning - kneeling, squatting, and other positions can lessen the pushing time needed because they shorten the birth canal. Lying down flat on your back can actually position the pelvis where it's narrower. \n\nOh, and fear - fear of pain and fear in general. When you push, you know what's going to happen: you're going to have to push this giant headed creature out a very sensitive part of your body. That thought alone makes everything tense up for some women. They're scared of tearing, they're scared of the final result, they're scared that they're going through all of it... \n\nAnd for the tearing reason above, you're not supposed to PUUUUUUSH as hard as you can. Smaller pushes with slower results make it less likely you'll tear, so longer pushing is better for your nether bits sometimes. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
46kqxb | "money market" bank accounts vs. checking or savings | My bank offers all of them. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46kqxb/eli5_money_market_bank_accounts_vs_checking_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"d05tyrv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You're not going to get a good answer to this question without talking to your specific bank.\n\n- Checking accounts are intended for your regular expenses. They typically do not pay interest.\n\n- Savings accounts pay interest, but are limited to six pre-authorized transactions by [Regulation D](_URL_0_)\n\n- Money market accounts are like savings accounts but typically have a higher interest rate in exchange for a larger minimum balance requirement.\n\nTalk to your bank for specifics. They will help you find the best option to meet your goals. If not, find a different bank. (Or better, a credit union!)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.ussfcu.org/limit.php"
]
] |
|
6moeal | why do race cars omit airbags in their cars? | I was talking to a friend about it and he told me that once your reach that level of performance and such, using an airbag would actually be dangerous. If that's the case, why? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6moeal/eli5_why_do_race_cars_omit_airbags_in_their_cars/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk32zpy",
"dk33rad",
"dk342ac",
"dk3984t"
],
"score": [
30,
5,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The purpose of an airbag is to keep your head from slamming against the dashboard and causing an injury. It is necessary because the seatbelts we use do not fully prevent your body from flailing about.\n\nRace car drivers are fully secured with a system of harnesses and don't move as violently during an accident. An airbag would not provide any additional safety.\n\nI'm not an expert, so I'm not exactly sure how it could be more dangerous. Perhaps it would prevent safety officials from getting the driver out of a wrecked car.",
"* racers use a four point harness, so an airbag provides little additional protection\n* if a racer is in a minor collision, the last thing they want is be stunned and have their vision obstructed by an airbag\n* weight is at a premium in racing, there is no reason to keep something in your car you aren't going to use",
"Airbags can cause minor injury when deployed in low to medium speed impacts. Injuries that wouldn't be sustained if airbags are nonexistent in same impact and only standard seat belts are used.\n\nAirbags also cause you to possibly have scrapes on face and broken nose as opposed to concussion and death in high speed impacts.\n\nIt's a mechanism that can produce small injuries that prevents major injuries and/or death. Fair trade-off.\n\nIn normal seat belts, the belt has slack to it to combat chance of your torso sliding under the lap belt and crushing your hips, while the lap belt is slipped up to your upper torso and crushing your rib cage. With slack, your upper torso and center of mass stays topside of the lap belt in an impact. Your torso and neck and head and arms and hands moves towards the steering wheel. Lack of airbag would mean your face ends up in the steering wheel. And the steel steering column behind the wheel.\n\nIn race situations, the seat belt harness used completely solidly holds the torso in the seat. 1 or 2 extra crotch belts holds the torso in place. During impact, your torso doesn't hardly move from the seat. Problem is....in a rollover situation, the 3000 pound car would easily crush your roof in. The second highest crushable object below the roof is your head and your neck, which is above the seat headrest and above the torso that's rigidly held in place by the seat harness. Luckily in a race car you have a steel roll cage to hold up the mass of the car in a rollover. ",
"Fully restrained, a race car driver would never hit the steering wheel like that. Your car's industry-standard 3 point harness is a terrible design, but better than nothing. The airbag is there because in most collisions, you *will* slip out of your shoulder harness and your whole upper body will snap like a whip and hit something, the wheel, dash, center console, or in the worst case, the steel bumper of an ambulance in a side impact on the passenger side. Oddly specific? Happened to my friend's sister. There was no passenger side left when they came to rest, it replaced the center console. The ambulance was at fault. She survived but never recovered.\n\nThere's a .45 cal shell in your harness pulley to cinch it tight in a fraction of a second after the impact to try to compensate for the fact you're probably going to slip out of it anyway. This problem would go away with 4-point harnesses, but the industry as a whole believes the market would resist their adoption short of a mandate by law, not that they're pushing for it - too expensive. Bullet casings are cheaper. Safety 3rd.\n\n > But u/mredding, you can go fuck yourself! We've had 3-point harnesses for decades, generations. Surely, they've proven themselves effective and reliable.\n\nOn front impact tests, yes, but who ever *gets* hit from the front? It's really an uncommon form of accident. Most likely you're either going to get rear-ended or side impacted, where you have the least of all possible protection from the side. From the driver side, you have a sheet metal door - you're dead. From the passenger side, you're open shoulder in your harness from that side, what's it going to do you? Try to hug you into your seat?\n\nBut think about it carefully, if you're likely to *get* hit in the back or side, who does *the hitting*, and from *what direction*? That's right, the 3-point harness protects the prick-tard who actually deserves to die, because the one doing the hitting tends to do it *head on*. You die, and the asshole gets to walk away? If that's the case, I hope I do more barreling into you sons-of-bitches than getting barreled into.\n\nI digress...\n\nTheir biggest concern is the vertebra of the neck separating from the forces involved in the collision. That's how Dale Earnhardt Sr. died, hit the wall so hard his head tried to come off from his spine. F1 and other racing series have employed Hans devices for years, which is designed to protect against this very injury, but typically race car drivers and their teams AND their fans think about safety 3rd, and NASCAR left it as optional until the PR outcry after someone, Dale, died from it. Oh, gee, I guess it CAN happen here...\n\nI don't think air bags pose an additional danger other than an inherent danger being a useless safety system that won't ever have the potential to do anything useful. People modify sports cars all the time, putting in full frames and roll cages, and tie multi-point restraints to it rendering the airbag, and their car's crumple zones, otherwise ineffective. People in modified sports cars tend to die from hitting their bare heads on the cage, under full force because the car can no longer absorb any of the energy transferred in the impact, while taking their street legal race car to the grocery store, thinking they don't need a helmet from here to there and back.\n\nSo in the minimalism of a dedicated and purpose built race car, they're not going to add anything that doesn't add to performance or safety."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d4dvhi | “the vacuum of space.” | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d4dvhi/eli5_the_vacuum_of_space/ | {
"a_id": [
"f0a27xp",
"f0a28nz",
"f0a8vrc"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"A vacuum just means \"an absence of stuff\". Space being a vacuum means that it's almost entirely devoid of \"stuff\". Vacuums can exist on Earth. Imagine a sealed container with nothing in it but air. Now imagine you sucked all the air out. What's in the container now? Nothing. That's what space is.\n\nSounds is vibrations in \"stuff\". Since space has almost no \"stuff\", there's nothing to vibrate, and thus, no sound.",
"Sound is really just s jiggling of atoms. Space, generally speaking, has no atoms at all, so there is nothing to jiggle to carry sound.\n\nRadio waves (which includes light) are jiggling of the electromagnetic field, which *does* exist in space.\n\nAnd objects are atoms, so if we want to throw them into space where there are no other atoms, there's nothing to stop us from doing so.",
"Sound is transmitted by particles bumping into each other and \"passing\" the sound on, without particles there is no sound. Light is an electromagnetic wave which doesn't require a transmission medium and in fact reaches the fastest speed in a vacuum."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2m98en | how/when does a female body know when an egg has been fertilized? | I was just wondering, what signals the body to prepare for pregnancy? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m98en/eli5howwhen_does_a_female_body_know_when_an_egg/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm239ob"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Shortly after an egg is fertilized, it travels down the fallopian tube into the uterus where it binds to the uterus wall. When it binds, this triggers the release of several different hormones, and signals the brain and body to start preparing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1ywilf | why do my shoes get squeaky? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ywilf/eli5_why_do_my_shoes_get_squeaky/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfoeptm",
"cfoeqdi",
"cfoerwe",
"cfoeyf4",
"cfofq99",
"cfofwqm",
"cfogt8v",
"cfogy4y",
"cfokrsv"
],
"score": [
5,
127,
36,
14,
2,
54,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of times its the insert inside of the shoe making the squeak.",
"glue in the soles breaks, and two pieces of rubber then rub against each other.\n \n \n..at least that's i've been told.",
"I don't know for sure, but a good solution is to hide them under the floorboards. ",
"Sounds are vibrations, so when your shoe squeaks, it is because it vibrated a a high frequency. Because the bottom of your shoes are probably made of rubber, it is because the rubber was stretched and then it contracted back due to the tension that was created due to the stretching. This movement made enough of a vibration to move the air particles around it and reach your ear and you were able to hear it.",
"You must oil them. ",
"My father owns a shoe repair shop and I worked there for years.\n\nThis can be very complicated. Sometimes parts of the sole can come unglued and cause squeaking other times it's the heel that comes loose causing the squeaking. \n\nThere are also several parts in between the sole and the uppers that can also cause squeaking. The shank can snap if the shoe was bent or some of the cork can come undone. These are annoying things that would require a shoe to be re-soled (a big job for shoes)\n\nThe upper of the shoe can also cause sqeeking. If it wear outs or become too tight that can also causing squeeking. (weird material used on shoes)\n\nThe point I am trying to make is that squeaking can be caused by so many things and sometimes it may never be determined. We have taken apart expensive shoes and reassembled them only to find the squeaking return. ",
"Had a pair of Jordan's that did this. I was told that cracks develop in the rubber over time. I pulled out the insoles and put some baby powder in and reinserted insoles. About 5 min later the squeaking stopped. That fix lasted a few months and then I had to add a little more baby powder and boom! Fixed again. Hope that helps. ",
"Best and easiest solution is baby powder. Sprinkle some in between the soles and the shoes and voilà! ",
"This worked for me. \n\nRemove the insole, most aren't glued down, and dump a tablespoon or so of baby powder in the shoe. Shift around so the powder distributes itself well, dump out any excess, then reinsert the insole. No more squeaky shoes!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9twbdm | why do the effects of weed occur? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9twbdm/eli5_why_do_the_effects_of_weed_occur/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8zsydq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Weed acts as something called a ‘vasodilator’, which means it makes your blood vessels go wider, including in your eyes. Because of this you get more blood going through these vessels, and voila - bloodshot eyes.\n\nAs for the other effects, in your brain and all over your body your cells have receptors on them called cannabinoid receptors. THC, the stuff in weed that gets you high, gets itself into these receptors, overthrowing their normal activity. Because these cannabinoid receptors are pretty much everywhere in the brain, each segment of the brain responsible for doing different stuff is affected. \n\nFor example, the amygalda, usually responsible for regulating fear and anxiety, may be affected by weed causing paranoia and increased anxiety. The neocortex, usually responsible for feeling, movement, and more complicated thoughts, is affected by weed causing an altered state of mind and strange sensations."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1ohe1t | how did they see atom particles 100s of years ago. also how do you see atoms in air ? | How did they see atom particles 100s of years ago. Also how do they see atoms in air ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ohe1t/eli5how_did_they_see_atom_particles_100s_of_years/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccryck3",
"ccrz1ja"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"They didn't, and we don't. It takes a laboratory full of modern, high-tech equipment to see things that small.",
"The history of the idea of an atom goes back thousands of years and was originally a philosophical one--there was the question of how many times you could cut a material in half and still have two halves made of the same stuff. From the macroscopic perspective it looks like you could continue indefinitely, but infinities are uncomfortable, so this notion of an indivisible unit of a substance was born. There were others who held the opposite philosophy--that a substance could be broken down to arbitrarily small pieces, but the debate remained unsettled for millennia. \n\nFrom that background of \"there ought to be a smallest unit of a substance\" things progressed more scientifically. The first strong evidence for the idea of atoms came from the foundations of chemistry, where early chemists started to discover the chemical elements. Rather than the traditional \"fire, water, air, and earth\" that had been the elements they discovered that there were dozens of elements that are familiar today--things like iron, oxygen, nitrogen, or carbon. Early chemists discovered the law of conservation of mass (which is not readily apparent under poorly-controlled circumstances, like a log burning--you lose a lot of mass to the atmosphere due to escaping gasses). They then discovered that compounds like CO2 were created by combining specific ratios of elements. This was most easily explained by the idea of matter having an atomic structure--making a single unit of CO2 takes one unit of C and two of O and these units can be called atoms.\n\nLater on experiments were carried out to delve further. For example, J J Thompson discovered the electron through his work with cathode ray tubes (the heart of the device that makes old non-flatscreen TVs work), and thus determined that atoms are not indivisible--they have electrons (Thompson also measured the charge to mass ratio of an electron via an interesting experiment). This opened the door for determining the structure and makeup of the atom.\n\nThe next big step was taken by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden (the pair later created the Geiger counter, which measures radiation), although it is often attributed to their adviser, Ernest Rutherford. They shot a beam of alpha particles (now known to consist of a pair of neutrons and a pair of protons--a helium nucleus) at a sheet of gold foil. If atoms were balls of < substance > (e.g. balls of gold) then the alpha particles were expected to pass through mostly undeflected, but what they found was that there were a number of alpha particles that bounced almost directly back at the emitter, or were deflected to less extreme angles--the result was described as being similar to shooting a mortar shell at a piece of tissue paper and having it bounce back at you. This suggested that the atom was made up of a dense nucleus with electrons around it.\n\nFrom there Neils Bohr went on to declare that electrons must exist in specific, rigid orbits around the nucleus (this led to the Bohr model of the atom, which is likely the one you learned although it is outdated). He postulated that electrons can jump between these orbits and that such a jump results in the emission of a photon of specific energy. This explains the emission lines on a spectrum when you look at an excited gas.\n\nMeanwhile, chemists figured out that the thing that makes an atom be that atom was its affinity for electrons--each atom has a certain number of electrons that it wants to hold on to. Gilbert Lewis was a big name in this field (and Lewis diagrams are still taught to this day). This was based on the idea that each atom has a certain characteristic positive charge in its nucleus (based on experiments by Henry Moseley). Thus, the atom was known to contain protons in the nucleus and electrons in orbit.\n\nThe final piece to the traditional atom was neutrons, which were discovered when precise mass measurement of atoms was made possible by the use of a device called a mass spectrometer. That device uses the fact that if you take an atom and strip off one electron then shoot it through a region with a magnetic field then it travels in a circular arc, the radius of which depends on the charge of the atom as well as its mass. This device allowed scientists to find that a pure sample of an element can be made up of atoms with different masses, but the allowed masses are almost exactly integer multiples of a single number (the \"amu,\" or atomic mass unit). This led to the theorizing of a third component of an atom--the neutron, which contributes nothing to the charge of the atom but does have mass.\n\nMore modern physics has allowed us to break down the proton and neutron into more elementary particles, called quarks, although these experiments are more complicated. Electrons are believed to be an elementary particle (i.e. can't be broken into its constituent parts). The current model for the universe is that quarks are elementary. It is possible, though doubtful at this point, that we will find something that quarks or electrons are \"made\" of, although I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that they aren't fundamental.\n\n******\n\nThe big takeaway from this whole history lesson is that atoms don't have to be seen in order for people to figure out that they exist. The fact that objects around us are made up of atoms has implications that can be seen at a much larger scale. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4vj4fj | what is the gambler's ruin? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vj4fj/eli5what_is_the_gamblers_ruin/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5ys7xb"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It's a collection of statistical and mathematical ideas that together mean the casino always wins. For instance, if you win money and then increase your bet, but then don't decrease it when you lose, you will always go broke eventually. Or, if you are playing a totally fair game like a coinflip and have finite money, but are playing against someone with infinite money, eventually you will lose all of your money even though it was a fair game because they can lose any amount and still not be broke but you can't."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
f45gw0 | why appliances such as an old generation tv or a remote which are not working properly start functioning correctly when hit? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f45gw0/eli5_why_appliances_such_as_an_old_generation_tv/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhoa56z"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The russian way of fixing things is not a consistent way to fix things.\n\nIt could help separating pieces that shouldnt and remove a power issue momentarily but i dont recommend hitting anything."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3fa2w2 | what does bloomberg lp do, and how does the company make so much money? | What does the company do and how do they make so much money? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fa2w2/eli5_what_does_bloomberg_lp_do_and_how_does_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctmodxb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They provide financial information and news to subscribing customers. The primary source of their income is selling access to the Bloomberg terminal. Have you ever seen those fancy, multi-screen views of financial data that every stock broker seems to have on their desk? That's a Bloomberg terminal and it provides real-time information on exactly what's going on in the financial world. The kind of people who need this information are basically willing to pay any price so the subscription fee is very high.\n\nExample photo: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4f2157426bb3f78270000043/busted-bloomberg-news-caught-spying-on-goldman-sachs-through-bloomberg-terminals.jpg"
]
] |
|
5eixd6 | what is ~? | I see the tilde used all the time online at the end of sentences and such (and not in a way to indicate approximately), but have no idea what it's supposed to mean. Someone told me it indicates sarcasm but we have I use/seen people use /s for that.
Ex: I hope it works for you~ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5eixd6/eli5_what_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"dacruj4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It indicates holding a vowel to trail off the sentence rather than just end it. For example rather than writing \"Hellooooo!\" you might write \"Hello~!\".\n\nTechnically apparently this is a \"swung dash\" for what it is worth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8tievc | how my wi-fi is super fast at loading hd movies but really slow at loading a low quality gif? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8tievc/eli5_how_my_wifi_is_super_fast_at_loading_hd/ | {
"a_id": [
"e17p1u3",
"e17p33y",
"e17tgxu",
"e17tiyz",
"e17u75w",
"e17uqtm",
"e17v2ao",
"e17w2og"
],
"score": [
42,
446,
412,
8,
5,
147,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It probably has nothing to do with your wi-fi.\n\nBig streaming services tend to pay a lot to locate servers close to big markets to ensure faster speeds and less congestion. \n\nSome website that hosts gifs probably doesn't do this and there may be a lot of people trying to access data or you may be pretty remote from the server.",
"It's not the speed of the connection, it's the speed of the things on either side.\n\nWith movies your computer is connected to several servers, all of them sending parts of the film to you. Then your computer will start playing the movie when it only has a few seconds already downloaded. This is what buffering refers to. \n\nGifs are usually sent from just one server, and your computer will only play them once it has the full file. ",
"GIFs were a terrible format 10 years ago too, but it has just been the case that they were the lowest common denominator for a long long time; anything could display them. They are space inefficient and pretty bad on your CPU as well. The thing is though, that for the last two or three years, basically every browser and device used on the modern web can support the direct playback of h264 and VP8/9 encoded files. These are much smaller files, even at significantly better quality, and they are designed to be streamed, meaning that full quality playback can begin without the entire file being downloaded.\n\nGIFs probably would have been largely replaced sooner, except that h264 is surrounded by patent hullabaloo and VP8/9 acceleration (this means you have a chip that only handles one thing) is uncommon.\n\nIf you want to learn more:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_",
"In addition to everyone else's comments about multiple servers sending parts of the stream, gif frames are also usually far larger than mp4 frames or other content. Compression ratios of a large gif to mp4 can be 80 to 90% file reduction, and any hiccup delays the playback.",
"There are lots of good answers here, and as you might be gathering it's a combination of things rather than one bullet.\n\nBut there's one I haven't seen posted yet:\n\nTCP vs UDP - two different internet transmission protocols\n\nBasically, streaming services are sent to you via a UDP connection, which is more-or-less \"catch it if you got it, but if not keep playing ball.\" This is why you'll see streaming sometimes skip over a half-second or stutter -- it's because your device didn't catch the the entire transmission, but kept playing even with the hole punched out.\n\nTCP (more likely to be used to transmit a .GIF) on the other hand likes to verify that you got the whole thing. This takes a longer time since both your computer and the server are talking to each other a lot more rather than it would with your computer just listening like it does in UDP.\n\nI hope that's a decent ELI5 of it.",
"Video compression is very complex. \n\nGIF: Each frame is like its own picture.. so if a GIF is 10 seconds long, that's like 15 frames per second x 10 seconds = 150 actual pictures downloaded. \n\nCompressed Video: First full frame (picture) is downloaded. Each consecutive frame is **based** off that first full frame. Whatever **changes** in the next frame, that's the **only** information downloaded, not the whole frame. It's a lot more complicated than that, but that is why videos are a lot more space friendly than GIF's. ",
"Your location means a lot depending on what you are trying to do on the internet.\n\nIf you hop in your car and you need fuel, there are typically many fueling stations near you to pick from and you can get there quickly. However if you want Indian food, depending on your location you may need to drive a ways to get there.\n\nWhen you stream a movie from Netflix, they are using Amazon's infrastructure (AWS) which has streaming servers all over the world, many of which are close to your location so you get it quickly.\n\nWhen you load a GIF from a website like imgur or giphy, their servers are not as widely distributed and not as close to your location, so it loads slower.",
"Animated GIFs are technically a video format, as they do use parts of previous frame to construct the current one. They're best used for short flat animations, like pieces of old Disney cartoons. Anything with shadows and color gradations increases the size astronomically as the format now has no perfectly identical pieces of previous frames to re-use, such as blocks of flat-colored dresses or sky, etc.\n\nFar as compression goes, GIF is as primitive as it gets. Even the MPEG-1 format, old as time, was incredibly sophisticated compared to a GIF. It split the image into pieces and attempted to recognize and track re-usable ones. You could fit a movie on two CDs with MPEG-1 format (it was called a VideoCD and was on par with good clean VHS in quality).\n\nMPEG-2 was more advanced than MPEG-1, and was used primarily in DVDs. \n\nThen we had DIVX and XVID, which put MPEG-2 to shame and enabling the pirate scene to rip a typical movie into 700mb at 640x*** resolution.\n\nThen H.264 came along. Now a 350mb TV show episode could be compressed into 200mb with a noticeable increase in quality.\n\nH.265 and VP9 are the current leading edge, 25-50% more size-efficient than H.264. It's insane how advanced video encoding has become, the algorithms for recognizing reusable parts of the image bordering on artificial intelligence.\n\nBut all of it started with super simple algorithms of trying to reuse parts of the previous frame, like you see in the ancient, bloated GIF. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression#Video"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3rxujd | do our pets recognize when we kiss them as an act of caring? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rxujd/eli5_do_our_pets_recognize_when_we_kiss_them_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwsaa54",
"cwsfd86"
],
"score": [
81,
3
],
"text": [
"Sort of. Ish. For Dogs.\n\nCanidae lick the corners of the mouths of other canidae higher in the pecking order to show submission.\n\nBy kissing them (around their mouth) you prompt them to lick around your mouth. That is basically how they communicate \"you are my better but we are better off having you as my better\".\n\nSo they do appreciate it, but only on a dog level.\n\nSide note: interacting with your pets at all (for mammals and birds mostly) helps to satisfy their social needs. Even if they don't think that you wuv dem more dan anyting else in da whole wide world, they enjoy having an entity to interact with.",
"For cats ? Just pet them until they orgasm.. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
apa3gc | what is p value and why is 0.05 so important? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/apa3gc/eli5_what_is_p_value_and_why_is_005_so_important/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg6slqw",
"eg6t51c",
"eg6uj6z",
"eg6vkgs",
"eg70vsm",
"eg71q7m",
"eg729b0",
"eg748px",
"eg7fxw1",
"eg7hble",
"eg8g2um"
],
"score": [
5,
1710,
11,
6,
116,
29,
2,
36,
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
" a **p**\\-**value**helps you determine the significance of your results. ... The **p**\\-**value** is a number between 0 and 1 and interpreted in the following way: A small **p**\\-**value** (typically ≤ 0.05) indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, so you reject the null hypothesis.",
"When doing studies that have some probability factor involved in it (say randomly sampling people), there is a chance that you may conclude a fact about something simply because of random chance in your study. Say for example it can happen that you flip a coin 4 times and every time it lands on heads. And then you conclude that all coin flips must land on heads as a result of that, which is wrong. This happened because of purely random chance.\n\nA p value denotes the probability of your experiment happening the way it did the way it did. A p value of 0.05 means there is a 5% chance that the results you got support your conclusion not because there is a bias for some reason towards such results (say a coin is heaver on one side than another) but because of just dumb luck. \n\n0.05 is just known as the gold standard for concluding that something is \"statistically significant,\" that is probably didn't happen because of dumb luck. But smaller p values are better, and should be possible to reach if there is a true correlation although this generally means doing a more expensive study.",
"What a P value is has been well explained in several peoples’ comments, and I think it is important to note that the definition of a P value is a well established statistical parameter supported by lots of math; it’s a cornerstone of basic comparative statistics. \n\nThe importance of a 0.05 P value is much more philosophical. A simplified explanation (as explained in the other comments) is that a P value of 0.05 means that there is a 95% chance that the differences between the two things being compared are real differences. It’s the litmus test for “significant” differences. The importance of 0.05 is somewhat arbitrary and different comparisons may be better supported by different definitions of “significant differences”. \n\nFor example, if you’ve got a preliminary cancer study in mice and you know there is a lot of variation in the mice and you’ve got a smaller sample size (5 mice per group), P=0.08 might be a reportable outcome and worth following up as long as you are honest with describing the context of the experiment and it’s limitations. On the opposite side, physics experiments can be extremely precise with little variation in the methods and measurements. A P value of 0.05 may be nowhere near small enough to be reportable; they may be holding out to consider 0.00001 “significant”. It really depends on the full context of the experiment.",
"P-values are used to suggest that a result of an experiment is statically significant, and a sub 0.05 P-value is a frequently used practice to suggest a true correlation.\n\nCrashCourse give an excellent [overview of P-Values](_URL_1_) as well as a lot of other useful applied statistics, I would definitely recommend due to their easily digestible content.\n\nIt is important to note that P-values are only important if decided they are important; it definitely does not guarantee that something is statistically significant, but it does give a good indicator. This is unfortunate, as [P-hacking](_URL_0_) is a common practice and for someone not overly inquisitive about the scientific practice of an experiment can fall for believing it to have found a genuinely true correlation.",
"P- Values are one of the most commonly used tools for statistical testing, but also one of the most misunderstood. Most people summarize a P-Value *incorrectly* as the \"likelihood that the results from your data do not show a true correlation and are just random chance.\" We would love to know that number (because then we could be much more confident in whether or not our data was pointing to a real connection between the test and the outcome), but we can't know that. No amount of data will tell us our error rate.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nA P-value *actually* tells us **the likelihood that you observe this outcome in your data given that your counter-assumption is true** (i.e. a true null hypothesis). Remember that in statistical testing, you have an assumption you are studying (for example, let's assume that smoking cigarettes makes you live longer) and the opposite of that assumption (smoking does not make you live longer). The assumption is called your hypothesis and the counter-assumption is called your null hypothesis. In a statistical test, we make a conclusion by *rejecting the null hypothesis*, or being able to confidently say that the opposite of our study's assumption is NOT true. I know it's confusing that statisticians take a double-negative approach, but it's the best we can do given the limits of what we can do with our math. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nNow, we know that smoking cigarettes doesn't help you live longer, so the counter-assumption is actually true. But there is a chance that our study will incorrectly show a connection between smoking and a longer life. If we have a P-Value of 0.05 for our data, this means that **given that smoking doesn't makes us live longer, we will still see a connection between smoking and a long life 5% of the time.** \n\n & #x200B;\n\nMost importantly, notice that the statement above tells us NOTHING about the likelihood that our assumption (or counter-assumption) is true (or false). A P-value cannot tell us how confident we are that we got the \"right\" results or how likely it is that our results were due to chance. Given that there is no connection, random chance will will tell us there is a connection some of the time. The percent of times we can expect to get this wrong is the P-Value. ",
"To give an example to help illustrate what others are saying:\n\nYour friend boasts that he has an 80% free throw rate in basketball (if you're unfamiliar with basketball it's like a penalty kick in football/soccer). You are doubtful so you tell him to try 10 free throws in front of you to prove it. He makes 7 out of 10. That's less than 80%, but it's close enough that you don't want to call your friend a liar. This has a P-value of 0.32, meaning your friend, if telling the truth about hitting 80% of free throws, would 32% of the time hit 7 or fewer free throws in 10 attempts. That's pretty likely in the world of P testing.\n\nHowever, if he only makes 1 out of 10, it's still possible for him to have been on a really unlucky streak and still make 80% overall, but the odds are so low that you can confidently call your friend a liar. This has a P-value of 0.000004, meaning if your friend is telling the truth he would miss nine out of ten 0.0004% of the time, or near impossible.\n\nIn this example, the 0.05 P-value cutoff is between 5 and 6 made baskets out of 10.",
"People in here are kinda on the right track, but....\n\nLet's say you have a large group of people at s conference, and you think you notice that people with brown eyes choose an apple for a snack more often than people with blue eyes. You decide to record snack selection (apple or not) and eye colour (brown or blue. You compare the proportion of apple eaters in each colour group, and calculate a p-value. Let's say you observe that 80% of brown eyes people choose apples, but only 50% of blue eyed people do. Of course what you want to know is \"is there a relationship between eye colour and snack choice\".\n\nThe p-value tells you the likelihood that you would observe a difference in the percentage as big as you did, even if there was actually no relationship between eye colour and snack choice. \n\nThe 0.05 value often used as a cutoff to test hypotheses is arbitrary and meaningless. If you are a lay person trying to understand stats and you read something that concludes \"the p-value is statistically significant\", just ignore that source. P-values are arguably the most over and incorrectly used statistical test. ",
"There are a lot of wrong explanations here. P value is **not** the probability of the results occurring by random chance. It's the probability of obtaining the results **if the null hypothesis is true**.",
"Note that the American Statistical Association took the highly unusual step of writing a statement to warn against the widespread misinterpretation and misuse of p-values: [Source](_URL_0_) \n\nUnfortunately, many such misinterpretations are alive and upvoted in this thread. Those of you who are in the know about these matters, please make sure to upvote the answers that correctly describe what a p-value is, and downvote the others. I feel this is an important topic, and we can make a community effort to clear up some misunderstandings.",
"p-values are extremely subtle and I honestly don't know if any amount of explanations would have allowed me to understand them properly when I was 5 years old. I'm not even sure I understand them now. Nonetheless, here's an attempted explanation by example.\n\nSuppose you want to test the hypothesis that a coin is unfairly biased. Your null hypothesis is that it isn't biased (completely fair). Now let's say that you flip the coin 10000 times and see 5150 heads and 4850 tails. How do we tell if this is fair or not?\n\nWell, if the coin was completely fair (null hypothesis), then we can calculate the probability that we'd see a deviation this large in either direction using some straightforward (but tedious) probability calculations. That is, we'll look at the sum of the probability of 5150 heads, 5151 heads, ..., as well as 4850 heads, 4849 heads, ... (for a two-sided test). We can calculate this exactly by summing over the probability mass function of the binomial distribution. In Mathematica:\n\n`1-Sum[Binomial[10000,k]0.5^k 0.5^(10000-k),{k,4851,5149}]`\n\nWe'd find the probability is 0.2788% (don't worry if you don't understand how this calculation works). We can therefore say that \"IF the null hypothesis is true, THEN the probability of seeing a difference at least as large as 300 between heads and tails in 10000 coin flips is 0.28%\". This is a p-value (p = 0.28%).\n\nOkay but here's the critical part. Does this tell us whether the coin was biased (our hypothesis)? NO! (at least not directly). And there are a couple subtleties I want to point to here.\n\nFirst: even if we were lead to believe that we could reject the null hypothesis, this does not automatically mean that our hypothesis is true. Even in this simple example, we would have to rule out hypotheses like \"the person who flipped the coin manipulated it to be biased towards heads (a not unreasonable hypothesis!)\" or \"the person who recorded the results made a mistake (also not unreasonable!)\". In general, there are many other alternative hypotheses we would have to rule out.\n\nSecond: having p=0.28% doesn't even tell us whether the null hypothesis is (probably) false! We say that \"we reject the null hypothesis since p < α = 0.05\", however this is very misleading. In reality, the p-value tells us \"the probability \\[the results we saw being as extreme as they were\\] given \\[the null hypothesis is true\\]\", rather than what we're much more interested in: \"the probability \\[the null hypothesis is true\\] given \\[the results we saw being as extreme as they were\\]\". Notice these two statements are the same except we've flipped the clauses. It's worth reading over this a couple of times until you understand why the second is what we want, but the first is what we get with p-values.\n\nOnce we fully understand these subtleties, we can talk about how scientists use p-values. Essentially, they use them by ignoring the subtleties! They just say \"Okay, well, I think the hypothesis I'm proposing is likely to be true if the null hypothesis is false (this goes against the first subtlety) AND I think that the null hypothesis is likely to only be true if the results of this experiment fall within the range of what we'd expect if the null hypothesis is true (this goes against the second subtlety).\" To tell whether \"the results of this experiment fall within the range of what we'd expect\", they set an accept/reject threshold level - α. If p < α, then the thought is the probability of the null hypothesis is sufficiently low that their own hypothesis is probably true (again, this is NOT correct because of the aforementioned subtleties).\n\nNow let's talk about this threshold level α. Why do we even need it? Why not report just the p-value and say that our hypothesis has a 1-p probability of being true? First, the p-value does not tell us the probability our hypothesis is true (again, see the subtleties...). Second, we often just want to classify hypotheses as either being true or false. The important thing about this threshold level is that in order for it to have any hope of being meaningful, we MUST set its value before we see the p-value. Here, we have a trade-off: set it too low, and we risk a type II error (incorrectly failing to reject a false null hypothesis); set it too high and we risk a type I error (incorrectly rejecting a true null hypothesis). The exact value of α doesn't matter, but 5% seemed reasonable. Again, the exact value doesn't matter but it nonetheless had to be (arbitrarily) chosen.\n\nRecently, there's been a lot of talk about p-hacking in the news. This is unrelated to either of the subtleties I mentioned above. Using the example from above, let's suppose we ran the experiment five times for five different coins and found the following heads - tails differences for each: 130, 170, 200, 140, 90. The p-values for these different runs would be 19.7%, 9.1%, 4.66%, 16.4%, 37.3%, respectively. Notice that four of these don't pass the α = 0.05 level, but one does. If we reported on just that one, we might say we have \"statistically significant\" results that coin 3 is biased, but someone who saw our entire procedure would easily see into our deception. After all, we expect 5% or 1/20 of our runs to pass the α = 0.05 level by design, so the more we do, the more likely it is that one will pass (see [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)). A very similar thing can happen in science. For example, you might look at the correlations between hundreds of different types of foods people eat and their longevities and conclude that certain foods cause increased longevity. But if you do this, you have to correct for the fact you're testing hundreds of hypotheses by reducing α appropriately (for example, using the Bonferroni correction).\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIf you made it this far, you might also be interested in knowing what you'd ACTUALLY need in order to calculate the probability of the null hypothesis given the results being as extreme as they are. That is, how do we get past the second subtlety? This is where we would have to invoke Bayes' theorem: P(null hypothesis | results as extreme as they are) = P(results as extreme as they are | null hypothesis) \\* P(null hypothesis) / P(results as extreme as they are) = p \\* P(null hypothesis) / P(results as extreme as they are). Here, you should read P(A|B) as \"probability of A given B\". So you see that while the expression we're really interested in \"P(null hypothesis | results as extreme as they are)\" is proportional to p, it is not equal to p. However, the additional factor of \"P(null hypothesis) / P(results as extreme as they are)\" is pretty much impossible to figure out objectively, which is why scientists are stuck using p-values. Basically we just hope that with a small enough value for α, the following is true: IF p < α, THEN P(null hypothesis | results as extreme as they are) is small. Now you should be able to understand [_URL_1_](_URL_1_).\n\n & #x200B;\n\nI hope this post was understandable, but even if it wasn't, hopefully I've instilled the proper respect for how subtle and manipulable p-values are and why scientists are becoming increasingly weary of them.",
"True ELI5 explanation: \n\nWhen people try to learn about something new, they make a test for it. \n\nSometimes, they do the test and get the results, and think that they figured out what they wanted to learn. \n\nThe problem is, sometimes those results happen because of dumb luck and what they think happens every time actually doesn’t happen all too often. \n\nSo, we figured out a way to tell how “lucky” a result is, called a p-value. If we get a big p-value, that means what happened was definitely lucky and probably won’t happen every time we do the test. If we get a small p-value, that means what happened probably wasn’t lucky, and will happen every time. \n\nIt’s really really reeeeally hard to prove that something isn’t lucky at all, meaning it has a p-value of 0. So instead, people chose a p-value of 0.05 because that means it’s more than likely not lucky at all and can be repeated by other people to check if you got it right! \n\nNow eat your vegetables and stop asking questions. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx0fAjNHb1M&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNM_Y-bUAhblSAdWRnmBUcr&index=31",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf3egy7TQ2Q&index=22&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNM_Y-bUAhblSAdWRnmBUcr"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108?scroll=top&needAccess=true"
],
[
"https://xkcd.com/882/",
"https://xkcd.com/1132/"
],
[]
] |
||
2jl90x | what happens if someone speaks up against the bride and groom marrying? | Like would the wedding have to stop? Would their opinion even matter? And why was that tradition even made in the first place? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jl90x/eli5_what_happens_if_someone_speaks_up_against/ | {
"a_id": [
"clcrfqu",
"clcrmyv"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Nothing would happen, unless the person actually did have a valid legal reason why the marriage should not take place. The line comes from a 17th century Christian Prayer book. It was phrased \"...if any man can show just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together...\" and was intended for just that - objections based on the law. If one of them was already married, too young, too closely related, etc.\n\nNowadays it is mostly just for use by Hollywood to cause a dramatic pause.",
"The phrase comes from The Common Book of Prayer from 1662, from the Wedding Service. It's now obsolete and omitted from many weddings. Today, the legality of a marriage is determined prior to the ceremony. Back in the day, however, being married by a priest in a church and taking a oath under god was what made the marriage contract legal and binding. A long time ago, there were a lot more ways a marriage could be deemed unlawful. Examples:\n\nThe man or woman already being married\nThe man or woman having taken a vow of celibacy\nThe man or woman being too closely related (think long lost siblings)\nBeing incapable of sexual intercourse (a marriage had to be consummated to be legal)\nBeing kidnapped or forced to wed \nNot being baptized\nHaving killed your spouse. \n\nKeep in mind, it was more difficult to have accurate record keeping covering a larger geographic area. A swindler or con man would have a much easier time having multiple wives in different towns ignorant of each other. Or abducting a girl and forcing to wed three towns away. Or a women could have taken vows as a nun in one place, then years later try to marry someone. \n\nSo, speak now or forever hold your peace was another way of saying \"if anyone knows if this might be illegal, here's your chance to speak up before it's too late\"\n\nA scenario in which someone objects to a marriage because they are in love with the bride or groom is something that was made up for dramatic effect in movies. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7owzxn | why are the edges around animal's eyes black? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7owzxn/eli5_why_are_the_edges_around_animals_eyes_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"dscw7yh",
"dsd3bpn",
"dsd88ds"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sort of like why some us football and baseball players have black stripes on their upper cheeks, it helps reduce the glare from the sun. \n\n_URL_0_",
"The color black absorbs most wavelengths of light and reflect very few. So if the fur or skin around your eyes is black, not very much light reflects off of it into your eyes. This reflected light is called glare. Glare reduces the ability to see objects you're looking at by essentially drowning out other light. \n\nImagine trying to look and see what's behind a flashlight in a relatively dark room. It's pretty hard. The light shining in your eyes makes everything else seem darker or harder to see. This an exaggerated example of what having light colored skin or fur around your eyes would be like.",
"If you look at human eyes you'll notice that we have a large white part (sclera) than a small iris (the colored parts) and smaller pupil (the smaller black part) than most animals.\n\nMost animals don't show any sclera (white part) unless they are showing submission or fear. The main reason is the white part is easy to spot on an otherwise dark face (dark fur, dark eyes). Also animals have much larger eyes which would make the white part stand out even more.\n\nThe black around the eyes also aides in camouflage. Most animals with fur/feathers have a light skin (pale/pink/white) that would give away where the animal is looking, especially if they have eyes on the front of their face (like a dog) and not on the sides (like a horse or cow).\n\nHaving the otherwise pale skin visible around their eyes would make them more obvious... so the skin has turned black/dark."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_black"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1r4g6t | how are researchers always discovering that psychedelic drugs could be beneficial to those with certain mental disorders when the drugs themselves are illegal? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r4g6t/eli5_how_are_researchers_always_discovering_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdjh91v",
"cdjhlvl"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Illegal for YOU. Not illegal for someone with a licence to procure or make them. ",
"Governments in some instances allow controlled experimentation under strict supervision."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
92w04w | how do our eyes coordinate to look at the same point and produce one image? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/92w04w/eli5_how_do_our_eyes_coordinate_to_look_at_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e38rqyt",
"e38t737",
"e38xpka",
"e39zwxz"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There are tiny muscles in the eye socket to control your eyes movement. Due to evolution and natural select of ability to control where we look and how much control we have over fast-twitch muscle fibers, we are able to have our eyes turn to the same focal point and our brain merge the images together to produce our visual stimuli.",
"There are 3 separate functions going on here..\n\nFocus, Convergence, and Bias/Brain function filling in the blanks. \n\nEach eye can focus individually, near or far etc. In addition to focus our eyes converge onto the selected point of view. (the angle of convergence is what gives us depth perception).. and our brain can fill in the rest. \n\nWith a little training it's possible to use both eyes simulaniously but separately. eg. military - master eye focused down rifle scope + slave eye open too (usually unfocused) to aid up close situational awareness",
"A little side note on this: because our eyes are a small distance apart, they see a slightly different image. Our brain processes the differences and then combines the images to produce stereo vision, which allows us to perceive depth and distance. This is why if you close one eye, your depth perception is reduced and relies on color, overlap, size, etc. ",
"Another note in addition to what's been said, is that you typically have a dominant eye. Your brain prioritizes the input from that eye as the default image you see, and really mostly uses the other eye for depth perception and peripheral vision on that side. \n\nEye dominance doesn't always match hand dominance, its common to be \"cross-dominant\" where the dominant eye and hand are on opposite sides.\n\nYou can easily figure out your dominant eye with this test:\n\nHold your arm straight out in front of you, and make a circle with your fingers.\n\nLook through that circle at a distant object (a tree outside or something)\n\nSlowly move the circle closer to your face, keeping it centered on the object you were looking at, with both eyes open.\n\nWhen you reach your face, you should automatically bring the circle to one of your eyes. That is your dominant eye, the one that was doing the \"looking\" through the circle.\n\nYou can confirm this by holding the circle at arms length again, and closing the eye you just determined. The image you see through the circle should shift or jump a bit, as your brain makes the switch to your non-dominant eye, now that your dominant eye is closed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3eicpb | what does toner do in a printer, and why is it so expensive? | What the hell does toner do? I've looked it up, but only get vague things like "toner forms the text on the paper", which is basically just a description of what a printer should do. So can anyone explain to me what toner does, and why does it cost so much? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eicpb/eli5_what_does_toner_do_in_a_printer_and_why_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctf84hl",
"ctf852a"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a drum inside the printer. When you print something, a laser is pointed at the drum, and as it plays over the surface creates areas of different electrical charge.\n\nWhen the drum is passed through the toner, the toner sticks to parts of the drum that did not have the laser light on them (implying that the laser actually shines a negative image of what you're printing onto the drum).\n\nThen the drum is brought into contact with the paper and the toner is \"fused\" by use of heat that melts it, causing it to change from a powder to a liquid that infuses the fiber of the paper, then cools and solidifies.\n\nAs to its price, well- that's because it's not the cheapest stuff to make, requires some pretty precise manufacturing processes, and most of all, because the market will bear the cost.\n",
"Toner is exactly what you just said. Toner is, in fact, powdered ink. \n\nSo, when you print something out of a laser pointer, what you see on the page is fused toner. \n\nIf you want a bit of a broader explanation of how laser printers work: the laser creates a static charge which causes the toner powder to attract and attach to the page. A fuser then permanently bonds the toner to the paper. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3yogr3 | once melted why can't snowflakes turn back into snow. | Was watching the weather forecast the other day and the weather person indicated once a snowflake has melted it cannot turn back into a snowflake. Copied from the weather blog: "As the snowflakes fall through [a warm layer of air higher in the atmosphere] they melt. Once a snowflake has melted, it cannot turn back into a snowflake. Scientifically impossible. Why?
Source of the weather blog: _URL_0_
I searched for similar posts and had no luck finding the answer. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yogr3/eli5_once_melted_why_cant_snowflakes_turn_back/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyf6ksy",
"cyf6wvj",
"cyfcgrl"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They can be turned into snowflakes if they are formed in the same way, but snowflakes only form the way they do because they are grow from tiny droplets freezing high up in the air. If they are on the ground or in a big falling rain-drop, they will freeze into far less organized and symmetrical ice sheets or pellets. Snowflakes need very specific conditions to form and high up in clouds is pretty much the only place you find those conditions. If the snow melts into water, then evaporates, forms clouds, THEN the water droplets in the clouds can turn back into snowflakes. We just tend not to look that far into the water cycle.",
"A snowflake starts when a bit of water freezes onto a dust particle and crystallizes. As it continues to fall, more water crystals form, building on the surfaces of the crystals, which is why they have symmetrical shapes. If the built up snowflake melts on the way down, you just have one blob of water/ice. Freezing it again would just make a hail stone. To make a snowflake, it has to build up like it did originally.\n\nEdit: typos",
"Too much complicated icy science on other comments. Or maybe I'm just tired.\n\nAnyways, that stuff does its snowflake thing higher up I think.\nOnly way is to recreate that environment I'd bet or let the melted flakes evaporate.\n\nTechnically, they can turn back into snow because many will find their ways back into the sky."
]
} | [] | [
"http://weatherblog.kshb.com"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
79aasz | heavy elements were ejected from the sun when it went supernova at the end of its previous generation. when this ejecta coalesced to form earth, how did elements of the same type gather together (in the form of ore veins) instead of getting evenly dispersed throughout the earth? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/79aasz/eli5_heavy_elements_were_ejected_from_the_sun/ | {
"a_id": [
"dp0d6zl",
"dp0ddyl",
"dp0he3i"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"There are a variety of processes at work here. For ore veins, consider a glass of hot water. This water can dissolve and absorb a large amount of salt.\n\nAs it cools, its capacity to hold salt is reduced and, over time, the salt will precipitate out of the water and collect at the bottom of the glass.\n\nWhen the Earth was molten, we can expect a rough ordering of material based on density and abundance with an otherwise even distribution of elements.\n\nAs the Earth cools, a variety of processes would result in some of these elements and materials being precipitated out. Just as the salt in a glass settles and collects at the bottom, we would expect the precipitation mechanisms for other things to result in the collection of the precipitate together forming veins of ores, crystals, and other such features.",
"Heavy elements weren’t ejected from our sun, they were part of a star that came before the sun, and were part of the explosion that happened at the end of its life. \n\nWhen those elements coalesced through a combination of gravity and mutual attraction (static) in a new system, most of them fell to the center of the solar system (99%!) and formed the star itself. The little leftover amount formed a [protoplanetary disk](_URL_0_).\n\nThese elements went through the same process of gravitational attraction and static attraction to coalesce into smaller bodies that couldn’t under fusion. This process (in the absence of the dusty, protoplanetary disk) is still ongoing, to some extent, because comets and asteroids still hit each other and larger bodies, but for the most part the mass in the solar system is already aggregated. \n\nSo now that you understand a bit how the planets were formed, we can talk about the heavier metals...\n\nSometimes they are pushed out of the center core of the earth, where the overwhelming majority of Earths heavy metals ended up sinking to when the earth was mostly molten liquids. This happens via tectonic and volcanic action. \n\nSometimes they come from space! An object high in heavier elements and metals hits earth and liquifies on landing, these metals are subsequently stuck on top of the lighter, floating metals because they cool off and solidify before they can sink. Think: a penny sitting on top of an ice cube. \n\nIt’s also interesting to note the elemental composition of the inner and outer planets are different. The outer planets have much more lighter elements in them, proportionately speaking. \n\nedit: cleaned up some spelling errors, added a wiki link.",
"A) While the heavy elements that make up the solar system were ejected from a star, it wasn't our sun. In fact it wasn't necessarily a single star: it could be a mix of several exploding stars, all mixed together.\n\nB) The collection of minerals in the Earth's crust happened after the planet formed, and was caused by various geological and chemical processes. Imagine mixing up sugar and sand in a cup. Pour water in to dissolve the sugar, mix, then pour the liquid into another cup and let the water evaporate. Now you've got a cup of sugar and a cup of sand. This sort of thing (often, but not necessarily involving water) sorts and organizes elements in the Earth's crust."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk"
],
[]
] |
||
4ukv0n | why are there a lot of indian movies available to view on youtube while there are hardly any hollywood movies available to watch? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ukv0n/eli5_why_are_there_a_lot_of_indian_movies/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5qixdb"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Copyright. Indian movie companies may not even be aware that YouTube exists, and won't issue DMCA/takedown notices.\n\nAmerican companies are very much aware of YouTube and they, or an automated process, will take down content.\n\nTo put the situation in reverse, if someone takes your movie and uploads it on [Niconico](_URL_0_) (aka, Japaneese YouTube), you're not going to issue them take down notice because you don't even know it exists. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niconico"
]
] |
||
51zw5x | what is a whistleblower and why do they get in trouble with the government if they're exposing the corruption in the government | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51zw5x/eli5_what_is_a_whistleblower_and_why_do_they_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7g8183",
"d7g871p",
"d7g8ar5"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because things that are a public good are sometimes illegal. This is usually the case when the public good in question would negatively impact politicians or their financial backers.\n",
"In general, a whistleblower exposes publicly some failure or corruption or illegal activity of an organization. In companies and most cases in federal organizations, it's illegal to retaliate against someone who does this, especially if they reported something illegal to the authorities. \n\nIn the specific case of Edward Snowden, the issue is that the information he published was classified, and it's illegal to release classified info to anyone not authorized to view it. People are also saying he should be tried for treason, saying that he was aiding enemies of the US by releasing that info. He believes what he did was right, and fled the country to avoid being tried. ",
"A whistleblower is someone who goes public with some sort of issue that some body that they're part of is trying to keep hidden.\n\nSometimes they may have been legally bound to not disclose information, which they defy to tell the public, because they believe the public has a right to know.\n\n# For the case of Edward Snowden\n\nThere are two ways to look at is:\n\nEither the government is corrupt and isn't interested in the public good...\n\nOr the government disagrees with Edward Snowden in what is in the public interest, and truly believes that a secret surveillance program is in the public interest because it keeps them safe.\n\nEither way, the government argues that Edward Snowden is actually a bad-guy because his information leak allowed terrorists to learn how the surveillance program works, so they can find ways around it.\nWhether they actually believe this is true, or whether they're just creating lies as part of a propaganda effort to justify trying to lock up a whistleblower who is a danger to their corrupt scheme is a matter for interpretation.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5wuvth | why did it take so long for human's artistic skills to develop? | In the past we had cave paintings, hieroglyphics, Roman sculptures, etc...
All were impressive in their own right, but why did it take so long for humans to develop such detailed and 3 dimensional drawings as we have today? Especially considering how detailed and realistic many ancient sculptures were. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wuvth/eli5_why_did_it_take_so_long_for_humans_artistic/ | {
"a_id": [
"ded2d7s",
"ded8ifc"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"For an accurate painting you need a flat canvas which will hold the paint, a paint brush to apply the paint exactly where you want it to go and quality paints which have the required colours and consistency.",
"It's also a matter of aesthetics, too. People have always had the ability to draw in perspective and do observational drawing, but on occasion the stylistic choices limit their prevalence. The best example is that the maniera greca - works of Cimabue, for example, all of those kind of weird, wonky looking paintings of the Virgin Mary and other paintings from ~1200 - was a deliberate choice. The church decided that observational drawing was unimportant, because that was distracting, and so had this sort of consistent way to render Jesus and Mary and whoever else an artist would draw. In fact, the return of observational drawing and painting returned with saint Francis of Assisi, who said that people should be able to relate to artwork depiction the bible, and so encouraged a more naturalistic approach to drawing instead of... well, the particular ugliness of the maniera greca."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3k4le7 | what is the reason for the extremely rare occurrence where you suddenly feel very close to someone you just met, almost as if you'd known them before? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k4le7/eli5_what_is_the_reason_for_the_extremely_rare/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuuu55v",
"cuuw7nx",
"cuuyjsk"
],
"score": [
21,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"What's happening is that this person reminds you of someone else so strongly that you get the mis-impression that you actually know them even you really don't. ",
"I call it the Fellow Traveler Effect. It's usually some combination of core ways to see the world reflected in another.\n\nYou'll find children of addicts zeroing in on other children of addicts at a party because of subtle body language and when conversation starts a way of looking at the world that was similarly shaped. \n\nAnother way it can manifest is that a person you've felt deeply connected to has a similar core look and outlook to the person you've just met.",
"Only happened to me once. It was like a older time traveler me.\nThis guy was like 100 years old and getting new tires on his car."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
255l5h | ball-bearing sound | Why sometimes when I 'click' / stretch my back and I can hear (in-side my body) what can only be described as the sound of tiny ball bearings sliding down a metal tray?
It's really bizarre, am I going mad or is this a genuine medical thing? If someone could explain it that would be awesome, because Google sure as hell can't. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/255l5h/eli5_ballbearing_sound/ | {
"a_id": [
"chdwqw3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's in your ears right? If so, that's your ear muscles. Muscles make a little noise when they do work because they vibrate. So, you're the muscles in your ear area work."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
asbv78 | when my stomach feels terrible, why does exhaling seem to make me feel better? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/asbv78/eli5_when_my_stomach_feels_terrible_why_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"egt607r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Try some ginger pills or ginger tea. It'll at least help with the cramping and the nausea if it doesn't help with the barfiness"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
359qnb | why do i have to negotiate a price when im buying a new car as opposed to all new cars just having a bar-code and everyone paying the same price? why cant i negotiate the price of a shirt im buying at walmart? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/359qnb/eli5_why_do_i_have_to_negotiate_a_price_when_im/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr2cqx2",
"cr2cygz",
"cr2gel9",
"cr2isx9",
"cr2jlyx",
"cr34pqf"
],
"score": [
51,
12,
11,
2,
39,
2
],
"text": [
"You can negotiate a shirt at Walmart. Nothing is stopping you, there is no difference. Price tags and ads for cars are the same as they are for a shirt, they are merely an invitation for an offer. Except with a car you usually offer lower until you agreed in a contract, and with a shirt you usually just match their invited offer and make a contract by just paying what the tag said. \r\r\rExcept in reality, we know cashiers don't have that authority and everyone else behind will be pissed off. \r\r\rSociety in general developed a cultural code that we don't bargain for small and plentiful items. It's not worth the time or hassle. What you can and can't bargain for isn't written in stone or law though. You could go to Walmart and probably work out some sort of deal on a TV if you tried. ",
"You can most certainly negotiate over the price. Home Depot for example, floor staff and assistant managers can reduce the price.\n_URL_0_\n\nI've done it at fast food restaurants, when I buy meals for my employees. \"If I buy 5 pizzas, can you give me one free?\" \n\nAs for cars, individual dealers and car brands have tried it in the past, people don't like it. They want to bargain, or try to bargain. \nGM's Saturn had fixed pricing. Some dealers have experimented with \"no haggle\" pricing. CarMax chain has tried no-haggle with used cars, and Auto Nation chain has tried it with new cars.",
"I sort of haggled at home depot for my BBQ, it was the last one of the type and only the floor model was left. I asked for 10% off and a free cover. He said he could only do the 10% and the cover I'd need to pay full price on, but I got it for 20$ less then its marked price. I mentioned that it was the last BBQ and that was the last cover to go for it and BBQ season was ending so they might not sell the cover anyways and I was willing to spend money on the cover just not full price. The rep was really awesome and agreed. It all worked out, I got what I thought was a fair deal and they sold a decent BBQ. Sometimes shopping in person and haggling is cheaper than online.",
"Realistically the days of haggling for cars is pretty much over. There are way too many tools available to find out if your being gouged. You just look up what the average price for that car in your area is, take three thousand off, and go from there. \n\nWhere you get screwed is in financing. When buying a car it's way better to get independent financing from your own bank than the dealer. Often times the salesman will give you an okay deal, but the finance guy erodes that away if you aren't paying attention. It's way better to agree on the price, then start the paperwork and tell them you won't be needing there financing. ",
"A long time ago, before this internet fad had really caught on, car dealerships worked like this. They bought a car for X (invoice price), offered it for sale at Y (MSRP), and then negotiated with buyers to seller it for Z, something higher than X but less than Y. This was a great business model because the dealer knew the invoice price and MSRP but the buyer only knew the MSRP and had no information about the invoice price. This gave the dealer an information advantage that allowed them to negotiate better prices with buyers.\n\nYears went by and then Al Gore invented the internet, letting people quickly and easily share information. One of the things people decided to share was the invoice pricing of cars! Now car buyers could do some research and know both the MSRP AND the invoice price of a car before buying. This gave them the same information as the dealer thus eliminating the dealer's information advantage during negotiations. This made the dealers sad because they made less money.\n\nSo what was the car dealership industry going to do? They needed a way to reestablish their information advantage over consumers and they did so by obscuring the true cost of the cars they sell. That's right, the \"invoice price\" you can find on any car website is a fiction. Yes, that is what the dealership paid for the car, but NO it does not in any way equate to the dealership's marginal cost.\n\nOne simple tactic that every car maker uses now is called the \"holdback\". This is a rebate paid to a dealership every time a car is sold. Most manufacturers pay 2% but some use 3%. That means every time a Honda dealer sells an Accord with an invoice price of $25,000 the dealership gets a check for $500. What then is the true cost of the car? Is it the $25,000 I looked up at _URL_0_ or is it $24,500 marginal cost of the dealer? (Hint: It's not $25,000)\n\nThis practice works well enough but it's a fixed percentage of any sale and it's also widely know outside the dealership world. So the manufacturers and dealerships created another system to give information advantage back to the dealers. A substantial portion of dealership profits comes from incentive programs. These programs are temporary, always changing terms, and highly lucrative. An example might be if dealership A sells 500 cars this quarter we will give you a $500 bonus per car or if dealership B improves their sales numbers by 10% this period year over year they'll earn $50,000.\n\nThat first example is a real program that was run a number of years ago by a major manufacturer. Think about what that means. If dealership A sells 499 cars this quarter they get nothing. If they sell 500 cars this quarter they get a check for $250,000. What is the marginal cost for the 500th car? It sure ain't $24,500. These programs are always running and always paying substantial profits to dealers. How can any car buyer hope to have any idea what programs are operating at which manufacturers at any given time? Even more important how can any car buyer know the specific progress toward any particular program of any specific dealer? You can't, you have no information, and the dealer has full information. This restores their information advantage and they can once again easily negotiate with you.\n\nIn effect the invoice pricing you see on the web is true but the numbers are artificially inflated by the manufacturer and the extra profits are routed to the dealers not on individual sales but in aggregate via incentive programs. What's worse is that every car buyer who does their research on invoice pricing thinks they have leveled the playing field. The only thing worse in a negotiation than not knowing information is knowing wrong information. If you think invoice price is a good deal the car dealer wants you to come in and take advantage of you because you couldn't be more wrong.\n\nWhat's a car buyer to do? You can only gain information about a dealer's true marginal cost buy asking them. You start an auction, pick six local dealers,call them all up, and ask them for their best price. As others have said make sure to ask them for their total, out the door, everything included price. Make sure they know you are a real buyer, tell them you'll be absolutely be walking into some dealer that afternoon to buy a car. Make sure you list exactly the model, trim, options, and color you want. Never say anything about prices, just ask for their best offer, write it down, and then move on to the next. You can go back to the best offers and give them an opportunity to improve. Believe me, you'll very quickly get a sense for who is eager to sell the car and who isn't. Some dealers will tell you to go pound sand. Just move on. It's a quick call and no sweat off your back. Never set foot inside a dealership unless you are there to test drive or to finalize a deal with a price you've agreed to over the phone. As others have said never talk about financing or trade ins until after you've agreed to purchase the car for a specific price.\n\nI've done this for the past few cars I've bought and it's incredibly simple and effective. I bought a Kia Sorento a few years ago and got initial offers between $2,000 over invoice to $500 under. I ended up getting the car for $1,000 under invoice at the end. I also just bought a Honda Odyssey this past Saturday. I ended up paying $3,300 less than invoice for the car with less than an hour of work sitting in my living room. ",
"Because the kind of person who shops for clothes at Walmart, isn't the kind of person who know how to negotiate car prices."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://consumerist.com/2012/12/07/home-depot-employees-insider-tips-for-price-matching-and-getting-discounts/"
],
[],
[],
[
"edmunds.com"
],
[]
] |
||
145yj7 | whats the problem with israel defining itself as a jewish state ? | There are many islamic and christian states, Many states and countries have a state set relgiion, some countries like saudi arabia even tax people not belonging to the state religion and ban them from parts of the country (access to mecca and medina to non muslims is prohibited) with clear legal discrimination against people not belonging to the state religion.
_URL_0_
Denmark, Iceland and Norway all have state churches which are part of the goverment, The church of england is part of the monarchy and therefore part of the political establishment.
So what is the problem with israel ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/145yj7/eli5_whats_the_problem_with_israel_defining/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7a5v1j",
"c7a6nz6",
"c7a6uo4",
"c7af0dg"
],
"score": [
11,
5,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Lots of people *also* have a problem with states being defined as explicitly Islamic or Christian.",
"The problem is that Judaism in this context is not only a religion but also an \"ethnicity\".\n\nSo it would be more like the US defining itself as white christian nation.",
"It is difficult to answer this question in an unbiased way, because the question itself is (maybe unintentionally) loaded.\n\nThere are states where Christianity has some kind of special constitutional role, often for historical reasons. For example the European monarchies you mentioned. It should be noted that in everyday life, this special role often means very little nowadays.\n\nAnyway, the difference is that these states do not claim to represent Christianity. That is because the Christian religion sees itself as a faith for all people, and its followers often try to convert others to their beliefs for this reason.\n\nIn contrast, the state of Israel claims to represent all of Judaism. This is possible because unlike Christians, Jews do not try to gain followers. There are exceptions, but usually a Jew is a Jew because his or her mother was a Jew.\n\nWhy is that so? It's because Judaism started out as the religion of a particular people who lived in the Eastern Mediterranean (mostly today's Israel) in ancient times. For many of these people, their Jewish religion became inseparable from their cultural identity. This continued or even intensified when a lot of Jews left their homeland for other parts of the world.\n\nFast forward to the late 19th and early 20th century. The Jews had a tough time for the last (roughly) 1.5 millenia, mainly because they would stick to their religion and their traditions, making them seem \"foreign\" in the largely Christian populations around them. With the advent of modern nation states however, Jews got more and more assimilated. Some converted to Christianity, others didn't, but the bottom line is that they now saw themselves as German/French/English first and Jewish second, because they spoke German/French/English and lived almost indistinguishable everyday lives. Lives in which religion played a less and less prominent role.\n\nThere remained a lingering hostility towards the Jews in Europe. People tried to find \"scientific\" reasons for their prejudice and came up with the idea that the Jews were a distinct \"race\", underpinned by the old Jewish identity of religion and ethnicity.\n\nI guess you know the history of the Holocaust even though an ordinary 5-year-old might not. Within years, a large part of the European Jews were murdered, most lost their property, family and/or their home. Crucially, especially the German, Austrian and Italian Jews lost all trust in the countries they used to call their own. The idea of the Jews as a *nation* gained a lot of popularity, and a country was founded in the then-British mandate of Palestine to accomodate such a nation.\n\nThat is how the Jewish state of Israel is different from the \"Christian\" UK: the UK is the nation-state of the British people, of which are or used to be Christian. Before WWI, Germany also had a Protestant state-church headed by the Emperor. Both could coexist because the UK did not represent the Christian Germans and the German Empire did not represent the Christian Brits. Israel aims to represent the Jewish *people*. This is a \"problem\" sometimes because there are Jewish people living elsewhere who do not want that because they are already represented by the country they live in.\n",
"The issue is that Israel encompasses Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a holy city in all three of the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. \n\nNow as far as I know, Christians don't have a problem with it, but Muslims get very upset because in the koran, it is written that Muhammad ascended to heaven at the dome of the rock, which is conveniently located in Jerusalem. So Calling Israel a Jewish state, to muslims, is like saying screw you and screw islam. \n\nI am in support of Israel being a jewish state, and I think Israel is awesome. So it makes me mad hearing about all of the crap they have to deal with daily."
]
} | [] | [
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state-established_religions"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ndrid | why do some people think it's a positive thing to be stupid? | I'e noticed some think being stupid is cool. I never got this trend. I even know people who purposefully dumb themselves down. Any psychological reason for it? I'm thinking maybe because it's the counter of what's expected, and that is "cool". Like rebelling. Alternatively, females like to look helpless. To get guys or something. Is that close? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ndrid/eli5_why_do_some_people_think_its_a_positive/ | {
"a_id": [
"cchm1au",
"cchooj7"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's called conforming bro. Because it is human nature to build ideals more around norms than much anything else.",
"I understood this from another point of view: \"Ignorance is bliss\"."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2tp2ss | why do we say (for example) "take me to church" and "take me home"? why not "take me to home"? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tp2ss/eli5why_do_we_say_for_example_take_me_to_church/ | {
"a_id": [
"co11rji"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"When you're saying \"take me home\" it's more of a direction than a place. Like saying take me away, or take me up, or take me there."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9elsdu | why does a room go dark after the light goes out? where does the light go, and does it take a brief moment for this process to happen, or is it nearly instantaneous the room goes dark after the light goes out? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9elsdu/eli5_why_does_a_room_go_dark_after_the_light_goes/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5prxv0",
"e5ps9mt",
"e5ps9o3",
"e5psbus",
"e5psp8q",
"e5q1ir3",
"e5q2m7g",
"e5q8ctp",
"e5q8qum",
"e5qcjwr",
"e5qd2q9",
"e5qf3au",
"e5qh5gj",
"e5qi0xm",
"e5qi3nx",
"e5qizu9",
"e5qj99d",
"e5ql7fj",
"e5qvwbq",
"e5r541c"
],
"score": [
2,
466,
5,
63,
2,
12,
7,
3,
7,
3,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Think of it like a hose. \n\nThe lightbulb is streaming off photons like a stream of water. They move so fast you can't see them, but they're all around you, hitting you even, all the time. \n\nTurn the light off, you turn off the hose. It goes dark because photons stop, same way water stops coming out of a tap. ",
"Think of it like a hose... and a room made of sponge.\n\nThe light bulb is a hose, spraying water (light) everywhere. The room is a sponge, absorbing the water (light) all the time. \n\nThe moment you turn the light off, it's like closing the faucet to which the hose is attached. It stops spraying water (light) everywhere, the sponge absorbs any water still traveling through the room.\n\nThe water (light) does not vanish instantaneously. It travels until it hits some sponge which absorbs it. It travels extremely, extremely fast, mind you, but it does take a finite amount of time to vanish.",
"Photons are little ripples of energy, and their number isn't conserved as with massive particles. They can reflect under certain conditions, but they usually eventually get absorbed by something. When the light goes out, the relatively few reflecting photons zipping around at that moment are quickly absorbed by something.",
"When photons hit an object, some are absorbed, some are reflected. \n\nEven if you have very bright white walls, some photons are absorbed. For a short while photons will continue to bounce around until they have all been absorbed.\n\nWhen photons are absorbed they transfer energy to the thing that absorbs them. So the light is converted to heat.\n\nIn theory if you had perfectly reflective walls the light would continue to bounce around forever. But if you were in the room, your body would absorb the light. Even if you covered everything but your eyes in this magic perfectly reflective material your eyes would absorb all the light in a very short space of time.",
"The photons bouncing around get quickly absorbed and transformed to heat usually.\n\nIt takes a while, but it's impossible to notice for us considering how fast light is. ",
"Okay. So the light bulb gives off light. This is in the form of a wave. The waves are tiny so you can't see them. \n\nSo when you turn the light bulb off the light is absorbed into the walls. Some of it is reflected around, but eventually it is all absorbed. This happens very quickly because light travels at light speed (299, 792,458 meters per second). This is much too fast for your eye to perceive. Therefore it looks instantaneous to you in such a small area.\n\nImagine being in a spaceship and watching the sun beam light waves to earth. It takes around 8 minutes for that light to get to earth. You could hypothetically watch its progress. If the sun blew up or went dark, it'd take 8ish minutes for us to know it because that's how long it'd take the light to stop. The same principle applies to your room when you turn the light off. It just doesn't have very far to travel.",
"This is probably a stupid question but is it possible to rig something up that can keep the light bouncing back and forth indefinitely with the source turned off or even with the shiniest mirrors all light gets absorbed eventually?",
"Adding on to this question.... what if you get a super reflective room (say a spherical mirror with a tiny light in it) and then turn off the light. Would it slowly fade darker and darker because the photons bounce for so much longer? How long do you think we could keep a light going that is no longer being sourced?",
"I've just done some simple calculations. Assuming the room starts at 500 lux, and is dim at 0.05 lux (roughly the brightness of a moonlit night), it's a room that's 6 meters across and the room paint has an albedo of .9, how long before the light goes away?\n\nAnswer: about 1.7 microseconds (edit: fixed the units; it's 1.7 microseconds, not milliseconds. And eye blink, btw, is about 300 milliseconds, so this is super much faster)\n\n Time (us) LUX \n 0.02 450 \n 0.22 156.91 \n 0.42 54.71 \n 0.62 19.08 \n 0.82 6.65 \n 1.02 2.32 \n 1.22 0.81 \n 1.42 0.28 \n 1.62 0.1 \n 1.82 0.03 \n 2.02 0.01 \n \n Moonlight = 0.05 lux ",
"Pff, where does the light go, what kind of stupid question is thi-..... But... Where does it go?...light stops existing?!\n\nMe reading the title. ",
"Light is made of photons. Photons are very fast. Photons are so fast that, on our scale, they may be considered instantaneous. Photons are so small and so numerous that\n\nWhen a light is on, that light throwing photons all around. The method depends on the bulb used. Those photons are bouncing off of walls and stuff in the room. Each time a bunch of photons bounce off of something, there is a tiny chance that some of them get absorbed into the thing. The darker the object, the higher the chances of the light being absorbed. A single photon might bounce around the room billions of times before it ends up getting absorbed.\n\nWhen the light stops throwing out photons, they stick around and keep bouncing around until, eventually, all of them end up getting absorbed. From the photon's perspective, this could take billions of bounces. From our perspective, it's practically instantaneous. \n\nSo, to answer your questions:\n\n1. The light bounces around for a while until it all ends up getting absorbed.\n\n2. It does take time for this to happen, but that amount of time is so small that, on our scale, it's instantaneous. ",
"A light bulb works with an electrical circuit. When the circuit is inturpted or stopped or broken (by unplugging or a switch) then the electrical circuit no longer exists. Electricity can no longer travel through the line and the bulb goes out.\n\nIf fire is the source of light then once it has exhausted it's fule or if it gets put out, then the reaction that produced the light can no longer continue to exit. \n\nThe light stops when it's no longer being produced.\n\nLight can be studied because it can be observed. Light exists.\n\nDarkness is merely the absence of light. Darkness doesn't really exist because it has no observable properties.\n\nSound is similar. Sound is produced by amplification and sound travels at a measurable speed and is effected by media such as air or water. \n\nSilence exists only in the absence of sound. Sound can be observed, silence cannot.\n\nThe light doesn't go anywhere. It (like sound) was merely being produced by something and once the thing stops producing the light (or sound) or when it moves to a physical place where it can no longer be seen (heard) or observed, we're left with the natural state which is darkness and silence.",
"When I was younger, I got all the mirrors in the house and glued them in a old cardboard box and used a flashlight to try and catch the light. I got really upset when I couldn't catch it and it would just go dark.",
"Follow up question, what would a room made entirely of mirrors look like if it has a single bulb in it and nothing else?",
"Yes it takes a brief moment and yes it's nearly instantaneous (those mean the same thing...).\n\nTL;DR: The light is absorbed by all the materials it reaches in the room and is converted to heat.",
"It does not happen instantaneously. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, same reason that if the sun went out, we wouldn't know for 7 minutes or so.\n\nAs to why light does not last for very long after you flip that switch, every time a photon is reflected off a surface (even surfaces that are very reflective to visible light, such as a mirror), it loses some energy in the form of amplitude and wavelength. So in a small room, with light traveling just under 300,000 m/s you can imagine in that brief fraction of an instant, a single photon would bounce around quite a bit, losing energy each time until eventually there is not enough energy to be seen as visible light, dying out into infrared and eventually radio frequencies.\n\n",
"So here's the real question: If you created a sealed room that was entirely made out of 100% reflective material (some kind of polished metal) and you turned on a flashlight then turned it off, would the light stay in the room since it wouldn't be absorbed by the reflective surface?",
"A room goes dark after the light goes out, because there is no more light from the source. \n\nLight is absorbed by an object, and the color you see is the color within the spectrum of light that doesn’t get absorbed, rather it is reflected. It happens seemingly instantaneously because the speed of light is extremely fast - faster than our brains can notice. ",
"Light is to fast to see.\n\nIt does take time for a room to slowly dim, it's just your sense of time can't comprehend it.",
"[MIT had a video of a light pulse lighting up a scene and dissipating.](_URL_0_) Yes, it takes time and a trillion frame per second camera to see it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/EtsXgODHMWk"
]
] |
||
4a6o6q | how is it possible to get your daily vitamins and minerals from a few tiny pills? | It's only a few grams of matter, is that really enough to get all of your vitamins and minerals?
...or are vitamins and minerals just a health industry hustle? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4a6o6q/eli5_how_is_it_possible_to_get_your_daily/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0xt35b",
"d0xt5dk",
"d0xyhf5",
"d0xz9jt",
"d0xzcju",
"d0xzpsq",
"d0y2k97"
],
"score": [
51,
12,
4,
18,
4,
4,
4
],
"text": [
" > ...or are vitamins and minerals just a health industry hustle?\n\nThis is debated every way to Sunday, it's mostly \"yes it helps but only if you have a deficiency\" or \"no it doesn't help and it could hurt you if you take too much\" with a few in the middle.\n\nAs for the vitamins it depends on what you take, most likely the \"one a day\" you take does not have all the vitamin/minerals you need. But it needs to consider that you may get vitamins/minerals from what you eat/drink everyday and some vitamins are very harmful in large quantities ",
"The daily recommended amount of vitamins and minerals actually is incredibly small. Pills and supplements actually contain far more than your body can even absorb, so in a way they are a hustle - you're paying for vitamins your body can't even absorb. Eating a healthy, balanced diet will give you all the vitamins and minerals you need, no pills needed. That said, some people like taking supplements so they won't have to worry about balancing the rest of their diet.",
"Well, they *are* just molecules. Molecules which are, being molecules, actually really tiny.\n\nBesides, your cells don't just dispose of the vitamins after they're done; they reuse them. Because of this, unless you actually have some sort of vitamin deficiency to make up for, you don't really need a lot of surplus vitamins. Most of it isn't used by your body, and like with anything, too much can mess *something* up.\n\nDisclaimer: Not a doctor. Or a biologist.",
"The one vitamin most of us do need to take is vitamin D-3. Not only for healthy bones but studies show deficiencies are linked to depression. ",
"Yes... that few grams is enough to get all of your necessary vitamins and minerals. For instance, your recommended daily intake of magnesium is 400mg. 1 gram = 1000 milligrams. \n\nTo add to this, you don't really need the amount that you're given in an average multivitamin. If you take it every single day, you run the very real risk of toxicity. Every other day or even 3-4 times a week will really be enough for most people, unless you have a specific deficiency.",
"And why do vitamins smell/taste so bad?",
"Humans need nutrients to live. There are generally two types: micro-nutrients, and macro-nutrients.\n\nMicro-nutrients are vitamins A, C, D, etc, which are fairly small, and relatively speaking we need little of. Macro nutrients, on the other hand, are big; they're things like water, complex carbohydrates, starch, sugars, fat, calories, and so on.\n\nIn short, it's not really a hustle, but if you eat properly you won't need them.\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8tmzna | why does greenland have such a high suicide rate? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8tmzna/eli5_why_does_greenland_have_such_a_high_suicide/ | {
"a_id": [
"e18q8p8",
"e19bxr5"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You may think it may have something to do with the sun, and you would be partly correct.\n\nMany of the reasons for suicides in Greenland are the same as other countries around the world (e.g. depression, poverty, alcoholism, etc.)\n\nSuicide rates increase during the summer due to the constant daylight because it causes insomnia in many people, which can lead to depression.",
"Send you a link to a story about suicide in greenland called, the arctic suicides: it's not the dark that kill you\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4fdfc5 | how can a 3rd party (not my isp) detect if i am downloading copyrighted material from a torrent? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fdfc5/eli5_how_can_a_3rd_party_not_my_isp_detect_if_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"d27v3n0",
"d27v3uu",
"d27vd57"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They can find a torrent, start downloading it (with permission from the copyright owner), and see which IPs they connect to when transferring files.\n\nThat why most torrenters recommend using a VPN or proxy service.",
"By connecting to the swarm. All someone else has to do is download the same torrent with the same tracker URL as you, and they can see every other IP address currently active on that torrent. After that they determine the ISP that owns that IP address, and then pester them with threats or subpoenas to give up the subscriber information. Or they just send a notice to that ISP and hope the ISP will forward it to you.",
"Fire up your torrent client and take a look at the \"Peers\" section of anything you are downloading. All of those numbers are the IP addresses of people in the swarm.\n\nNow, take one of those numbers and put it into a site like [this](_URL_0_). You can see the rough geographic region of the person in the swarm, as well as who their ISP is.\n\nIf you own a copyright, you now have a unique identifier for the copyright violator and know who is able to translate that IP into an account holder's name (the ISP). From there you just send them a letter asking for the user account information."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip-lookup"
]
] |
||
68uqwb | if the tv stations get paid by the commercials they run so they can broadcast over antennas for free, why can't they also show their stations online for free? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68uqwb/eli5_if_the_tv_stations_get_paid_by_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh1gv9x"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The shows that they air are licensed from other companies -- television studios, the ones who actually make and own the shows.\n\nThese licenses are geographically restrictive. A studio would license a network to air that show in only one country. So, any online streaming would need to be able to reasonably assure that only people in that country are watching it.\n\nThere's another issue for the major broadcast networks in the US. Each local station has an exclusive right to show those shows in their market. So, imagine an ABC station in Memphis starts streaming everything they air. How can they ensure that the only people who can see the stream are from the geographic area they have licensed?\n\nThey can't. So, they don't stream."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5ich6f | if our ability to smell is just our way of perceiving chemicals in the air, why do certain substances, like an unlit candle, still give off these chemicals to the air? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ich6f/eli5_if_our_ability_to_smell_is_just_our_way_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"db71v7t",
"db7ytps"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Candle wax and the oils containing the candle scent are still relatively volatile -- the candle is outgassing a slight amount of the scent particles even when not lit, which is what you smell.",
"because they have chemicals on them that go into the air. Those chemicals can be carried on air current to your nose. \n\nWhen the candle is lit there is a lot more heat energy added to the mix thus the smell can carry further. \n\nYour nose is sensitive. \n\nit doesn't need much to pick up a scent. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1726da | the hulk & "world-war hulk" | What are the events of and leading up to this story line? I've only ever read the Wikipedia page, and it sounds interesting. Why does the hulk fight the rest of the marvel superheroes? Isn't the hulk in control of his actions? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1726da/eli5_the_hulk_worldwar_hulk/ | {
"a_id": [
"c81jcv1"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"MILD SPOILERS AHEAD:\n\nDuring this time period Hulk is fairly intelligent (his intelligence fluctuates pretty heavily throughout his history). Prior to World War Hulk was an arc called Planet Hulk. What happens in Planet Hulk is that the Illuminati (Reed Richards, Iron Man, and other good heroes that meet in secret to attempt to control world events for the good of mankind) decides that Hulk is just too dangerous to keep around. So they trick him into going into a space ship, which they then fire off away from Earth towards a planet that has wildlife, but no intelligence life. This is meant to be a peaceful place for Hulk to live for the rest of his life, and given that he has always said that he just wants to be left alone, the Illuminati feel he will be happy there.\n\nUnfortunately his spacecraft is knocked off course and instead he lands on a different planet. Weakened by the trip through the wormhole that bought him there, he is captured, and has an restraining device embedded in his skin that keeps him compliant. He then is forced into gladiatorial combat. I don't want to spoil the main story, so very simply, he eventually finds true happiness on this planet, but this happiness is ruined. He, incorrectly, blames the Illuminati for ruining his happiness, so he returns to earth to seek vengeance. He is madder than he has ever been before, and since his strength is only limited by his anger, he is stronger than he has ever been before. He returns to Earth, drops down in Time Square and lets everyone know that if the Illuminati don't come out and face him, there is going to be some problems. World War Hulk deals with the fighting and the aftermath.\n\nI'd recommend reading Planet Hulk prior to World War Hulk, both because it's a good story in and of itself, and because it will give some background, and explain Hulk's Warbound (the other aliens that arrive on Earth with Hulk). It's not mandatory though, you can read World War Hulk simply as a good Hero versus Hero fight story if you wish."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
a1jihy | how is ac current transformed into dc when ac just jiggles electrons back and forth and dc pushes a continuous stream of electrons? where do the dc electrons come from? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a1jihy/eli5_how_is_ac_current_transformed_into_dc_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"eaq9ik3",
"eaqec7e"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The electrons are those already present in the metal of the wire. Neither form of energy *creates* electrons — in both cases the energy is in the *movement* of the electrons.\n\nThink of waves in a pond. The energy is in the movement — waves don't create any new water.",
"Conductor materials are like pizzas with salami on them placed in a circle. Salami are electrons. Let's imagine you have 10 pizzas.\n\nNow, 2 persons sit in front of each pizza : one takes salami from first pizza and put it on second pizza and the other puts it back on the first pizza afterwards , the next pair of persons does the same with pizzas 2 and 3 and so on for each pizza. This is AC ( alternative) current.\n\nNow let's saywe add a rule that says from each pizza the person that puts salami back steps away leaving only one person at each pizza. What happens now is a salami is moved from first pizza to second, a salami is moved from second pizza to third and so on until salami from pizza 10 is put on pizza 1. This is a way to get DC current, only one person is allowed to move the salami and it's called half wave DC-current. This is not so efficient because the 2nd person that stepped away doesn't contribute.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIf we add a new rule that forces both persons from a pair to move salami from first pizza to second, from second to third and so on will result in a full wave DC-current.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAC to DC conversion is done through a thing called a RECTIFIER which basically is the rule that forces both persons from a pair move salami from a pizza to the next instead of forward-backward or doesn't allow the second person to take salami and put it back.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSo basically you have 2 ways to get DC current :\n\n1. Move salami forward and stop the person from putting it back.\n2. Move salami forward and the other person moves another salami forward like u did.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
7twier | in england all energy providers provide energy from the same grid, how comes they are all able to sell the exact same product at differing prices? and why is there competition between them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7twier/eli5_in_england_all_energy_providers_provide/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtfrsn8",
"dtfurub",
"dtg4s2d",
"dtg4tp8",
"dtgdr2m",
"dtgir15",
"dtgrjgu"
],
"score": [
341,
41,
59,
17,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They basically just keep track of how much energy they provided to the communal grid, and how much their customers drew from the communal grid. They can produce it at a certain price, and prove their customers drew that power out the other side, so it doesn't really matter where the specific electrons came from as long as they provided enough for their customers' use. Make sense?",
"The energy supply companies you pay are just resellers or middlemen. They buy and sell contracts for future supply from the energy wholesale market that coal / oil / gas suppliers provide. The big 6 supply companies have large costs and crap computer systems. So every so often someone comes along and decides that they can run a billing system with lower costs.",
"Imagine you and your roommate agree to keep 99 bottles of beer on the wall at all times. You take one down, and pass it to your friend, so now there's 98 bottles of beer on the wall. This means you need to put a bottle of beer back on the wall to bring it back to 99. The only rule is you have to keep 99 bottles of beer on the wall. Nothing is said about it being coors light or a good stout.\n\nSame way, every energy producer will have different costs to produce energy, solar, hydro-electric, geo-thermal, wind, natural gas, coal, nuclear and so on. But the system doesn't care about that, the only thing the system cares about is they have to put 1 unit of energy for every unit of energy they sell. \n\nMaybe the power company you buy from sells only solar power, but it's the middle of the night, so maybe they'll pay another company to generate it for them.",
"Generators bid in to the electrical market.\n\nIf generator A is really cheap to run, they may bid in at $10; so, if the price of electricity is greater than $10, generator A will produce electricity. Generator B may be more expensive, and bid in at $20. When the price rises to $20, generator B gets turned on. When the price of electricity goes back to $15, generator B gets turned off again, but generator A stays on. \n\nThe key, however, is that everyone gets paid the current price of electricity; even though generator A bid in at $10, they got paid $20 when the price reached $20. This means that they got the same amount as generator B per amount of electricity produced for all the hours in which generator B was producing, but they got to produce more, and therefore got paid more. So, its in everyone's best interest to bid in as cheaply as possible for them, creating competition.\n\nDifferent generators also have different characteristics. Nuclear plants are very cheap to run for the amount of energy they generate, but really, really don't want to ever change their output. Oil generators, on the other hand, are very expensive, but can change their electrical output very quickly, to respond to minute to minute differences in electrical demand. Since supply and demand always need to be matched in a functioning electric grid, the ability to change output quickly can be very valuable.",
"Without different providers, one company will have a monopoly in the energy sector, meaning that they can set their prices as high as they wish. Laws are put in place so that this doesn’t happen, and other providers are in business by offering lower prices",
"It should be noted that changes are coming to the market soon with a proposed price cap in England and Wales and a publicly owned energy provider in Scotland to strengthen competition and limit profiteering.",
"The grid does not produce energy. The grid distributes the energy.\n\nOkay so how do all the grocery stores sell the same produce being delivered over the same highway system at the same price? \n\nThe grid is the highway. \n\n\nEach of the producers is a farmer basically that grows the produce. \n\nAll of the producers have a set of costs. So one producers can more efficiently produce power at a lower cost. Some producers may have lower costs because they are using a lower cost production method like wind vs a higher cost production method. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.