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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1ik3kw | why does my cars air conditioner burn fuel and not just use the battery like my car radio? | The AC in my office uses electricity instead of diesel so why not my car ? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ik3kw/eli5_why_does_my_cars_air_conditioner_burn_fuel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb57ayf",
"cb57b33",
"cb57bog",
"cb57del",
"cb57kvh",
"cb5bcg8",
"cb5cze6",
"cb5h87m"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
17,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"because if they did that then they would have to install another electric motor in your car, a much larger one that would draw a ton of current off of the battery. Your CD player has a small motor that doesn't draw much current. This way it just uses your car engine to turn the compressor",
"In effect everything burns fuel. The power for the battery that powers electronic things comes from the engine. If you use more of that power you use more fuel. Your car radio uses almost none of that power, so it doesn't drain your battery. \n\nYour AC partially uses the engine \"directly\" but the fan is powered by the battery. The AC uses too much energy to just run off the battery and since the battery comes from the engine anyway it's more efficient to just power it directly then going through the battery.",
"The compressor for the AC doesn't burn fuel itself, but it's driven by the car's engine via a belt and clutch assembly. It saves weight and space to have the compressor be run this way, rather than fitting an extra electric motor to run it.\n\nIt would also drain your battery in no time if you had your AC on without the car's engine running.\n\nEdit: forgot to explain how an electric AC would still cause higher fuel consumption, but there are other comments that have that part covered. ",
"Your office AC is plugged into the grid, getting power from huge coal, nuclear, and hydro power plants, which can provide tons of power as long as your boss keeps paying the electrical bill. The battery in a car has a much more limited supply of energy, which is enough to power a radio for quite a while, but can't run the AC for very long.",
"Its all just energy in the end and all of it comes from the fuel you put in your car. \n\nThe AC uses energy directly from the engine as its more efficient, saves weight, space and cost. Your radio gets it's power from the battery, which is charged from the alternator, which is connected to the engine.\n\nIf you had a radio that used as much power as the AC you'd notice your fuel consumption get worse very quickly as it eventually has to get its energy from fuel.\n\n",
"Your car air conditioner is ran by a compressor in your car. The compressor is driven by a belt hooked up to the engine. When you turn on the air, the compressor engages, putting more strain on the engine. It's kind of like how driving up a hill or pulling a trailer uses more gas. Your engine has to work harder, so it needs more fuel. ",
"Everything that requires power in your car causes you to use more fuel. This is because your car battery is charged by the alternator in the engine, which causes some drag and drops fuel efficiency by a bit, since some of the energy from the engine is going to the battery instead of the wheels.\n\nThat being said, most things on the battery require relatively little energy, so you don't really notice. Your AC on the other hand has a big compressor which takes quite a bit more energy from the engine (attached to a belt) to run. When it's off it's mechanically disconnected from the engine, causing almost no loss of power at all.",
"In think I can safely say this has been answered ! Thanks !"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
e7fe4u | why is there a risk of rejection of donated organs, but not of donated blood? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e7fe4u/eli5_why_is_there_a_risk_of_rejection_of_donated/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9ypeh7",
"f9ypgob",
"f9yt08a",
"f9ytk8z"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"There is a risk of rejected blood. If they test it, and it has something in it that makes it unusable in a human they may experiment on it or throw it out. It also expires and they throw it out too.",
"There is actually a large chance of rejection if you use the wrong blood type. But the best comparison comes dow to why is my car more likely to be totaled having to replace the transmission vs. changing oil. Oil is super simple and can do its job even if you have cheap/ different oil from last time, but you’d transmission is a complex part that has to preform a vital job and if you slap a random transmission in your car it might not work.",
"Donated blood actually does get \"rejected\", but on a smaller scale.\n\n### Antigens\n\nWhen blood (and organs, actually) is rejected, it's because the recipient's immune system attacks the donated blood. This is because the immune system recognizes little bits on the surface of blood cells- **antigens**- that it uses to identify things in the blood as friendly or foreign.\n\nAn AB blood type person, for example, has both A and B type antigens on their blood cells. If they donated to anybody with a different blood group, for example someone with a blood type A, the recipient's immune system would recognize the B antigens as foreign, and attack the donated blood.\n\nThat's why O type blood is considered a universal donor. O type blood cells don't have either A or B antigen on them, and so can donate to A, B, and AB blood types, but can only receive O type blood.\n\n### Donor immune system cells\n\nBut wait! Your own blood contains immune system cells. When you donate blood, in specific cases these immune system cells will actually attack the recipient's cells, causing damage as well. To avoid that, in these cases the donor blood is first treated with radiation to disable any leftover bits of the donor's immune system.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n### Other antigens\n\nBlood groups aren't as simple as combinations of A, B, and Rh. There are a whole host of antigens that aren't routinely tested for. These can become very important, especially in cases where you need to transfuse a lot of blood. So blood rejection is an actual problem around the world.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n### Avoiding rejection\n\nAll that said, doctors are aware of issues with rejection. And so they do lots of tests and observations to make sure that blood and organs are compatible when transfused. One of them is mixing blood, and then examining the results under a microscope. If they see cells that have glued to each other to form clumps, a process called \"agglutination\", they know that the blood isn't compatible.\n\nOrgans are much more complicated devices, and they stay in the recipient's body for a long time, so screening them for rejection is a much more involved and careful process. The risk is still there, but the potential consequences are much more dangerous, and so we hear more about it.",
"There is a risk, but we are pretty good at keeping the blood separate and giving to the right people. \n\nFor example, my sister is an O blood type and she just had a baby who is am A blood type. So they were blood type incompatible. So my sister's immune system was making antibodies to fight the A blood, while pregnant the baby was ok, but after birth some of the antibodies are still in the baby and that destroys blood cells so there was a risk to the baby mainly for jaundice, for the first week or so. Luckily, there was nothing wrong. However, if she is pregnant again with an A blood type baby or AB blood type the risk for jaundice is higher because my sister's immune system will remember the blood type. \n\nThe incompatibly is worse if the mom has negative blood and baby has positive."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.llscanada.org/treatment/types-of-treatment/blood-transfusion",
"https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/well/live/blood-type-race-racial.html",
"https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/this-is-why-more-black-blood-donors-are-needed/"
],
[]
] |
||
3v63h2 | why can expedia offer half off on hotels regularly, yet rarely has specials on flights? | I noticed this after receiving many many emails from them. They offer seemingly absurd discounts on hotel rooms very often, but it seems that their flights are basically the same price I can get from the airline and not discounted very frequently. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v63h2/eli5_why_can_expedia_offer_half_off_on_hotels/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxklsjb",
"cxkm0do"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually, you can get some great deals on flights, but you have to basically be at the airport ready to go before the deals become available. Why? Because the airlines often don't know which seats are open and need to be filled until flight check-in is completed and closed... often only 30 min before the flight itself.\n\nHotels work in a similar way, but it's often much easier to predict when lots of extra rooms will be empty, so there is more lead time available to sell cheap rooms.",
"The airlines rarely have an issue filling a flight. Offering a discount just detracts from their profit. Even if a seat is open, it only becomes more expensive as the flight time nears. Last minute seats are lucrative, wouldn't want to miss that chance by filling it at a discount rate!\n\nHotels have vacant rooms more often than not, and a very small marginal cost per guest. A vacant room isn't making money, and even half of what they normally get is better than nothing. You won't see deals on hotels that are booked solid, but one that has half of it's rooms vacant would LOVE to fill those, even at a reduced rate. Basically, they're not missing out on a full-price, or above full-price customer by filling the room at a discount.\n\nTL;DR: Reducing prices on flights reduces profit, while reducing prices on hotel rooms to sell rooms that would be vacant otherwise is actually increasing profit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5u37xu | how do antidotes stop poisons from working? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5u37xu/eli5_how_do_antidotes_stop_poisons_from_working/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddqzh3t",
"dds2ju5"
],
"score": [
16,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on the poison and antidote, but some work by directly disabling the poison itself. The toxin might be a chemical that binds to specific receptors within the body and the antidote binds to the toxin instead, filling up all the available binding locations rendering it inert. Or the antidote might work the other way around, binding to the body's receptors and preventing the toxin from doing so until it can be dealt with. Finally, something like methanol might be rendered less dangerous by consuming ethanol simply because it delays the metabolization of the methanol and so reduces the peak levels of toxic compounds the body is exposed to.",
"Here's a great example I just learned about due to the \"opiate/heroin\" epidemic in my local area. \n\nOur brains have opiate receptors that opiates (heroin, Percocet, Vicodin, etc) bind to. \n\nA person injects heroin, and the heroin \"binds\" to these receptors. If an overdose occurs, first responders administer Narcan (naloxone) , which also binds to the opiate receptors but the receptors bond MUCH more strongly with the Narcan, which \"kicks off\" the heroin. \n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
33mbj1 | why is there so much crazy lightning in the pictures of chile's calbuco volcano erupting? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33mbj1/eli5why_is_there_so_much_crazy_lightning_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqm8mhg"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Volcanos emit a whole bunch of matter into the air which bumps into each other, creating a static charge which leads to lightning once the charge builds up sufficiently."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4s62s8 | why can djs make money by playing copyrighted music when youtubers can't have copyrighted music in their videos? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4s62s8/eli5_why_can_djs_make_money_by_playing/ | {
"a_id": [
"d56rnmo",
"d56u6qo",
"d56u8s9"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"They (or, more commonly, the venue) pays for the right to play those songs. \n\nYour own YouTube video can have copyrighted music if you pay for that right. It's just people who don't pay who get their videos yanked. ",
"becouse djs or the employees of the dj pay the license to use the songs same thing as radio stations do.",
"DJs, restaurants, radio stations, and any other place that has a \"public performance\" of music must pay a licensing fee for the public performance of the work. Ring tones are also considered public performances. \n\nYour standard YouTuber doesn't pay the license and is, in effect, stealing the music. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ajqp0 | does the united states have secret laws? | I have heard of secret executive orders. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ajqp0/eli5_does_the_united_states_have_secret_laws/ | {
"a_id": [
"csd8qhk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It depends on your definition of \"law\".\n\nIf your definition includes the effects of legal precedent, then yes there are secret laws. There is a secret court, the FISA court, which hears certain cases related to national security. The rulings of that court are secret, but they are binding on everyone. If you become involved with a FISA court proceeding you may learn that you have \"broken a law\" that you didn't know existed and that you may not even be allowed to know anything about other than that the government thinks you broke it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
eitr6y | how do crickets make such a loud noise with their tiny legs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eitr6y/eli5_how_do_crickets_make_such_a_loud_noise_with/ | {
"a_id": [
"fctl7nj",
"fctu9bj"
],
"score": [
132,
113
],
"text": [
"The bottom of a cricket wing is covered with teeth-like ridges that make it rough. The upper surface of the wing is like a scraper. When crickets rub the upper and lower parts of their wings together, they create a chirping sound called “stridulating.\" -goog",
"because they evolved a more efficient mechanism to convert mechanical energy into sound energy by squeezing the air instead of pushing it.\n\nIt is so much better, that Physicist Dr. Oscar Heil copied it to make a tweeter that is 5 times as efficient as the Kellogg and Rice loudspeaker patent of cone, magnet and voice coil. The Heil “Air Motion Transformer”tweeter is also faster and lower distortion than conventional dome or cone tweeters."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
mhfh6 | why does ray tracing take such an immense amount of processing power? | It seems like the future of graphics, but real time ray tracing also seems like it's a long ways out due to the amount of processing power required
( As seen here - _URL_0_ )
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mhfh6/eli5_why_does_ray_tracing_take_such_an_immense/ | {
"a_id": [
"c30y209",
"c30yfdy",
"c311rm7",
"c30y209",
"c30yfdy",
"c311rm7"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"With rasterisation (what is currently done, i.e. not ray tracing) a scene is only as complicated as the pieces that make it up. A single box is a relatively simple shape, so it can be drawn with very little processing. A giant complex tree with lots of leafs and branches is very complicated, so it takes a lot of processing power to draw.\n\nRay tracing always takes a lot of processing power because calculations have to be performed for every single pixel on the screen, regardless of what the scene is actually composed of.",
"Ray tracing requires a lot of computation. \n\nHere's the simplest way I can explain it: ray tracing relies on four basic things. \n\n* First, point of view. As you read this, your head (and eyes) are a certain distance away from the screen. This is your point of view.\n\n* Second, the screen. For this, imagine you have an empty picture frame and you're looking through it. The scene framed by the picture frame is what would be rendered. You would also notice that your perspective changes when your head is closer or further away from the frame.\n\n* Third, the scene. A meadow, a room, a chess set (like in the video). Whatever the type, it doesn't matter. The key thing here to note is the objects and their material properties (more on this in a sec).\n\n* Fourth, light. More details in a moment, but to start, we need to look at how the light interacts with all the objects in your scene.\n\nSo the basic way ray tracing works is, imagine you're holding this picture frame, and you mentally divide that plane into pixels. So you look at the top left corner, and mentally think of one pixel of space. Now imagine you could blank out the whole frame except that pixel. So you look at that pixel from your point of view and imagine you're shooting a ray out of your eye through that one pixel space. But this ray is special. What it does is travels through the pixel in the frame and gathers information. \n\nThe information gathered is what kind of light would travel the opposite way back through the one pixel opening back into your eye. The way that information is gathered is through a calculation. \n\nSo this calculation involves two notable things (for this explanation anyway): Material properties and light. So when that ray travels, one of the \"checks\" included in the calculation is if there's an object it actually \"hits.\" So picture that chess scene in the video, the top left ray doesn't hit the chess set, instead, it hits some background object they've created. Material property comes into play here -- is it opaque? Translucent? Transparent? Shiny? Dull? Matte? The way the light plays off the object will depend on the object's properties.\n\nSo you know the material property, now you look at the light. Is there an ambient light source (like building lighting or maybe the sun)? directional light source (like a flashlight)? Is there another object reflecting light onto it? All of these kinds of light come into play.\n\nSo the ray does all these calculations and comes back through the pixel with what you would see if you were actually looking through that one pixel hole. Now picture doing that for every \"pixel\" in that picture frame. It's a lot of pixels and thus a lot of calculations right? \n\nCurrently ray tracing is used to produce incredibly realistic images, but it's just so processor (calculation) intensive that it's hard to do very quickly. In that video you can see the lag of the rendering, but that is impressively quick.\n\nSince ray tracing has to send out thousands, and possibly millions of rays, each with their own calculations, it will inevitably take a fair amount of time in most cases.\n\nedit: hit the submit button early, and typo fixes",
"Raster graphics work because you can do a little math to figure out where a point in 3D space would appear to be if projected onto a flat plane (your screen) anywhere in that space. It's actually so little math that you can do this entirely in hardware, run it on a really big list of points, and still have tons of time left over to make a triangle mesh out of the points, draw pretty textures on the result, etc.\n\nRay tracing approximates the physical interaction of light bouncing around a scene, getting reflected by different surfaces and reaching the viewer. Classic ray tracing tries to avoid extra effort by doing it backwards, tracing the light that would reach each individual pixel back through the scene to a light source. You have to store surface/color/reflective properties for everything instead of painting it on at the end for this to work. There are a bunch of tricks to pre-process the scene data to do as much math ahead of time as possible. But you can only do so much ahead of time and still let the user interactively move the camera around.\n\nFor most ray-tracers, even with a whole bunch of pre-processing you have a lot more computation work to draw just one pixel than you need to rasterize, shade, and texture a polygon. Really good ray tracers that produce pretty results that make it look like the \"future of graphics\" have to model good stuff like, say light bouncing off a red object casting a red glow on the wall (see the radiosity algorithm) and take even more work.\n\nAnd all this extra work happens in software on the CPU rather than on a graphics card that does 99% of everything in hardware.\n\nedit: clarified, added notes on scene pre-processing for ray tracers.",
"With rasterisation (what is currently done, i.e. not ray tracing) a scene is only as complicated as the pieces that make it up. A single box is a relatively simple shape, so it can be drawn with very little processing. A giant complex tree with lots of leafs and branches is very complicated, so it takes a lot of processing power to draw.\n\nRay tracing always takes a lot of processing power because calculations have to be performed for every single pixel on the screen, regardless of what the scene is actually composed of.",
"Ray tracing requires a lot of computation. \n\nHere's the simplest way I can explain it: ray tracing relies on four basic things. \n\n* First, point of view. As you read this, your head (and eyes) are a certain distance away from the screen. This is your point of view.\n\n* Second, the screen. For this, imagine you have an empty picture frame and you're looking through it. The scene framed by the picture frame is what would be rendered. You would also notice that your perspective changes when your head is closer or further away from the frame.\n\n* Third, the scene. A meadow, a room, a chess set (like in the video). Whatever the type, it doesn't matter. The key thing here to note is the objects and their material properties (more on this in a sec).\n\n* Fourth, light. More details in a moment, but to start, we need to look at how the light interacts with all the objects in your scene.\n\nSo the basic way ray tracing works is, imagine you're holding this picture frame, and you mentally divide that plane into pixels. So you look at the top left corner, and mentally think of one pixel of space. Now imagine you could blank out the whole frame except that pixel. So you look at that pixel from your point of view and imagine you're shooting a ray out of your eye through that one pixel space. But this ray is special. What it does is travels through the pixel in the frame and gathers information. \n\nThe information gathered is what kind of light would travel the opposite way back through the one pixel opening back into your eye. The way that information is gathered is through a calculation. \n\nSo this calculation involves two notable things (for this explanation anyway): Material properties and light. So when that ray travels, one of the \"checks\" included in the calculation is if there's an object it actually \"hits.\" So picture that chess scene in the video, the top left ray doesn't hit the chess set, instead, it hits some background object they've created. Material property comes into play here -- is it opaque? Translucent? Transparent? Shiny? Dull? Matte? The way the light plays off the object will depend on the object's properties.\n\nSo you know the material property, now you look at the light. Is there an ambient light source (like building lighting or maybe the sun)? directional light source (like a flashlight)? Is there another object reflecting light onto it? All of these kinds of light come into play.\n\nSo the ray does all these calculations and comes back through the pixel with what you would see if you were actually looking through that one pixel hole. Now picture doing that for every \"pixel\" in that picture frame. It's a lot of pixels and thus a lot of calculations right? \n\nCurrently ray tracing is used to produce incredibly realistic images, but it's just so processor (calculation) intensive that it's hard to do very quickly. In that video you can see the lag of the rendering, but that is impressively quick.\n\nSince ray tracing has to send out thousands, and possibly millions of rays, each with their own calculations, it will inevitably take a fair amount of time in most cases.\n\nedit: hit the submit button early, and typo fixes",
"Raster graphics work because you can do a little math to figure out where a point in 3D space would appear to be if projected onto a flat plane (your screen) anywhere in that space. It's actually so little math that you can do this entirely in hardware, run it on a really big list of points, and still have tons of time left over to make a triangle mesh out of the points, draw pretty textures on the result, etc.\n\nRay tracing approximates the physical interaction of light bouncing around a scene, getting reflected by different surfaces and reaching the viewer. Classic ray tracing tries to avoid extra effort by doing it backwards, tracing the light that would reach each individual pixel back through the scene to a light source. You have to store surface/color/reflective properties for everything instead of painting it on at the end for this to work. There are a bunch of tricks to pre-process the scene data to do as much math ahead of time as possible. But you can only do so much ahead of time and still let the user interactively move the camera around.\n\nFor most ray-tracers, even with a whole bunch of pre-processing you have a lot more computation work to draw just one pixel than you need to rasterize, shade, and texture a polygon. Really good ray tracers that produce pretty results that make it look like the \"future of graphics\" have to model good stuff like, say light bouncing off a red object casting a red glow on the wall (see the radiosity algorithm) and take even more work.\n\nAnd all this extra work happens in software on the CPU rather than on a graphics card that does 99% of everything in hardware.\n\nedit: clarified, added notes on scene pre-processing for ray tracers."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbokPe4_-mY"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ctuf2 | how can stores such as ross and t.j. max sell their clothing for so cheap? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ctuf2/eli5_how_can_stores_such_as_ross_and_tj_max_sell/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjixj5y"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Say you have some clothing item that costs x to produce. Normally, it retails for 10x. At the end of the season, the store has to clear out their stock, so they sell this item (along with others) in bulk to stores like Ross/TJ Maxx, at a rate of say 2x, so they're still making a profit, however minor. The discount store turns around and sells the item to you at 4x, which is a great deal when you compare that with the retail price, but the discount store is still making a profit. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6eotbm | if your brain was split vertically, would your conscience split for the remainder of life? i.e would either side of you brain experience it's own conscience? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6eotbm/eli5_if_your_brain_was_split_vertically_would/ | {
"a_id": [
"dic4j3k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Splitting the brain is actually a very common procedure used to treat epilepsy. It's called a corpus calloscotomy.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nAn interesting excerpt:\n > \"several patients who had undergone a complete calloscotomy suffered from split-brain syndrome. In patients with split-brain syndrome the right hemisphere, which controls the left hand and foot, acts independently of the left hemisphere and the person’s ability to make rational decisions. This can give rise to a kind of split personality, in which the left hemisphere give orders that reflect the person’s rational goals, whereas the right hemisphere issues conflicting demands that reveal hidden desires.\"\n\nAdditionally, there have been studies done to see how people who have undergone this procedure interpret information. Here's a really interesting video of one such individual: _URL_0_."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv4K5aStdU",
"https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/split-brains"
]
] |
||
dvzqvu | why does cold wind have a higher pitch than warm wind? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dvzqvu/eli5_why_does_cold_wind_have_a_higher_pitch_than/ | {
"a_id": [
"f7frcie"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"In all likelihood what you’re feeling isn’t so much “colder” wind as it is “faster” wind. When the wind is blowing faster then it blows away your body heat faster, so it feels colder, even if the air itself is still the same temperature. (And in temperate places like the US fast wind can also be caused by hot air and cold air mixing, though again it’s the speed that changes the pitch, not the temperature).\n\nAnd when air is blowing through a hole or making something vibrate then faster air = faster vibrations = higher pitch (as you’ll quickly figure out if you’ve ever whistled)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1k70x0 | the die hard: with a vengeance water bottle scene | How do you fill a 5 gallon water bottle with 4 gallons only with a 5 gallon jug and a 3 gallon jug? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k70x0/eli5_the_die_hard_with_a_vengeance_water_bottle/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbm0e3m",
"cbm123e"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Have you tried googling? I googled your text verbatim and the first link is very clear with pictures 'n all: _URL_0_",
"- fill 3 gallon jug\n- pour into 5 gallon bottle\n- fill 3 gallon jug\n- pour into 5 gallon bottle\n- 3 gallon jug has 1 gallon left.\n- empty 5 gallon bottle\n- pour the 1 gallon into 5 gallon bottle\n- fill 3 gallon jug\n- pour 3 gallons from 3 gallon jug into 5 gallon bottle\n\nthere you have it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.wikihow.com/Solve-the-Water-Jug-Riddle-from-Die-Hard-3"
],
[]
] |
|
2xfjee | how can the department of homeland security actually run out of money? (since the house just failed to extend funding) a | Apparently 90% of its operations will cease at midnight. How is this possible? Are there no reserves, etc? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xfjee/eli5_how_can_the_department_of_homeland_security/ | {
"a_id": [
"coznxxp",
"cozof7y",
"cozp4i9"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Congress doesn't budget for departments to build reserves like that, so when they stop cutting checks that's all she wrote",
"_URL_0_\n\nActually it is funded for a week. ",
"Government money for \"non-essential\" things can *only* be spent if Congress agrees to a budget, and those budget agreements don't last forever. The last one ran out today, and they couldn't agree to a new one until today. This new one is only for one week because there are lots of portions they couldn't agree upon."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-prepare-pass-homeland-security-funding-080933043--politics.html"
],
[]
] |
|
2l95cq | why does oil pop and fly out of pans when cooking? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2l95cq/eli5_why_does_oil_pop_and_fly_out_of_pans_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"clskoy4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"That is actually water.\n\nOil has a much higher boiling point than water. Oil and water do not mix. Oil is less dense than water.\n\nWhen a droplet of water gets in the oil, it sinks. However, the oil it hot, so the water is instantly heated up beyond its boiling point. This causes it to very quickly expand and rise. Basically, it explodes.\n\nBecause the water was in the process of sinking when it exploded, there was some oil above it. When the water explodes, the force pushes that oil up and out."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6iowpi | how come you can be falling asleep watching tv, then wide awake when you go to bed five minutes later? | Edit: Fell asleep a few minutes after posting this. Woke up to 1,200 replies! I'm not going to get much work done today... | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iowpi/eli5_how_come_you_can_be_falling_asleep_watching/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj80g96",
"dj81jew",
"dj81r04",
"dj84tgz",
"dj853rm",
"dj85p46",
"dj86e9f",
"dj870nl",
"dj88m8g",
"dj8al0i",
"dj8ehk6",
"dj8ewln",
"dj8hd9q",
"dj8iyrn",
"dj8l8yg",
"dj8ldk5",
"dj8s57d",
"dj8ty9j",
"dj8tyla",
"dj8v1jw"
],
"score": [
4136,
349,
371,
55,
634,
58,
34,
9,
26588,
1508,
5,
2,
7,
9,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"There was a post about this not too long ago. IIRC one of the reasons was that if you're lying on the couch and fall asleep, you're not actively trying to sleep, you just fall asleep because you're tired. When you go to bed, you're actively deciding to sleep, and thinking about trying to sleep actually keeps you awake. ",
"Because when you get up from the couch to go over to your bedroom, you're up and moving again, which makes your body wake up somewhat.\n\nHappens to me as well. I'm on my computer late at night, feeling tired enough to go to sleep, but after I get up and go brush my teeth, I feel awake again when I get back to my room.",
"People don't fall asleep, they arrive to sleep! When you were on the couch, you arrived to your sleepy ways because you were probably there for a little bit, comfy, and hadn't moved for a bit! When you moved to a new spot, your body must first adjust to your new spot, then it can arrive to sleep again =) ",
"The ideal window to fall asleep is actually pretty short. Around 10mn. You'll notice it if you start yawning, your eyes sting a bit.\n\nWhen you fall asleep in front of the TV, you may wake up at the end of that window. Then you have to do stuff to put yourself to bed. And the window is gone. And your body had to wake you up a lot. So you are wide awake.\n\nTry actually laying in bed and closing your eyes for 30s next time you catch yourself yawning late in front of the TV. Ez sleep",
"I think when you're watching TV, you're typically only passively using your mind. You're just taking in the info. So your brain isn't very active, yet there's something going on to keep it from becoming too distracted. \n\n\nOnce you turn it off and try to sleep, your mind is free to wander and actively think about anything. ",
"Entering a sleep state while watching a tv show that you have previously viewed, familiar with and enjoy of enables the subject to fall asleep because of the passive distraction of focus principle. \nWhen your brain perceives something familiar with a known outcome while keeping a minimum level of attention it is easier for the brain to decrease activity and enter a rest phase. The same applies to highway hypnosis and redditing. ",
"One issue is that while sleeping with the TV on, you're conscious mind is being distracted of the stress and anxiety that you carry with you throughout the day. Instead it's trying to process the words being spoken, and so you don't have the mental chatter going on. The problem is that this then prevents you from getting into a deep sleep - so you're more tired the next day. That and when the sounds are removed, then you have the left-over stresses that you haven't dealt with bombard you all at once, because the artificial distraction is removed. Basically it tricks your brain into feeling better than it is. If you spent time process the stressors instead of watching TV - you'd probably sleep better and not fall asleep prematurely.",
"The sleep cycle has a refractory period* built in that occurs just before the normal onset of sleep. This is designed to keep you entrained to the 24 hr cycle by preventing you from falling asleep a little earlier each day despite tiredness. It is easier to fall asleep both before and after that window. And watching tv is a relaxing sedentary activity. So you might be dosing off, then waking up when your body is resisting sleep. \n\nIn studies on sleep deprived undergrads (most sleep research is done on undergrads) once allowed to they would fall asleep quickly - unless they were in their resistant phase. \n\n* I am almost certainly misusing this term here - I'm going off memory (and this is what my faulty brain keeps insisting on) but I think in the context of sleep research refractory period actually refers to a REM stage and a different term is used for the pre-sleep cycle entrainment stage. Sorry but don't have my sources at hand. ",
"The brain is like a group of people talking to each other. When you're watching TV, the part of your brain that watches TV says \"Shut up guys, I'm watching TV,\" so you can focus without thinking about cake or math. As a result, the others sit silent, grow bored, and fall asleep, until only the TV watcher part of the brain is left. Left by himself, he too gets bored and falls asleep. \n \nWhen you're in bed, assuming you aren't counting sheep or something, the entire brain is kind of in free time mode, and any part of the brain can speak up if it wants to. They start talking to each other, and even if one of them starts to drift to sleep, the others wake it up either by deliberately talking to the sleepyheads or just being noisy. Eventually more and more of the parts of the brain fall asleep from sheer exhaustion no matter how loud the others are, and eventually the last one passes out and you are asleep.",
"Since there's no empirical answer here, I'll throw my non-empirical answer in the mix:\n\n**TLDR: It could be many things.**\n\nIt could be conditioning: You took a couple of naps on the couch with the TV on; now, your brain associates the TV, with just the right amount of fatigue, as sleep time, at the right place. \n\nMeanwhile, back at the ranch (when you go to bed), you're staring at your phone, \"doing some last few reddits\" before bed. You have trained your brain to activate before your \"alloted\" sleep time. Chances are, you've done so much internet before bed--your brain does not associate bed time with sleep time.\n\nRelated: Your bed should be for two things only: Sex and/or Sleeping. This is to make sure your brain and body associate that with sleep, OR Sleep that usually follows sex. \n\nAlso, digital screens emit blue light. In short, it's a light wavelength that suppresses melanin. Melanin is a hormone that is produced in your body. When Melanin spikes up (usually after some hours of nighttime and sometimes around post-lunch hours) it makes you sleepy because that's the job of Melanin. They also sell melanin at the drug store, but it's always better to rely on your natural sleep cycles as nature intended. The Sun and Digital Blue Light from most electronics today suppress Melanin, making it harder to fall asleep. **THIS** along with not associating your bed with sleep will most definitely fuck up your sleep.\n\nSleep is still misunderstood for the most part (we don't know why we do it, generally), since it puts us at a huge disadvantage in the wild--yet, we **must** do it. This means that even if we don't understand it, it does something right. Studies where people were sleep deprived had slower time reactions, sometimes akin to a drunk person. \n\nFor example, cell regeneration and healing happen during sleep. The brain, oddly enough, is more active during sleep. There's a theory that \"pruning\" is occurring during sleep--AKA, your brain is getting rid of the stupid, useless information that won't help you survive. This is why \"The First 20 Hours\" method works well for advancing learning quickly seems to do well: reviewing before sleep/reviewing after sleep, in short time frames--so the brain associates that this is needed and doesn't prune it.\n\nAnother possible reason is that when you sleep, it takes some minutes (60ish or more on normal IF I recall correctly) to get to Rapid Eye Movement (REM sleep). REM sleep is **ESSENTIAL**. A lack of sleep with screw you up, but a lack of REM will really screw you up. So, when you're running on less sleep than usual, when you finally sleep/nap, you get to REM quicker! WOOHOO! LIFEHACK! **NO, it's not**. As stated earlier, sleep has a lot of functions. Anyway, if you're tired and fall asleep while \"relaxing\" watching TV, and wake up 30 mins later, chances are you got some REM sleep. This fucks you up because your body has gotten a little recharge to take you over for maybe, 6 hours? It's like your phone was dying, you charged it for 10 mins and got it to 25%. It's gonna take some time to get back below 10%. \n\nRemember those people from the studies? Well, some of them were \"disturbed\" (on purpose) during REM sleep (enough to snap them out of REM, but not out of sleep). The next day, they felt they were fine and had good rest. However, their results on reaction time showed that they were not at full \"normal\" rested reaction capability.\n\nAlso, there have been many people throughout history that have experimented with various sleep cycles to \"get the most out of their day.\" I think (and I may be way wrong here) it was DaVinci that famously tried the polyphasic sleep (fancy name for \"different ways of sleeping\"), where he would sleep one hour every 4-5 hours. Supposedly it worked, and I don't doubt he got used to it. So, you may have gotten used to sleeping 4-5 hours at night, with a nap right after dinner--and you may not realize that it's a habit now. You may not like it, but you did to your body--your bod is just doing what you taught it.\n\nThat's all I got. Some of it is scientific, but I did internet research long ago and don't have the patience currently to dig up the sources. If someone wants to disagree or bring up relevant points, or even call me out on wrong info, feel free. This is the internet, not The White House, I can admit I might be wrong.\n\n\n**EDIT:** I want to add that \"humming\" sounds can easily relax the brain. Depending on what you're watching, if it doesn't have much flux, the TV can hum along, much like a quiet lullaby. This is why White Noise or the sound of rain, a fan, Air Conditioner, beach waves, background coffee shop can aid in sleep & focusing. In a weird way, it zens the mind to relax. I looked into it long ago, but I forgot why it is. Probably something with the infant brain associating a smooth sound (singing by mom) that you are safe and not in danger, so you can relax.\n\n*EDIT 2** Guys, gals and all in between--I get it, it's melatonin--not melanin. I know the difference, I just have a long-life habit of mixing them up. That's what I get for doing a write-up on a lack of sleep. Happy naps, everyone!\n\n\n\n\n\n",
"I also want to know why I can be completely tired and lethargic all day, but as soon the twilight hits I'm bouncing off the walls.",
"I don't have any scientific jargon to use here nor even a good understanding of what happens to me, but when I can pinpoint the moment I fell asleep the previous night then maybe I could have some salient information..\n\nI have always gone to bed with music or a tv/radio show on in the background to listen to. Probably for 10 years+ now.\n\nWhen I'm listening to a show I've seen previously and my brain recognises a punch line or something (could be anything that I remember), the second I start thinking about that moment in the show, I fall asleep. It's usually something small like maybe I'm thinking about how a character was stood in the scene or a character's voice cracked at a certain moment. I don't do any of this intentionally, it's just something that I recognise as having happened.\n\nHas anyone else experienced this?",
"And this is why I drink most nights. Other than the usual \"it's my cure for depression\" episodes. ",
"Since the top comments seem to be anecdotes, I'll add one too. \n\nI've had lifelong sleep problems and I have participated in multiple sleep studies so I've got a decent bit of experience with specialists even though I am not one. The first step to correcting a sleep issue is always behavioral conditioning. You probably often watch tv late at night before bed so you're used to being tired in that situation. Bed is an interruption to your normal routine so it isn't quite as good as watching tv to your brain. If you were more in the habit of going to bed to get tired you'd get tired from going to bed, but it seems you watch tv late more often than heading straight to bed. If you spend a whole day busy and skip tv and go straight to bed, I bet you would get tired easier. I'm sure you've noticed this. If it was a regular thing you'd be able to sleep more easily when going to bed. In my experience with sleep specialists, I've been told to go to bed as soon as I figure out I'm tired to try to make sure going to bed works well.",
"I can tell you a major potential *cause*: you're waking yourself up.\n\nWhen you get up, you're turning on the lights, moving around, ect. You were entering a state of dormancy and now you're not. Your body kicks you back up to wakefulness because it cannot differentiate between \"I need to wake up because I need to move\" and \"I need to wake up because I need to go to bed\". Light can cause you to wake up, and moving around can do the same.\n\nBut the deeper why is not really well-known. Sleep is a very mysterious thing. We don't actually know why we sleep; there are theories, but all of them seem to have flaws of various sorts. Falling asleep itself is a somewhat fuzzy process, and there's some evidence that thinking about falling asleep can make falling asleep harder.",
"Here's my two cents, it's probably worth just that.\n\n\nFalling asleep is easy when in front of a tv, it's basically the background noise of the tv, falling asleep in dead silence, or no back ground noise is a tough pony to handle for some people, we're all geared differently. \n\nI believe the popular term for it is ASMR\n\n( Autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR) is an experience characterised by a static-like or tingling sensation on the skin that typically begins on the scalp and moves down the back of the neck and upper spine. It has been compared with auditory-tactile synesthesia.) \nThere's a Wikipedia for it if you wanna peak.\n\nBasically just dull back ground noise that can soothe your heart rate. \n\nPs. They have a lot of videos on YouTube about ASMR, might be worth it to check out if you have a hard time sleeping. As for myself why I'm posting this at 2am is probably the biggest question I have yet. I should be dead asleep right now, off to my ASMR folks! \n\n\nTldr; noise good for sleep, ASMR, why the hell am I awake posting in a topic about being awake, when you're trying to sleep?! ",
"Wow I never realized this was a thing, and I do it every night. I finally go to bed (and although I fall asleep very fast) I think about how much I fought it (and failed) during a TV show. I always have to ask my wife what happened. The feeling of the fight is something I wish I could feel again once I laid down. ",
"Watching tv requires a lot less intellect than most people think - with the brain so inactive I presume it's this that can make it fall asleep. TV's used to be nicknamed ann \"idiot box\" in the early days when radio and other forms of entertainment were more popular.\n\nAlso people can catnap for 10-15minutes - then feel refreshed. Helen McCarthy who solo sailed round the world in a 120ft Catamaran would take 10-15minute catnaps for weeks. Actually not having any long period of sleep is incredibly hard.\nI've heard it read of doctors - if they don't get a 4hr sleep between shifts then its sometimes better not to go to sleep. A short sleep (2-3hrs) and then forcing yourself to wake can make me feel really sick.",
"You are relaxed, not thinking about anything other than enjoying the show and your brain shuts off. Youre not thinking about what you have to do today, tomorrow or now. Just chilling. \n\nWhen you move to bed, youre suddenly alone with your thoughts and start thinking about what you h ave to do ... today, tomorrow and now. So you start thinking about stuff again especially after getting out a cozy spot. \n\nRead this on the same question asked years ago.",
"This is an evolutionary trait that we never got rid of. Basically if you're about to fall asleep and then you get up for some reason, then your body is going *Well, shit, looks like we better get our asses moving then!* Imagine back when we weren't at the top of the food chain. It would be very necessary for our bodies to fully wake if we had to suddenly run for our lives."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cagrvn | how do animals/insects know they are the same and don’t attack each other | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cagrvn/eli5_how_do_animalsinsects_know_they_are_the_same/ | {
"a_id": [
"et8u8ua"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know the answer to this. I just wanted to second the question. I wondered the same thing mostly about dogs. Dogs come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes but somehow they recognise their own species, even at distance (i.e not using scent). Is there something that instinctively tells them \"that's a dog too?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2xwna5 | why are mandatory arbitration clauses not considered to be unconstitutional in the us, under the 7th amendment? | Is it just because private entities aren't bound by the 7th amendment, only the government? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xwna5/eli5_why_are_mandatory_arbitration_clauses_not/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp41x6h"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The 7th amendment states that in civil cases, your right to a jury is preserved. By signing an agreement with an arbitration clause, you are waiving your right to bring a lawsuit in the first place. There is nothing in the Constitution that preserves your right to bring a case. \n\nHowever, mandatory arbitration clauses have been found to be unenforceable because the terms are determined to be \"unconscionable\", which is a legal contract term."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4alol2 | how is the outcome of a contested or brokered convention determined? | I understand how a contested convention is triggered (if no candidate gets enough delegates to win the nomination), but I don't understand how exactly it's decided who wins. Is it most likely just the frontrunner? I've heard it explain as being decided by "backroom deals" but who is making those deals? The delegates themselves? The candidates? Is the party involved? What is being traded in these deals? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4alol2/eli5_how_is_the_outcome_of_a_contested_or/ | {
"a_id": [
"d11imrt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"After the first ballot, delegates are free to vote for whichever candidate they like, even one who wasn't running. Candidates and party leaders are free to lobby those delegates and try to get them to change their mind. Party leaders can also try to lean on candidates and get them to accept and endorse a compromise. In addition, delegates can advance motions to try to shape the vote. For example, in the case of a deadlock, they might vote on a motion to eliminate any candidate with less than a certain share of the vote.\n\nIt isn't always easy. The 1924 Democratic Convention took 103(!) ballots over two weeks to decide, in part due to controversies over the Klan, Catholicism, and Prohibition. William G. McAdoo was the frontrunner, and at one point had 48% of the vote, but could never break rival Alfred E. Smith's support. Eventually John W. Davis, who came in 7th place after the first ballot with 2.4%, emerged as a compromise candidate and eventual nominee.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2ume1w | what exactly went wrong at the end of the superbowl for the seahawks? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ume1w/eli5_what_exactly_went_wrong_at_the_end_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"co9oma3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Generally speaking, when you are close to the opponent's end zone, it is a safer option to run the ball rather than pass it, for precisely the reason shown in this game - passes can be intercepted.\n\nThis is doubly true for the Seahawks, whose running back (ie the guy you give the ball to run with) is nicknamed 'Beast Mode', for good reason."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4manyj | what are aftermarket graphics cards and what is the difference between aftermarket and normal cards? | For example, the new NVIDIA 1080/1070 models. Everyone is saying to get an aftermarket card. I know a bit about computers but not too much insanely technical stuff | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4manyj/eli5_what_are_aftermarket_graphics_cards_and_what/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3ty0v1"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"So, NVIDIA has released the 1080 and 1070 with what is called the reference cooler, this is the cooler that NVIDIA made.\n\nNormally, NVIDIA does not want to make coolers/cards. It will pass on that responsibility to other companies such as MSI, Asus, or EVGA. NVIDIA simply wants to focus on the aspect of making and designing the chips, it does not want to design the card, cooler, or deal with sales/customer support. So, NVIDIA will send out the chips to these companies, who will then, with some of NVIDIA's directions (such as how much and what type of VRAM is used), they design and manufacturer the video card.\n\nHowever, there is an exception, the reference card. This is the only time NVIDIA designs a card, and it is used for reference by those companies to make their cards, hence the name. However, for the first few weeks after release, the reference card is the only card on the market as other companies design their coolers. Note that NVIDIA simply sends the blueprints for the reference card and has them manufacturer it, they do not manufacture it themselves, which is why reference cards, while looking identical between all companies, have different company logos on the boxes. So, in a few weeks, non-reference cards, aftermarket cards, will come out, made by these companies. These generally look sexier, have far better coolers/cooling (more powerful and quieter often), and are often stock overclocked, meaning they perform better than the reference card. They also have some other features as well, but those tend to be smaller and less important.\n\nThis time around, the reference card is for some reason called the \"Founder's Edition,\" and costs more as well, while performing worse than aftermarket cards, because NVIDIA wants to milk money off early adopters."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4fmtyx | if somebody commits a crime before they're 18, but the crime is only uncovered after they turn 18, would they be tried as an adult, or a minor? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fmtyx/eli5_if_somebody_commits_a_crime_before_theyre_18/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2a5zrq",
"d2a79br",
"d2a7sgf",
"d2a87f7",
"d2aesyn",
"d2ag3tk",
"d2ahlu5"
],
"score": [
72,
2,
26,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It may vary from state to state, but I'm most familiar with people being tried as the age they committed the crime. That being said, your example is perhaps a bad one as particularly egregious crimes (like murder) can get someone tried as an adult regardless of the age of the defendant.\n\nBut something relatively benign, like shoplifting something, would likely still be treated as why've ill offense if you did it when you were 16 but charged when you were 18.",
"in the nederlands, if your older than 14( i beleeft) you are smart and conscious enough to be judges as an adult. so murder at the age of 14 and up can be a life long prison sentences. but most minor things like theft will be judges ad the age of comitting. ",
"Depends on the crime, you may be tried as an adult of it something especially bad, like shooting that catwoman playing basketball scene.\nGenerally you will be tried as a 13-14 year old even if you are over 18 (there is also this period after which you cannot be held accountable, depending on what kind of crime you commited).",
"Depends on the person. If youre a late-teens troublemaker with no regard to what you're doing or to whom youre doing it to, you'll get get a hefty punishment - corrections centers, community service, probation, house arrest, etc. But it entirely depends on the infraction(s), or consistency thereof. If you commited a misdemeanor and realize you made a mistake, you probably wont get the book thrown at you. Its all a matter of intent and degree.",
"He would be charged as a minor, because that was his age at the time the crime was committed. However, the State could request a waiver hearing that, if successful, could move the charge from juvenile court to general sessions (adult court).\n\nWaiving a case up to general sessions can get trickey, and is rarely used (as far as I'm aware) but it would be the likely move for the situation you presented.",
"Look at what happened to Allen Iverson. They claimed he maimed white people as part of a mob at age 17, and the trial was extended so he could be tried as an adult at 18. He ended up being pardoned later on, but just an example....",
"In Florida, being tried as a juvenile is more like a \"privilege\" while you are under 18. However, you can still be tried as an adult for committing a serious crime (like murder) while under 18. If a kid commits a felony while 16 or 17, and the case is still open in juvenile court, he may be \"direct filed,\" which means his case gets transferred to adult court. If this happens, he could still get what's called \"juvenile sanctions,\" so he may be sentenced to juvenile corrective center instead of adult prison.\n\nBut once you turn 18 you cannot be tried in juvenile court, so in your case he would be tried as an adult."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4458jn | why is the new nuclear fusion success of germany important? | What is exactly does it do? What effects will it have in physics? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4458jn/eli5_why_is_the_new_nuclear_fusion_success_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cznhupo",
"czni0rx",
"cznixd9",
"cznufuf",
"cznvet6",
"cznwhao",
"cznxgh4",
"czny28m",
"cznyd5x",
"cznyl0v",
"cznymek",
"cznz7m5",
"czo0a8v",
"czo0qs7",
"czo1jgf",
"czo2iwl",
"czo2rix",
"czo3gke",
"czo6fyg",
"czo7ofj",
"czo7qlb",
"czo9f9k",
"czo9k92",
"czobg9x",
"czoielb",
"czojrfj",
"czok6zz",
"czonv3g",
"czop5fr"
],
"score": [
195,
2582,
38,
21,
98,
46,
3,
2,
12,
3,
16,
5,
3,
6,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
3,
2,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Fusion power is a game changing technology if we can get it to work; potentially limitless free energy.\n\nThe stellarator in Germany is a new type of fusion reactor, and the experiment yesterday was the first time a confined hydrogen fusion process in a stellarator had been achieved. ",
"Nuclear fusion is a way to transform mass into energy by fusing atoms. In theory this method is known for a long time and if it works it could provide a clean, nearly unlimited and non-polluting source of energy. But in practice it's very difficult to create energy this way. The experiment in Germany is making big steps of improvement towards the realization of this technology.\n\nYou probably know Einsteins equation E=mc^2. It says that if mass were to be converted into energy, it would be done with a factor of the speed of light *squared*. These are huge numbers! So even if you are able to convert a small amount of mass, it will release very much energy. With nuclear fusion, the nuclei of two hydrogen atoms (at least in this case, it can be done with helium as well) are fused in superheated plasma. With this fusion, some mass is converted into energy. \n\nPlasma is an excited state of an atom. For instance the flame of a fire is a plasma, or the lightning in a thunderstorm. The fusion reactor creates such a plasma and it needs to be super hot. But if these temperatures hit the metal of the reactor, the reactor would melt (we're talking like a million degrees here). So how to contain a plasma that would melt anything it touches? Contain it in a magnetic field. With magnets the size of a small car, a magnetic field is created in which the plasma can exist. These magnets are also cooled to near absolute zero temperatures to create super conductance. Just imagine the engineering that needs to be done to create a machine that can do this?\n\nMany have tried and some have succeeded a little, but the W7-X in Germany is so far the most promising. Although they were able to contain a plasma for only a very short time, this is a major leap forward into maturing this technology. The current reactor is a test setup and will never be used to create actual usable energy. But it's helping us creating the power source of the future. \n\n[Edit] A nice guy/gal pointed out that I said \"creating energy\", while of course I should have said \"transformed\".",
"The nuclear power plants of today basically take radioactive rods which get very hot by themselves and we throw lots of water at them to make steam and then we use that steam to turn big turbines.\n\nThen later you have the nuclear waste to deal with and there is limit amounts of nuclear material and there's obviously lots of risk with nuclear power plants, chernobyl fukushima 3 mile island. \n\nWith nuclear fusion. You basically take a tiny amount of hydrogen and are converting it to helium. Get it fusing but the amount of energy released means it's going to be very very hot. Which is the problem.\n\nHowever if we can manage the heat and maintain the reaction. Then we will be able to do the same. Use the heat to create electrcity. The big deal is that in a 'meltdown' there's no chernobyl that's going to happen because hydrogen and helium isnt a radioactive disaster.There's also no nuclear waste. ",
"Obviously this is still a hell of a long way off, but it's interesting to imagine what effect near limitless free energy would have on global economics (whether from a very mature fusion process or some other technology we haven't discovered yet). We could fill an awful lot of resource gaps if we didn't have to worry about energy costs, e.g. near limitless potable water from desalination without having to worry about the efficiency of the process or how far it needs to be pumped. If energy was basically free then a hell of a lot of other things become effectively free too. ",
"The easiest way to explain it is that all energy comes from the sun. \n\nWind is from the sun heating the air unevenly. \n\nHydro is from the sun evaporating a portion of the oceans to have it condense over mountains and flow through our turbines along rivers. \n\nCoal is from crushed plant matter which grew from sunlight. \n\nOil is from crushed animal matter which grew from eating plants which grew from sunlight.\n\nSolar power is just our most direct way of gathering energy from our star. In space there would be zero resistance and you'd be gathering energy very efficiently. Here on earth though, some of that solar energy is absorbed and defused by the atmosphere.\n\nNuclear fusion is just creating a tiny sun here on earth and gathering that energy directly.",
"In the simplest terms: the next step in energy. And I don't mean we invented a better battery, I mean we have invented fire level of discovery.\n\nFusion means we have long term energy needs met. This includes making asteroid mining viable, space travel cheaper, less time consuming, etc. We'd also have a cheap source of energy here on earth, as we can move from coal and oil to other systems for transportation. \n\nClimate change would be halted, since greenhouse gas emission would become rare, and non-existent in developed countries. Electric bills would be cut, and the primary cost would be charges for line maintenance rather than usage. You want to run spotlights all over your 1/4 acre lot like the Nazis are blitzkrieging? Go for it. Doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to.\n\nOh, and you know all that food 3rd world countries don't have? You now have the energy to grow food. Massive amounts of it, much cheaper in automated systems. Anything involving electricity becomes cheaper, more accessible, as older forms die.\n\nTldr Fusion energy would be like a new industrial revolution, creating millions of jobs, spurring space travel, and meeting our energy needs in a non destructive way for a very, very long time.",
"It's a bit more off the beaten track, but one thing that is important to understand about the fundamental concept of mass is that all things with mass are basically energy that has been configured in such a way that it is self-containing. It takes tremendous amounts of energy for a particle to have mass, and by putting packets of energy in different combinations you can reduce the total binding energy needed. So Hydrogen on its own, that is to say a lone proton, requires a great deal of energy to be all in one spot in order to exist. But when two protons and two neutrons are bound together in a helium atom, the total energy to keep everything together is less than 4 times the energy for a proton to be all on its own plus the energy you need to squeeze the components together. So as a result, when you build a helium atom from scratch, you get a lot of extra heat out.\n\nYou could think of it being something like a giant volcano. At the top, there is a crater, so if you are up there, it's easiest to stay in the middle, but if you get just past the lip of the crater, you'll get a whole bunch more speed rolling all the way down the mountain.",
"Ok so nuclear power plants uses fission to get lots and lots of energy which is good but a big issue is the products formed from it is radiated. While fusion also gives lots of energy but not radiated waste",
"Here are a few news stories for background, for anyone else like me who didn't know the context of the question: \n\n* [How Germany took big step toward nuclear fusion](_URL_0_)\n* [Germany's massive nuclear fusion machine just produced its first hydrogen plasma](_URL_1_)\n",
"The real question here is can this technology be used to create an arc reactor to power an Iron Man suit?",
"There are two main designs for a fusion reactor. One is easy to build but hard to use. Several groups are working on that. The other is hard to build and should be easier to use. This one is that kind. The test shows they built it right and now they can try to use it correctly. If they can, they can then build one that acts as a power station. It is good that both approaches are being tried.",
"This video is probably the BEST explanation of why it is important to YOU:\n\n_URL_0_",
"The sun works on nuclear fusion. Imagine being able to have our own sun that would generate energy and never die. *Crosses fingers* \nThe theory was done in Spider-Man 2 with Tobey McGuire.",
"Performing nuclear fusion is literally harnessing the power of a star. This amount of power would give us the ability to do things strictly limited to the realm of science fiction: large scale metamaterials (like cloaking), intergalactic space travel, weapons with capabilities not unlike the death star; use your imagination from there! This would be the most important discovery in the history of mankind. It would be an instant transition of our species from a Type 0 civilization, to a Type I, maybe even a Type II classification. It's mindboggling.",
"It's kind of like jump starting and holding a tiny star in a big donut made of magnets. Once the scientists figure out how to do it well, they will figure out how to do it better, smaller, and cheaper, which is great for everyone.",
"One thing that puts a damper on this sort of thing is that safe and reliable nuclear fusion technology is not guaranteed. This isnt the kind of problem we can just throw money at until it is solved in the way that a lot of other problems can be. \n\nConsider this: nuclear fusion takes place at the center of every star. Each star has billions of tons of material symmetrically squeezing in on the core to produce and contain the nuclear fusion reaction. Even with all of that mass, we still get coronal mass ejections, solar flares, sun spots, etc. fusion reactions are not simple to contain. It may not, in fact be possible to produce a better than break even reaction for any length of time that would be usable. ",
"I just have one question : my physics lesson are far from me and I dont recover how you can create energy by creating a bond between two particles ? I can understand that breaking that bond in the fission method makes heat that we transform to energy but how are we doing this the other way ? ",
"Because if they manage to build the atom bomb before we reach Berlin we'll lose the bloody war!",
"It's not so much the effects on our understanding on physics it's the energy potential we will be unlocking. The fuel is the most abundant element in the universe and our supply here on earth is near inexhaustible. Think about that for a minute all the energy we could possibly use.\n\nNo more reliance on fossil fuels and or the countries that extract it. No more Oil Wars.\nBatteries for electric cars? Why not synthesise liquid fuel for our cars.\nFood production? Unlimited energy to desalinate and pump sea water to arid areas.\nPower to extract CO2 from the atmosphere to sequester the carbon.\nThe list is near endless.\n\nUnlocking this source of energy would change the world almost overnight - for the better.",
"The so-called successful test had nothing to do with fusion. They merely confirmed that they could in fact make plasma. Fusion has been just around the corner for fifty years. It is likely to stay there. Luckily we don't need fusion reactors on earth. The sun is a giant working fusion reactor and solar cells are an excellent way to utilize it.",
"The crazy twisting shape of a Stellerator allows fusion to be sustained due to the fact that the plasma tends to rotate and twist. This makes them useful as a power plant that turns on and stays on. \n\nTokamaks (doughnuts) can do fusion similarly, but they have to be periodically (every few minutes) turned off because the plasma rotation doesn't play nice with the magnets. \n\nFission reactors are what we have now. They split atoms instead of joining them. However, when they fail, all the fuel's energy can release dangerously. When fusion reactors fail, the reaction immediately stops.",
"Sorry if It's already been answered, but would a fusion reactor be used to (basically) boil water and spin a turbine like fission, or is there some other way we can generate electricity more efficiently?\n\nSeems a bit odd that the mechanical part of electricity generation has remained unchanged all these years.",
"Graduate student that studied plasma physics and fusion here.\n\nFusion is important because it basically provides endless energy that has zero chance of going out of control. Because fusion reactions requires high energies, the fuel will be in the plasma state, where it behaves similar to fluids but are affected by long range E/M fields.\n\nThere are many ways of containing the fuel in the plasma state, many involves some sort of E/M field trickery. There are two main approaches of what scientists believe (but I personally do not) to be the method to contain the plasma. One of them is the toroidal magnetic confinement (don't google this, because the community doesn't call it that); basically with toroidal magnetic confinement, you have a magnetic field configuration where the field lines form a donut. Charged particles follow field lines, so they would be confined in this donut, going in circle, waiting for fusion to happen.\n\nThe W7-X is important because unlike the mainstream popular reactor design, tokamak, where plasma current (flow of electric current or just plasma flow) further assist in the containment, W7-X is a stellarator, where its wacky field lines allow the reactor to contain the plasma WITHOUT ANY PLASMA CURRENT. \n\nedit: holy shit, so much wrong information in this thread.",
"Because fusion energy will revolutionize the way we generate power, and will render fossil fuels and maybe even traditional nuclear obsolete.",
"Oh for fuck's sake 90% of these BS posts are just idiots posting truisms they found online from a fusion website which is obfuscating why this is important.\n\nThe fusion reactor in Germany is a stellerator design which has been highly optimized using computer simulation. An optimized stellerator uses an outside current that goes along the axis of the doughnut to produce one of the confinement magnetic fields as opposed to the tokamak which puts said current through the plasma itself. This is a big deal because a highly optimized stellerator has never been built before due to difficulty/complexity of simulation and an optimized stellerator has a chance at having a much longer confinement time than a tokamak - possibly continuous confinement. This means fusion power will become much cheaper and be able to produce power more consistently. That's it. Ignore these other awful posts.",
"The really simple answer is this: \nFusion requires a lot of energy to cause, currently if I remember correctly it's also difficult to replicate consistently. So if Germany can continue on this path and then reduce the energy it takes we can be on to something. ",
"While this is a pretty awesome scientific achievement. I get really tired of hearing the same headlines every few months / years. \"NEW BREAKTHROUGH IN NUCLEAR FUSION!!\"",
"Just wanted to add that while people are explaining the physics I think the important aspect is rather the impact of super cheap energy would have.\n\nCivilization is kind of built upon cheap energy. The cheaper and easier energy is the bigger and better life is. Everything is cheaper and there is less poverty.\n\nClean power; no filthy bits in the air clogging our lungs and poisoning the cities\n\nCarbon can be literally sucked out the air.\n\nPlants can be grown anywhere as the the light as artificial light is super cheap.\n\nLabour saving devices are cheaper to run.\n\nIt's basically the Jetsons world. In theory.",
"Short answer: If nuclear fusion becomes attainable, then we could have an unlimited, highly sustainable, super clean, cheap source of energy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0203/How-Germany-took-big-step-toward-nuclear-fusion",
"http://www.sciencealert.com/germany-s-massive-nuclear-fusion-machine-just-produced-its-first-hydrogen-plasma"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pmgr6FtYcY"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
34ty79 | why can we have such huge hard-disk space but comparably so little ram? | Mid-range computers nowadays often have over 1TB of space yet when it comes to RAM we're still restricted to 8/16GB slots tops.
Obviously theres a fundamental difference in the way computers use RAM compared to storage which restricts us from making RAM slots that are 500GB, Im just wondering if anyone could it explain it in laymans terms? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34ty79/eli5_why_can_we_have_such_huge_harddisk_space_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqy0q73"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"RAM is much more expensive per gigabyte than disk storage is. There are systems out there that will allow you to install more than 16GB, but they tend to be professional-class workstations, again more expensive than basic computers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3hgwbr | how can america rank so low in education yet reject workers with degrees from other countries? | I had a friend of mine confide in me how frustrating it is to work as a security guard. He said in his country he had a degree in computer science. What would it take for him to get work in his field? How does he get his degree to be recognized?
EDIT:thanks for all of thoughtful replies. Hadn't considered primary vs secondary. Good stuff. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hgwbr/eli5_how_can_america_rank_so_low_in_education_yet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cu78rfv",
"cu797kf",
"cu7bvuh"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In American education, it's important to note the difference between primary and secondary schools, and higher education. America ranks very low on the first group, but very high on the second. Our universities are top notch and very attractive around the world. It's the high schools that are terrible.\n\nAs far as why you wouldn't recognize a degree, I'm not totally sure. There's a mess of university program accreditation boards who operate in the US and Europe to maintain standards. It could be his university was not part of such a program and people in the industry don't trust it? Computer science is often a 'prove you can handle this' kind of field though, degrees are less important there than other industries.",
"General education in America is bad because many of the most educated and rich do not send their kids to public schools and then defund them (lower pay for teachers, etc.). However 80% of the top universities in the world are located in the U.S., so although the general level of education is bad, we also have some of the smartest people in the world as well. Additionally, we have an incredibly large number of people with degrees ( > 40% of the population of over 350M people). There is no shortage of educated or uneducated people in the U.S., so really you aren't asking the right question.",
"As someone with a computer science degree, most US companies want to see **certifications** ON TOP of a degree."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1t19qg | why are many craft beers made in the us often sold as imports at bars in the us? | I remember being in Texas and seeing Shiner Bock on the imports list at a bar. I've seen that happen in other states as well. I have my theories on why this is, but I'd like to hear an answer from someone who knows the industry. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t19qg/eli5_why_are_many_craft_beers_made_in_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce3aqpz",
"ce3at68"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the bar/restaurant in question has two beer prices. One price for Miller/Budweiser and a slightly higher price for imports.\n\nThey want to sell the craft beers for import prices so they just list them under imports (rather than making a third category called 'not imports' that has the same price)",
"I've been in the industry for a number of years (including several as bartender), and can confirm this is the case more often than not.\n\nIn nearly all of those places, pricing was on two tiers - one for \"domestics\" and one for \"imports\" (and craft beers, etc.). Simply put, Bud/Bud Light/Miller Lite cost less than Sam Adams, Shiner Bock, etc, whose prices were more in line with the actual imports (e.g. Guiness, Heineken, etc.) \n\nAlso, made it easier for bartenders and servers alike to only remember two price points when telling a guest what a beer would cost."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
a9nxlk | why is the volkswagen advertisement "lemon" so famous? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9nxlk/eli5_why_is_the_volkswagen_advertisement_lemon_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecldehv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Lemon was a clean break with the conventions of American advertising, not just automobile advertising, in 1959. You will see references to the ad appearing \"in 1960\". This refers to the American convention of \"model years\" which conventionally run from October to September.\n\nAt the time automobile advertising was a place for unfettered and often misleading praise for the product while little attention would be given to the manufacturer or ideology of the product. Instead of a romanticized painting of what the car might look like, it was a simple photograph in black-and-white no less. Instead of praising this example of something any man would be proud to own, VW conceded this particular example was inadequate, if invisibly so, and therefore didn't make the boat to America. The ad reinforced the idea of quality and reliability, an implication of stereotype about German engineering, and a further implication that other manufacturers did not take such care.\n\nIt worked. Americans were fearful of the inconvenience and expense of foreign cars, often due to parts availability which tended to be shipped as needed from overseas. VW was different. When you went to the VW store you were faced with a big, dedicated dealer just like Rambler or Plymouth, with a large parts inventory and access to regional distribution centers accessible by telephone. Any part could arrive within three days in 1959 if it wasn't already in stock.\n\nOf the imported cars available in 1959-60 only VW, Renault, Volvo and Toyopet \\[sic\\] had formal, dedicated dealerships and service centers. Fiat and Datsun \\[sic\\] would join these in 1964. Mercedes-Benz were tenuously using Studebaker's network. Porsche used the VW network, and many of the same parts. All of the others were sold through dedicated importers who could access any car you wanted if you were willing to pay (at least before the standards set for MY 1968). Volvo was already building the first North American post-Depression foreign-owned assembly plant in Nova Scotia. The imports were just beginning to dip their toes into American waters. VW would be the most prominent of these until the late 70s when Toyota, Datsun and Honda would make their presence known quite loudly.\n\nVW sold ca. 35000 cars in MY 1958. Almost exclusively on the Northeastern Seaboard and California. By 1963 they had showrooms in 46 states (including Hawai'i) and sold ca. 110000 cars. Through the 60s 50-60% of the cars shipped to the United States were Volkswagens. The VW had become a phenomenon. The \"Beetle\" was the iconoclast's choice of automobile for years to come.\n\nThe campaign of which Lemon was part would not only bring VW to prominence in North America, but opened the marketplace to mass-acceptance of imported cars."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
12nfic | photosystems in photosynthesis | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12nfic/eli5_photosystems_in_photosynthesis/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6wmlc5"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"in *photosystem II*, a photon (packet of light energy) comes in and excites an electron (subatomic particle) in what's called a *chlorophyll B* molecule in the *light harvesting complex*. the excited electron jumps from chlorophyll molecule to chlorophyll molecule until it finally reaches a pair of *chlorophyll A* molecules (p680, meaning best absorbs light rays of wavelength 680 nm). the excited photon finally hops from the chlorophyll A pair to the *primary acceptor* and from the primary acceptor, the electron is picked up by *plastoquinone* (Pq) to participate in an electron transport chai. the electron transport chain makes ATP and *plastocyanin* (Pc) takes the electron to *photosystem I*. like, photosystem II, photosystem I can be directly excited by light and take electrons in from light excitation but it also takes the electrons that Pc gives it directly to the primary acceptor. from the photosystem I's primary acceptor, *ferredioxin* (Fd) takes two electrons through a second electron transport chain to an enzyme called NADPH reductase which takes an H+ ion, NADP+, and the two electrons to form NADPH. the problem here is that chlorophyll in photosystems I and II are in an electron debt. to fix this, a separate enzyme hydrolyzes (splits water apart) water to give the electrons to chlorophyll B. the result from this whole process is NADPH and ATP, both used in the Calvin Cycle. \ni'm sorry this was really complicated. I pretty much just described [this picture](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://imgur.com/An85F"
]
] |
||
3lqs3c | what is stopping me from living a life of debt? | What is stopping me from living a life of debt? What if I worked for an average salary but have everything payed on credit. I'd be working to pay my minimal payments off each month. I'd live a life full of debt, but also full of toys and fun. I'm going to die one day anyways right, so why not bring on the debt? (No I'm not thinking to do this, I'm not in debt at all) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lqs3c/eli5_what_is_stopping_me_from_living_a_life_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv8ii2k",
"cv8iiyr",
"cv8ivat",
"cv8k6wk"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Eventually people will stop loaning you money, they might take you to court, and you can forget ever buying a house or even slightly expensive car.\n\nEDIT: You will also never be able to get a job that requires a security clearance.",
"Well...you could do this...and some people are forced to do this, until they end up having the debt get to a point where your minimum payment is paying almost entirely into interest, then your card will become maxed and you won't be able to purchase things, you could move onto to a new card, but eventually your credit will be so ruined no other debtor will loan to you and you'll be stuck in piles of debt until one of them you can't manage to pay pursues legal recourse",
"Financially speaking...\nZero debt isn't necessarily desirable. If your stream of income is predictable and you have good prospect for future, a degree of debt (leverage) is ok. It actually is a good idea to spend on credit cause you can gather up some perks like loyalty programs. In case of credit cards be sure you will ALWAYS pay you debt in full every month cause interest will quickly pile up and get you broke. (seriously the interest if you just pay the minimum is gigantic, it WILL become a rapidly growing snow ball, and eventually you'll be receiving visits from banks trying to collect what's due, and they will get what's theirs)\n\nIn any way...\nI think you are mistaking pleasure for happiness. Living a life full of debt, but also full of toys and fun will bring pleasure at first, but pleasure is impermanent, and so will be your credit if you are irresponsible with it.\n\nSo, what's stopping you? The fact that your goal should be long term happiness and not short term pleasure. \n\n",
"You would eventually reach a point where credit card companies would no longer loan you additional money, and those minimum payments would take up most of your salary. This would likely happen long before you died.\n\nAt that point, you'd lose all of your toys and life would not be very fun."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1cg4os | why comcast "xfinity" ads are allowed to continue claiming they are the fastest isp in the country when they are clearly lying? | Aren't there laws against being overtly misleading in advertising? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cg4os/eli5_why_comcast_xfinity_ads_are_allowed_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9g5s01",
"c9g8gqe",
"c9g8vy7",
"c9g8zxy",
"c9g96z9",
"c9g9kbt",
"c9ga3w9",
"c9gai2v",
"c9gb6rk",
"c9gbjp5",
"c9gcivk",
"c9gcrdc",
"c9gczda",
"c9gdaqq",
"c9gegc9"
],
"score": [
54,
454,
18,
24,
2,
13,
10,
7,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"Technically, they could be the fastest ISP in OVERALL bandwidth. That doesn't mean anything to the individual user, but overall they could have a larger and faster connection when compared to google, who has a small customer base.",
"They offer 305mbit/s fiber residential service in certain metro areas - they are the fastest residential isp In those and likely other areas as well\n\n_URL_0_\n\nedit: also they may be saying something like \"fastest national ISP\" because one-offs like Google Fiber are not a nation-wide ISP. And when they offer 305mbit/s vs FiOS' 300, they do have the edge in numbers too.",
"Hi, This is Verizon FiOs and we approve your message.",
"I believe the commercial that I've seen says something to the effect of \"rated fastest ISP in the country by some PC magazine.\" It's not a flat out claim.",
"Even if it wasn't true, you would have to show that you were harmed by their deceptive advertising if you decided to sue them. This would be very hard to do in the eyes of the law",
"The same reason everyone says they are \"the worlds best\" or \"#1 X in the country\". It's perfectly legal in advertising to make the wild claims.\n\nBut it being reddit, you go after Comcast instead of the millions of other businesses who do the same thing.",
"It might be considered [puffery]( _URL_0_). Comcast's claim to have the fastest high speed Internet is a lot like my local sandwich shop claiming to have the world's best sandwiches. This doesn't make it right; it only explains why Comcast has legal protection. ",
"Sounds like AT & T and their \"4G\".",
"Their commercials also claim that you cannot get tv from the phone company. What does Verizon have then static?",
"In advertising doublespeak they are allowed to say that even if it's not true. With parity products (products in which most, if not all, brands in a class or category are of similar quality) they use the word \"fastest\" to create an impression of superiority. In comcast's case, when they say fastest, what they mean is equal to other ISPs. Only if they say \"faster than X company\" are they actually making a claim that they are the fastest.\n\n[more information on advertising doublespeak](_URL_0_)",
"Well kjm,\n\nDid you ever see a car ad where it shows the car doing something clearly impossible, but there's some little tiny print at the bottom of the screen that says something like, \"Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt.\" That's called a *disclaimer*, but most people just call it 'the fine print' or maybe 'legal birdseed.' It basically means that the company that makes the ad is saying, \"You can't sue us for anything we say or do here, nyah-nyah.\"\n\nI'll bet if you go back and watch that Xfinity ad again carefully, you'll see some fine print on the bottom of the screen. It will probably say something like, \"When compared to local competitors\" or \"Average over nationwide network\" or somesuch.",
"This seems pretty relevant:\n\nComcast Told To Stop Saying It's The Fastest Internet Provider Around\n_URL_0_",
"One of my favourite teachers once taught me something interesting:\n\nCommercials are allowed to say that the product is the \"best\" or \"greatest\" or \"tastiest\" - a SUPERLATIVE - but not that they are \"better\" or \"fresher\" than another product. The latter is illegal. Don't know why though.\n\nAnyone else heard this?",
"Because there is no real urgency to regulate businesses in the US and violate the holy sacrament of free enterprise. ",
"Comcast\n\n*Number 1 for Worst Customer satisfaction*"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://gigaom.com/2012/07/24/and-here-it-is-comcasts-305-mbps-tier/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak"
],
[],
[
"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/14/comcast-told-to-stop-sayi_n_1598163.html"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3wuscn | why is it easy and common for health insurance companies to pay for 90% of my medical bills(after the deductible has been met) but impossible and unheard of for them to pay 100%? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wuscn/eli5_why_is_it_easy_and_common_for_health/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxz9956",
"cxz9ki3"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"These plans do exist and some employers do offer them, but it's hard to find them as individual plans now, and employers are phasing them out for most employees.\n\nThe Affordable Care Act specifically discourages these plans. It calls them \"Cadillac\" plans, and the reasoning is that when health care is totally free, people use it more without regards to cost. By making the employee responsible for some portion of the cost, the theory is that they'll be rational and not spend more than necessary.\n\nNote, however, that the Affordable Care Act also guarantees that annual physicals and other common preventive care is totally free, so the goal is not to keep people away from their doctor completely.\n",
"Not unheard of. Many insurers have plans with no deductible or copay, they're just much much more expensive. The main reason that deductibles exist is to prevent frivolous doctors visits. With no out of pocket expense, it wouldn't matter if you went to the doctor once or 100 times during the year because it's the same flat rate to you. This is why most people wouldn't want to pay what it takes to get a 0 out of pocket insurance plan. \n\ntl;dr. Moral Hazard "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3vy37q | what's wrong with mental health care in the u.s.? what are some potential ways to fix it? | Whenever there is some kind of mass shooting the topic of mental health reform always seems to come up. However, I never really seem to see any concrete ideas for reform, or explanations of what is wrong with the current system from politicians. It's seems like a lot of people just use it as a vague buzzword after every shooting. So, is it a legitimate issue? What can we do to fix it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vy37q/eli5whats_wrong_with_mental_health_care_in_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxrs705",
"cxrs8up",
"cxrtf2k",
"cxrubww",
"cxruu2e",
"cxruyn4",
"cxruzzw",
"cxrx069",
"cxrzvcg",
"cxs5voc"
],
"score": [
14,
10,
24,
15,
9,
5,
2,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Really? No comments yet? Well I'll give a *very* brief starter. We used to have institutions for people who were mentally ill. We realized these places were often not well regulated and unsafe and far from family and all sorts of bad stuff. So the goverment decided to close these institutions and shift mental health back into the community. This is call [de institution](_URL_0_) with the promise of funds and structure for a local mental health system and then Vietnam happened and we totally forgot about that last part. Now mental illness has a variety of illnesses and severity. Someone with a very severe disorder may not be able to support themselves. So a huge population that were once housed in institutions were now left simply living on the streets. There's also factors like stigmas, incomplete understandings of disorders, and all sorts of things. But deinstitutionalization was probably one of the country's biggest public policy missteps.",
"It doesn't help that drug addiction is treated like a crime and not a health issue. It also doesn't help that social workers and addiction counselors make so little. I'd start with trying to work on those two issues, but it will take at least another generation of prohibitionist conservatives dying off, or young people voting to change drug laws and spend the necessary tax dollars. No expert just my thoughts.",
"I work in a jail where approximately half of the inmates have diagnosed psychological issues. Many of which get sent of to state hospitals for mental treatment. Most of the time we (as jail staff) wait for beds to become available, while jail medical staff treat said inmates. \n\nMany of these inmates need drugs that are not allowed to be administered in a custody setting. Once a bed does become available for an inmate, they get shipped off. Some time later the inmates no longer display the serious psychological impairments they did while at the county level. That inmate is sent back to jail to stand trial or be evaluated by the courts. Time passes, the inmate is back off the very medications which solved many of the psychological problems. The inmate spirals back into the original psych issues which led to them being incarcerated. The inmate is unfit for trial. Sent back to state hospital. Repeat. \n\nMore institutions and staff. More funding for said institutions and staff. More crisis intervention training for cops. \n\nToday it's the jails that are the psych hospitals. \n",
"They want you in and out as fast as possible. There is little focus on long-term treatment. As soon they think you are stabilized on a med, they kick you out. Only a lot of these drugs have horrible side effects so people give up on them. Only to have even more problems. Insurances won't pay for long stays. There are not many group homes. The doctors are apathetic. A lot of psych wards aren't fun to be in. I'll stop there. ",
"I'm at work now so I can't really delve deeply into the topic. But it's a big deal. I'll give you some main points and hopefully someone will be able to expand on them, or I will later when I'm home.\n\n1. Mental problems are heavily stigmatized in this country. We tend to view people with mental health issues as \"crazy\". If I mention a psychiatric hospital you will probably think of the sort of thing you see in the movies with everyone completely bonkers rather than rational human beings in need of a little help.\n2. Schooling for a Psychiatrist is really expensive. In order to practice psychiatry you need a typical MD and additional schooling for psychiatry/psychology. MDs iften make more money, and the schooling required is less, in both time and money. This adds up to less availability than you could hope.\n3. Based on the above, many psychiatrists, and psychologists have as many patients as they will take. This makes getting help difficult.\n4. Again based on the above it makes treatment expensive. Add on top of that how bad our health care system and you can see where this is headed.\n\nThis is a pretty big subject and I wish I had more time to break it down but in it's simplest form it breaks down to stigmatization, availability, and affordability.\n\nBecause of the stigmatization people will avoid seeking help for themselves or family members. People are not educated about when to seek help as well as they should be. Then throw the affordability and availability issues on top for any who would seek help.\n\nPart of the reason you see this topic come up after a mass shooting or something of the like is because it is potentially the biggest thing we could do to help curtail events like that.\n\nThe reality is that guns are not shooting people on their own, we need to try to help/stop/etc the people committing the atrocities.\n\nSome gun control could help a little bit but realistically we cannot do enough to make guns a non issue. The single biggest thing we can do is improve mental, and for the matter all health care in the country.",
"Fund mental health programs! I'm not going to sugar coat it, it's really expensive and it looks a lot like giving crazy people with criminal history and substance problems a bunch of money for doing nothing productive. It's offensive to many, but the only thing to do that isn't a cycle of homelessness and incarceration is to provide an actual alternative. Since people whose minds are broken can't work, and can't maintain their lives in a meaningful and productive way we, as a civilized society, have the option to support them. Or not. Jail works I guess. Something about prisons and poor houses, bah humbug. ",
"A couple of other issues. One, mental health care can only address so much. There are a whole host of problems that can exist in ones life that mental health care can do little for. Unemployment, poor job skills, severely dysfunctional family structure, poor social skills, relationship problems. I know therapy exists but it addresses some of these problem only peripherally. \n\nThere is also the focus on pharmaceuticals to treat every major problem and, this is mostly opinion, I think this is an easy way out.\n\nAlso, mental health is an odd study. There is no real acid test for someone to say that they are a bad egg. Psychiatrists have to rely on self reporting from the patient. I suspect many of these people may not even show any psychological disorder. They may be under a great deal of life stress and are deeply unhappy with their lives and want to lash out. ",
"Mental health issues = getting nixed from jobs and life insurance.\n\nSo some people choose to turn to alcohol or gray market meds, or they decide to not even get treatment. As long as there's permanent records and federal/state laws which allows employers and services to discriminate punitively based on what's in there, there will be abuse of the system and people will abstain from getting themselves involved.",
"The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 didnʻt help either. Basically it took away federal funding for mental institutions and left it up individual states. This led to mass deinstitutionalization of people that really should be institutionalized. There were other reasons for this too. See this PBS article: _URL_1_\n\nFull text here of the Omnibus bill here: \n\n_URL_0_",
"There is the problem where a person's career is endangered (and thus their ability to pay rent, so their home and their family's saftey) by asking for help from the system. As long as there is no protection for the system's victims, the people who know they need help will do everything they can to stay away from the help they want. EMTs are among the highest rate of suicide because a social worker can end their career, so they just lie, and they know the system well enough to get away with it until they can't go on anymore. \n\nI've lost friends because the \"help\" they received destroyed their lives and they committed suicide. And I have other friends and coworkers who live in fear everyday of their lives. Without anonymity, there will never be progress. \n\nDoctors and nurses understand the system is dangerous. And they understand they are just as vulnerable. \n\nStop the social workers, stop the deaths. Please, make them stop. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.congress.gov/bill/97th-congress/house-bill/3982",
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html"
],
[]
] |
|
ej5w1n | how does something being in orbit around something else not violate the conservation of energy? | Doesn't it take energy for, say, the Earth to keep the moon in its orbit? Is that energy spontaneously generated or is it like a reservoir? Could we ever run out of gravity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ej5w1n/eli5_how_does_something_being_in_orbit_around/ | {
"a_id": [
"fcvoe27",
"fcvojee",
"fcwxbo4",
"fcxl882"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I think you're confusing energy with force here.\n\nAs the moon is in a vacuum, and (as far as I know) is moving at a constant velocity, then it has no net force acting on it. It isn't moving further away from or closer to the earth, so no net force in that direction either. \n\nThere is no reservoir of gravity, doesn't make sense. It's a constant force always acting.",
"You are making the assumption that the earth is 'holding' the moon in orbit and that it is expending energy to do so.\n\nEarth is actually bending spacetime by having mass, the moon is 'falling' around this warped spacetime.\n\nAnother way of thinking about it is that energy is only 'spent' when you challenge somethings inertia, an object in motion will remain in motion until something acts upon it.\n\nSo from one perspective the moon is just acting on inertia alone, moving in a simple trajectory- Earth has bent the path the moon is traveling on, but is not directly interacting with the moons energy itself.",
"How would it violate conservation of energy? There's no energy being expended to keep something in orbit, unless it's unstable orbit that needs adjusting. An orbit is just falling around something but in a circle so you keep missing. It doesn't take any energy to fall.",
"That's because gravity is a conservative force. A conservative force is a force that won't change the total mechanical energy, the force only produces a trade between potential energy and kinetic energy, so there's no energy loss.\n\nSince moon's orbit is elliptical during half of the orbit it will get away from Earth, decreasing it's kinetic energy as the potential energy increases, only to revert this process during the other half as it gets closer to the Earth and recovers the kinetic energy again.\n\nThis is an idealization though, because the gravity between the Earth and the Moon produces tides on the Earth and even deforms its shape slightly. The tides and deformations are resisted by friction forces which aren't conservative, they transform part of the energy into heat so some energy is lost as this heat is released. Although this process doesn't go on forever, it ends once both Earth and the Moon are tidally locked to each other (both always show the same face to each other, so far this is already the case for the Moon but not the Earth)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1ok8vg | why can animals eat all sorts of crazy things (grass, rotting flesh, their own shit) but we have to eat things that are cleaner/healthier/cooked? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ok8vg/eli5_why_can_animals_eat_all_sorts_of_crazy/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccsr8sw",
"ccsrot8",
"ccsrvax",
"ccss42m",
"ccss9po",
"ccssj7w",
"ccssqpv",
"ccssx1b",
"ccstixg",
"ccstsqw",
"ccsuecp",
"ccsugny",
"ccsvprl",
"ccsw8q2",
"ccsx63o",
"ccsx6dj",
"ccsxe41",
"ccsyemk",
"ccsyqmq",
"ccsz5n1",
"cct0hyq",
"cct0uo0",
"cct19bj",
"cct1ara",
"cct2ul7",
"cct3x76",
"cct4j3p",
"cct4xng",
"cct505v",
"cct8hli",
"cct9fdh",
"ccta8c4",
"cctccg0",
"cctd6ib"
],
"score": [
7,
769,
76,
62,
3,
3,
702,
27,
2,
9,
4,
7,
2,
2,
6,
2,
7,
2,
6,
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
4,
3,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I heard a theory somewhere that because we began cooking our food, it took less time chewing and gave us a lot of freetime on our hands to think and make tools and such, and that is one of the factors in developing our brain - if you believe that or not, it really does not matter. But our food does not need to be cooked, it is just faster to eat and some say more delicious. \n\nWe also eat rottenflesh ..we just do not call it that, because it is disgusting. Well hung tenderloin ..Ummmm. \n\nGrass is a too complicated organism for us to break down, much like fibre, so we get no nutrients from it. Also it tastes like grass, and has a PH value that gives us the runs. ",
"I think the 3 parts deserve separate answers. \n\nYou don't have to eat hygienic food. Keeping good hygiene lowers your chances of catching a disease, but you'll be perfectly healthy for quite some time even if you eat unhygienic food until that unlucky day you die of dysentery. Hygiene is one of the major part of how we managed to increase the average expected life span from 40 to 80 years. \n\nNow the healthy part. Your body evolved for millenia in a world where food is scarce. Your body craves things that give you the most amount of energy (sugar, fat, and meat) and salt. (salt is surprisingly rare in nature) Your body will not stop once it had its fill since you never know if you'll starve for the next few weeks. In modern society, none of these problems exist, so moderation is needed. \n\nCooking actually goes way back, much before hygienic or healthy eating developed. This means no one's really sure how it started, but here's one of the more popular theories.\n\nA large brain requires a lot of energy. Unless you really exert yourself, a significant portion of your daily energy use is keeping your brain alive and running. So it stands to reason that cooking led to intelligence since cooked food is easier to digest, which means you get more energy from the same amount of food stuffs. Cooking also has the added benefit of killing parasites and other pathogen, as well as neutralizing some toxins. These are all things that you use energy to overcome. Lastly, cooked food tend to be softer, meaning you have to spend less energy to chew. If you're not sure what this means, try eating a raw chestnut some time and compare it to a cooked one.\n\nAs for why you need to continue eating cooked food when you're not a starving caveman, the long tradition of eating cooked food means you evolved to eat cooked food. Your teeth and jaw are not as robust as your long ago ancestors', and your digestive system is shorter. (cooked food is easier to digest) Wisdom teeth, for example, was just another set of teeth that fit in perfectly in your ancestors' bigger, stronger jaws. That said, I suppose you can eat uncooked food anyway since there's so much food today.",
"As someone who has suffered starvation I can confirm you can live relatively comfortably eating things most would deem inedible. Cedar bark, dandelion greens and tree jelly for a start.",
"It really depends upon what animals you are talking about. You are probably familiar with the fact that there is a lot of human food that your dog will get sick from like chocolate, avocado, and alcohol. A dog might eat things like grass as a puppy, but that has more to do with puppies being stupid then their digestive abilities.\n\nNow a goat on the other hand really can eat just about anything. They have bacteria in their stomachs which digest whatever they eat, and then they live off what the bacteria produce. Since bacteria can break down all sorts of stuff, goats are not very discriminate eaters compared to dogs and humans who digest everything by ourselvs.\n\nOther posters have answered about why humans are into cooking",
"Not only animals. When I was a kid I ate a bowl of raw potato, later it was a huge bush of calla lily.",
"You have obviously never seen 'Two girls, one cup'",
"Lots of good answers here, but I want to add one thing.\n\nAnimals eat all sorts of lousy crap, and they pay for it. \n\nFor example, dog owners quite regularly have to give their dogs medication to control intestinal parasites. Horse owners know that horses love to make themselves sick by eating bad things, and horses often die as a result. \n\nAnd it's not just domesticated animals. Wild animals die all the time from eating the wrong things, and they're almost always just riddled with parasites. This is especially true if the animal isn't a native species to the area, or if the area has an invasive species. Youtube is full of videos of extreme cases: animals dead of cane toad toxin in Australia, pythons killed from within by alligators they had just eaten in Florida.\n\nOne element of human success has been our ability to use intelligence to protect ourselves from these risks. We could eat random stuff like some animals, but we'd be seriously harming our life expectancy.\n\n**Edit:** Rolling some conversation from replies to replies into the original comment.\n\nFirst, here's an example of what I meant about [pythons and alligators](_URL_0_) (Reptile Gore-- Possibly NSFW)\n\n[And a better example](_URL_1_)\n\nSecond, the point I was trying to make is that animals get health problems from eating things just like humans get health problems from eating things. Some of these problems are relatively minor (intestinal parasites), while others are major (busting open after eating a gator), but none of these problems are the sort of things humans want to have. \n\nYou *can* eat poop and rotting roadkill just like your dog, but you might get infection or parasites.",
"We do eat uncooked/raw meat. Sushi often has raw fish and Foie Gras(goose liver) is often served raw. Meats that are cured, salted or othervise preserved are more common to be served uncooked because they are more \"clean\". Around the world there is also plenty of common ways to prepare and serve both fish and meat uncooked, and some are less than clean. \n\nI think it was the Faroe Islands which national course is a traditional meal consisting of a kind of cured, but unsalted meat that is served with rice to conseal the maggots. The Nordic countries have a thing called \"[Rakfisk](_URL_2_)\" which is the category for all rotten fish. Among some are the \"[gravlax](_URL_0_)\" which is salmon buried in sand near salt water to ferment and be naturally salted, and the swedish \"[surstömming](_URL_1_)\" which is herring(fish) buried in a tin can and left to rot. \nSo cooking is not a must, it just gives us A LOT of advantages. \n\nFirst of all there's hygiene. Cooking foods helps kill off many bacteria and other parasites like tapeworms. Animals can eat raw food. So can we. They can get parasites and we can get parasites. But developing a technique that allows us to a much greater degree avoid them was a BIG evolutionary advantage. To this day this still applies. People with pets or livestock will know first hand that there are consequences for the stuff that animals decides to eat.\n\nSecond there's nutrition. I've seen some people say that it makes food more energy dense so we save time chewing and can consume energy faster which our big brain needs. That's WRONG. Most of you who has made food in your kitchen will probably have realized that you spend more time preparing your food than you spend chewing it. And that's with all the veggies grown or picked as well as cleaned and sorted and the meat/animal hunted or raised and usually hung for several days to be matured as well. Preparation, specially the hunting, raising, growing and gathering part takes more time AND ENERGY than we spend chewing or digesting it. \n\nBut I can see where these ideas have come from. Although time and energy put into eating isn't a factor, access to nutrients are. Digestion is a way of breaking down food, and so is cooking. Cooking meat will allow us to take up more of its proteins, and cooking veggies and mushrooms will bring out more micro nutrients. This means that more proteins and micro nutrients become bio-obtainable without having to hunt or raise more animals, or grow or gather more veggies and shrooms. We also spend less energy breaking it down but that's a tiny fraction compared to the other factors. Hippies and new-age followers will often advocate for raw veggies and other unprocessed foods like raw beans and lenses to get more nutrients, but that just so happens to be the exact opposite of the truth. This is widely accepted as one of the most important factors leading to our brains growing so much larger than other animals, particularly why our brain has developed so differently than all the other primates..\n\nThe third reason is our immune system. Our immune system learns as it goes, and we usually need to encounter something to learn how to fend it off, and most of us don't encounter rotten meat. A good example of this is how the majority of Turkish or Greek citizens drink tap water from their sink without a problem. The locals have no problem with the local bacteria. Charter tourists from Nordic Countries however are very likely to get sick if they do. Now, if someone from a Nordic Country goes there for an extended period, they too will be able to slowly come to tolerate the bacteria in the water. But as for charter tourists who is only staying for 1 to 2 weeks, they're better off just drinking clean bottled water.\n\nNow the same goes for meat. Not only does the meat probably have slightly different, local bacteria, but the warmer climate also allows for greater bacterial growth than a northerner will be used to. For this reason, tourists are very exposed to food poisoning from the very same things the locals can handle just fine. The risk increases largely if the meat is under cooked. \n\nThe same thing probably applies between warmer states in the US like Texas, or California and Florida which has more tourism, compared to cooler northern states, particularly northern coastal states which does not experience the warm summers that the central states does. In the US however there is more transportation of meats across state boarders than between southern Europe and the Nordic countries, so difference in levels of bacteria in meat be the same same while the local types of bacteria does not vary as much in the US as it does in Europe. ",
"You can eat your own shit, trust me.",
"This brings me back to the reddit raw meat post! don't know the actual link.\n\n_URL_0_",
"The gastric pH of an animal that eats mostly meat is much lower, to denature the meat, break down pieces of bone and fat, and kill bacteria. Interestingly, when animals are domesticated their stomachs evolve to have a higher (that is, less acidic) pH. This is why pet dogs can get sick from eating poop and get obstructions from bones. They are quite literally different animals than their wild counterparts. \n\nAdditionally, the gastric tract of an animal is typically much shorter than that of a human. Because we require grains and fibrous stuff in our diet, our GI tracts are longer and our GI transit time is longer to allow for optimal absorption of all this plant matter. Carnivorous animals have bigger stomachs, shorter digestive tracts and shorter GI transit times, because the nutrients from meat are absorbed more early on in the digestive process. So IF they eat infected meat, and IF the bacteria survives the acid bath in their stomach, it's likely to be eliminated from the body quickly, instead of sitting around colonizing and causing illness.\n\nAnd yes, intestinal flora do aid in digestion and can support the immune system. But they don't kill bacteria and are not present in the stomach - their role is much more nuanced. Acid > hippie gut flora.\n\nEdit: I forgot a words ",
"One thing to remember is animals often have incredibly narrow diets and eat only very specific things because they've evolved to eat them well. Most animals would die if they only had grass to eat, animals like cows have evolved incredibly complicated digestive systems to be able to eat grass. Other animals have evolved to eat meat, and wouldn't be able to survive on a vegetarian diet.\n\nHumans have a very varied diet, we can eat almost anything thanks to being able to cook. One theory about why we need to cook things is that [cooking allows us to absorb more energy from food, which allows us to have very large and energy intensive brains](_URL_0_). Our brain is so big that if we only ate raw food it would be hard to get enough energy from our small body and small digestive system to power it.",
"Easy... you can. And you will get sick sometimes, and not other times.\n\nIts a chance we choose not to take.\n\nOther animals do the same because they don't have better options. That is one of many reasons animals in the wild don't live as long on average. A few sick days without the energy to get food can put you down.\n\nFrequent exposure does mean they are less likely to get sick, but they do, and it can/does kill them.\n",
"My friend Bob Sacamano eats grass all of the time",
"Part of the answer may be that \"we don't\". There was a guy who ate nothing but raw meat for a year and was fine, and even had some health benefits. ",
"i listened to this doc on the radio yesterday - fascinating: _URL_0_",
"Because humans are pussies.",
"We've evolved to eat cooked food and only certain types of food. Our bodies no longer have the enzymes and bacteria needed to digest what primates do. As for why we evolved like that it's just a question freeing up resources away from digestion into brain development and height. ",
"Have you seen what humans will actually eat? Snails, uncooked sea creatures, mold, blobs of fungus dug up from underground, eggs sliced from the bodies of fish, raw cow flesh, bugs of all sorts, worms, plants like cacao, onions, and tomatoes, which can kill other animals, and an unbelievable spectrum of synthetic chemicals . . . there are even people who eat their own and each other's shit and make videos about it.",
"You can eat them. One thing to remember (not sure if mentioned below explicitly) is that since animals eat many random less hygienic foods they have more parasites on average which although bad means two things: 1) they have pretty \"experienced\" immune systems in the sense that they have seen many pathogens and have built up immunity to much more variety. Also, just as the bacteria on your skin and in your gut do, having parasites can actually provide some protection from getting a much worse parasite simply because the other worse parasite doesn't have any room in the body to really get going because all of the other stuff has been growing for a while and take up a lot of nutrients and space. Therefore animals get a little protection. Also those things aren't that bad for us, we just have developed habits and traditions.",
"Each example has a different reason, but OP seems to be focused on dogs diets. So, first of all, Dogs are basically retarded, inbred wolves, that don't have a diet anywhere near that of a wild animal, so they are a bad representation of the animal kingdom.\n\nGrass: Plenty of animals eat grass, cellulose is a common food additive. It won't make you sick, but you'r body can't digest it.\n\nRotting flesh: Usually edible (to a point) for humans if it hasn't been contaminated with fecal matter. Most meat is better/more tender after some decomposition. Think dry aging. Tribes in the Amazon regularly consume rancid meat after hunting trips that has been transported for days in equatorial heat.\n\nEating shit: Can be sign of illness or vitamin deficiency. Dogs also have a very strong digestive systems compared to, say an herbivore. There aren't many animals that eat shit. \n\nFinally, Humans have evolved to eat cooked foods. Our gut flora is based on what we eat throughout our lives and can probably handle more dirty food than we eat. If you've ever traveled to a country with poor sanitation, you may notice a marked change in your digestive system, while people who live there are fine. We can probably handle far more dirty food than we eat.",
"I'm not sure if someone's mentioned already, but a lot of the trepidation about eating uncooked meat bought from the store is from the fact that there are marginal FDA allowances for EXTREMELY unhygienic things ending up in the final product during the processing phase. Stuff that wouldn't normally appear in the source meat. Stuff like rat shit or bug bits. There's a mental floss article that touches lightly on some of the allowances - _URL_0_ (and somewhere I read it was like 4 rodent hairs to 100 grams). Cooking helps to kill the bacteria. _URL_1_ \n\nThere are a lot of more thorough answers below though.",
"The simplest answer is because humans are smart. Humans know what foods are good for them, what foods are bad for them, what foods are potentially dangerous, and what foods are actually poisonous. \n\nAnimals aren't this smart, so they will eat pretty much anything because they don't know any better.\n\nThere's an important point I want to make though, animals can't necessarily \"get away with\" eating anything they want. LOTS of animals die or suffer greatly from eating toxic substances, whether we're talking about wild animals or domesticated dogs.\n\nIf you keep animals, you should use your big smart human brain to do some research on what foods they shouldn't be eating, because you know they won't! Don't accidentally poison your dog! You'd be surprised to know what kinds of foods can be deadly to dogs: Grapes, raisins, onions, garlic, macadamia nuts, and chocolate can all be lethal to dogs in quite small doses, and that's just a portion of the list for dogs alone. Please, pet owners, do your research!",
"Suuuure, when animals do it it's normal but when I do its \"weird\", but damn that shit tastes good..\n",
"Short answer: Path dependence and ecological niches.\n\nLong answer: different species adapted in different ways to different selection pressures. In \"the beginning\", the early self-replicating molecules were (probably) the same: they competed for the same, \"easy\" resources -- ones which were just perfect for feeding their self-replicating needs.\n\nBut eventually, those replicators saturated the ability of environment to feed them. At this point, any tiny mutation that let one of those replicators \"eat\" something even slightly different would be \"adaptive\", and as soon as it happens, those different replicators became a dominating force. Eventually, they would fragment into a bunch of replicators, each of them \"good\" at consuming some narrow (but different) class of resources in the environment.\n\nWhere is this going? Well, the same thing happens on a more diverse scale today, with the variety of environments, organisms, and niches. Historically, some of them existed in niches in which \"ability to better digest crap\" was adaptive; some of them weren't. So the evolutionary history of those organism reflected it. Others -- like \"megafauna\" (big animals) were in different niches, in which their bodies were narrowly optimal for eating other animals, and it would be \"hard\" to evolve all the adaptations necessary for supplementing the diet with crap. So, no matter how beneficial it might be to turn into this \"superomnivore\", evolution is too slow and clumsy to make the conversion in a species that already fits its niche well.",
"We can eat rotten food. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Let's use dogs as an example. Why can dogs eat and drink things that will kill humans? They have a shorter intestinal tract and a much larger stomach than humans. For a dog, the \"real digestion\" takes place in the stomach. For a human, that same process is actually in the intestines. It can take a dog up to 24 hours to digest a meal in the stomach, while a human only takes 3-4 hours before it is passed to the intestines to finish the process.\n\nExposing contaminated food and water to stomach acid for a longer period of time reduces the risk of introducing harmful pathogens/elements to the intestines, which would then pass them to the blood stream.\n\n",
"Great answers, but as others have said, animals often pay for their irrational eating habits. Even if it's not things like intestinal parasites.\n\nA few months ago, I was walking my dog around my neighborhood. I wasn't paying attention for a second and he managed to pick up a plastic bag full of Taco Bell leftovers (what an awesome neighborhood I live in...). I tried to take the bag away from him, but he frantically snarfed the entire thing whole. \n\nHe was sick for days. First he threw up the bag. Then he was laid low for a couple days, something I compared to having a really bad hangover. When he was finally ready to be up and about again, I took him for a walk and he shat a river of green slime.\n\nPersonally, I'm thankful to be a human and to have the reasoning skills to not eat plastic food litter off the street.",
"holy shit i was asking myself this same question this morning as i watched crows eat a dead deer on the side of the road..then bam see it on here.. haha",
"Dogs can't eat a lot of things: Avocados, chocolate, grapes, garlic, onions, berries, most nuts, tomatoes, most herbs & spices, large quantities of milk (they're lactose intolerant).",
"So here is a sub-ELI5 to this one. How is it also that say a cow, can eat grass all day and not need any other nourishment, but if I don't get something like Vitamin C I will get scurvy. I never understood how some animals have an extremely limited diet and not need 'vitamins' so to speak. ",
"So I asked this a few months ago on an old account and go like -2 points and was told to Google. \nGuess the question was ripe for the pickin' today. Cheers.",
"Animals have a stronger digestive system that can kill the bacteria that would cause us to get sick. That is the shortest and least detailed answer I could give. Also we've evolved over time to not need such a strong digestive system.",
"so... let me get this straight... you're interested in being able to eat crazy things including your own shit?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8L62rInB5U",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32MH5jR6Zz8&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL6CE8593C143554CD"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravlax",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surstr%C3%B6mming",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakfisk"
],
[],
[
"http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/this-guy-has-eaten-nothing-but-raw-meat-for-five-years"
],
[],
[
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8543906.stm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/05/30/daily-circuit-firestein-food-taste"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://mentalfloss.com/article/29133/how-much-rodent-filth-does-fda-allow",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIrFhfyrmS4"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7skvl6 | how did interface(sites, ui) designs get switched from non-flat to flat designs that we see in modern interfaces? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7skvl6/eli5_how_did_interfacesites_ui_designs_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"dt5jjpk",
"dt5kff4"
],
"score": [
2,
12
],
"text": [
"\"how\"? Well, you can just create a new icon or format for your interface and replace the old one. Its mundanely easy to do so for anyone working on the interface or site. There's even graphics programs that can take icons and \"flatten\" them or \"not flatten/3d/bezel etc.\" them (this were kinda all the range at one point in the past)",
"I'm gonna assume you're asking \"why did we go from one art style to another\"\n\nSo, computer graphics started very simple, because the computers didn't have enough memory to do much better. If you look at Windows 3.11 everything is just boxes, then when you get into Windows 95 you get stuff that looks a little more detailed, with some cute shadow effects on the bottoms of buttons to make them look 3d. Give it about ten more years and you're looking at Windows Vista's GPU-accelerated 3d floating transparent Windows. \n\nSo \"why did we make a complex art style style?\" Because they could, and it made people go buy windows because pretty. But why'd we go back the other way again?\n\nIt turns out once you introduce crazy 3d window and stuff...it looks cluttered. Simple boxes actually do a really good job communicating what is and isn't important if you have good design. Agruably, they do **better** at immediately highlighting what's important than lots of fancy details the viewer has to mentally crunch. So Win10 and so forth got simpler, because that's more functional to actually use, and people aren't as wowed by 3D graphis anymore."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2wr7f2 | why is most of the world still underdeveloped | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wr7f2/eli5_why_is_most_of_the_world_still_underdeveloped/ | {
"a_id": [
"cotdco2",
"cotdk81",
"cotfxfr"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Lack of stability, to develop you need time, money and long term goals, without stability people and organisations don't have that long term view.",
"The world is undeveloped on purpose.\n\nWe are afloat of massive amounts of wealth. In offshore accounts alone it is estimated there somewhere in order of 20-30 trillion dollars.\n\nEvery year we spend over trillion globallu on defense. \n\nJust 1-5% of those two sums could end world poverty.\n\nThe US could throw gold bricks at enemies and get a far better result then compared to recent conflicts. Simultaneously if we reclaimed these ill gotten monies in the off shore accounts (and yes forensic analysis has shown much of its illegal) then we could as a planet afford a global high speedrailway.\n\nWe can afford, combined with project orion (nuclear oulse engines) to setup colonies off-planet.\n\nQuite frankly when you see how much sovereign wealth there is we could be doing already.\n\nLegalising drugs would also save approx $500b per annum in global law enforcement budgets. Probaly a couple hundred billions saved from prisons, parasitic lawyers and judges. And of course a hood 500b -1 trillion in monry spent on over inflated drugs that are overpriced due to our Law Enforcement efforts. Not to mention hundreds of billions saved in productivity terms from the tens of thousands who instead of dying are alive (if we had a gov manufactured, distributed harm minimization regime)\n\nThe world to summarise is underdeveloped because our plutocracy see us human play things. Fighting each other whilst using the poor as foot soliders despite the fact there is enough wealth to end world poverty.",
"What /u/MJMurcott said. To pick one example, here are some pictures of Afghanistan from the 1950s and early 1960s. It was a dirt-poor country, but in those two decades was making some progress towards modernization: _URL_0_\n\nWhat happened between then and now? The monarchy was overthrown in a non-violent coup in the 1960s, that government was overthrown by a military coup in the 1970s. The Soviets invaded in the late 1970s and installed a puppet government, setting up a civil war that lasted most of the 1980s (where many of the fighters were propped up with money from the US and different Arab countries). The Soviets retreated but the civil war continued through the 1990s. The Taliban (propped up with support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) took over the country in the mid-1990s. Then America invaded in 2001, and fast forward to today.\n\nEach new phase of that conflict contributed to the destruction of the institutions which make a country successful. If you can *somehow* imagine an alternate universe where Afghanistan had a stable government for those fifty years, you can imagine a country that is in much more developed. (Which doesn't mean it would necessarily be democratic and Western-friendly, but would be much more developed.)\n\nInstead, it was basically fifty years of instability thanks to internal infighting, made worse with lots of foreign meddling."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the-1950s-and-60s/100544/"
]
] |
||
c1frg8 | how do people get a count for large gatherings such as the protest in hong kong, where it’s approximated that 2 million people are gathered | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1frg8/eli5_how_do_people_get_a_count_for_large/ | {
"a_id": [
"ercy1ym",
"erdiia3",
"erdlikv"
],
"score": [
44,
8,
13
],
"text": [
"It’s a lot of estimating... someone will overlay a grid on a picture of the crowd. count several grids squares, get an average, then count the number of grid squares and there ya go... and decent estimate",
"In this particular case, I read in a separate thread that someone had set up a camera on the main street in the earlier protest and used a machine learning algorithm to individually count the precise number of individual people walking along the road.\n\nIn more general cases, as mentioned by the other posters, it's a matter of making an estimate of number of people per square metre and multiplying by the area, and if the crowd is moving, further multiplying by the flow rate.",
"Herb Jacobs, Berkeley Journalism professor in the 60s came up with the method that is still used today, though refined. He had an office overlooking the quad, which was marked off in 10x10 grids. He counted people in grids during protests. People at arms length were 10 per grid, closer together, 20 per grid, etc.\n\n[Here.](_URL_0_) Works best with an aerial view."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://course1.winona.edu/eerrthum/math395/CapstoneReport2.pdf"
]
] |
||
2jxvgb | why is baseball the only sport where the coaches/managers wear the same uniforms as the players? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jxvgb/eli5_why_is_baseball_the_only_sport_where_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"clg2g2f",
"clg3w0a"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Tradition of baseball that other sports don't have. I believe it goes back to the days of players being the base running coaches and that took hold and continued as they became the coach. ",
"In the early years of baseball, some managers needed to be in uniform because they were player managers. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
vba4x | vatican ii | Reddit probably isn't the best place to go for explanations of religious doctrine but since I was raised Catholic (if you squinted real hard) I still find theology interesting, much in the same way I find Moby Dick interesting. The Catholic Priest AMA brought up Vatican II which I had heard mentioned before but never really understood.
My questions are:
1) Why was it called?
2) What did it change?
3) Did it cause a major shift in the Church, or just change some small things? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vba4x/eli5_vatican_ii/ | {
"a_id": [
"c52yllw",
"c52zwzd",
"c532hjk"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Vatican II was a MASSIVE shift in the church, it was the point where the church switched from the \"old\" Latin mass to the \"new\" current format you see performed today. There are still many churches that pray the Latin mass once in a while and both are valid forms of the mass. \n\nI dont know much about it myself, but i do know it was a major point in church history. ",
"OK. In the ELI5 Spirit.\n\nEvery so often, usually when there is a major controversy or question in the church, the bishops will come together into a *council* to address a specific topic or issue. When all the bishops, plus the patriarchs of the eastern churches still together with the Catholic church come together, it's called an *ecumenical council*.\n\nOK, so an attempt to answer your questions.\n\n1) The 20^th century in general, and the 1950s-1960s in particular, was a time of great socio-political change, and many people were beginning to question how the Catholic church would respond. The 19^th century of the church had been pretty condemnatory, especially with the [Syllabus of Errors](_URL_1_). However, when Pope John XXIII called it, the spirit of the council he set out was \"Aggiornamento\" – a funny italian word that means, really, \"Updating\". It's also important to note that the council lasted for five *years*, during which time John XXIII died, and Paul VI took over. Paul VI was much more cautious than John XXIII, and so the documents reflect that caution.\n\n2) Well, depending on who you ask, it either changed everything, or it changed nothing. To the latter camp, Church teaching never *changes*, it is only *clarified*. Sophistry aside, there were many things that changed in practice. Major points:\n\n2.1) The mass was updated to a new form (\"Novus Ordo\"), as opposed to the old mass (the \"Tridentine\" form, from the Council of Trent).\n\n2.2) Interfaith relations were encouraged. Rather than simply telling Protestants that they were all going to hell, the document [*Nostra Aetate*](_URL_0_) explicitly apologized for catholic misunderstandings during the Reformation, and encouraged not just Catholic/Protestant dialogue, but Catholic/Other Faith dialogue.\n\n2.3) Also in Nostra Aetate, the Jewish People are *explicitly* said to not bear the responsibility for killing Jesus. (The Gospel of John makes this reading pretty easy, but this document explicitly rejects that idea).\n\n2.4) The Mass is explicitly allowed to be said in the vernacular. This is different from 2.1; even where it was still said in Latin, the mass *had* to use the new form. But if Bishops gave the go-ahead, masses could be said in local languages, too. The outcry was so great, that practically all masses outside of a few ones now use local languages, since most people prefer to pray in the language they speak.\n\n2.5) It is also explicitly OK to view Biblical texts as artifacts within a certain time and place, as opposed to considering them solely on their own, with no historical context.\n\n2.6) Finally, it proclaimed that lay people have a role of equal importance in the church, and that priests/nuns/monks are not more holy because of their life, and that all people are called to be holy.\n\nThere were other changes, but these are the biggest points.\n\n3) Some changes were small (like Televising masses), some were HUGE (like mass in the Vernacular). Some of the changes are here to stay without question, some people don't like some of the changes (the society of St. Pius X is a breakaway group that rejects *everything* Vatican II taught). However, it's fair to say that Vatican II was the most significant change in the church since the Council of Trent 500 years earlier.",
"[All the phrases you need when talking to a bishop](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvvwNR3vF44"
]
] |
|
370on0 | why some socialist/communist countries forbid possessing of foreign currencies? | I remember that in ex-SFRJ (Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) possessing of dollars or german marks was something that could get you in jail back in the time. I think that I read that USSR did the same thing. Why was it illegal to own foreign currency? At least in bigger amounts. Did that had something to do with macroeconomic control or what?
P.S. Sorry, as you can see, I'm not a native english speaker. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/370on0/eli5why_some_socialistcommunist_countries_forbid/ | {
"a_id": [
"criohve"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because having foreign money might indicate that you are a spy accepting money from a foreign government; because under normal circumstances, there should be no reason for you to own foreign currency (e.g. why would an American have a stack of rubles hidden in their attic?) so having a lot of foreign currency is a red flag for fishy behavior. And FTW, the CCCP and Yugoslavia were neither socialist or communist. They merely called themselves such."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
vj7bx | -eli5- can someone here explain what this guy is alluding to? -- (implications of chinese sustained denial of local currency appreciation) | -ELI5-
In this video:
_URL_0_
The speaker talks about problems with the American economy as if they are anchored around the idea that 'free market capitalism' only works of no significant powers are manipulating the local economy as to artificially impact the global economy. He claims that China's sustained denial of currency appreciation has somehow translated into a benefit for China and a massive detriment to America.
Can someone here with some intl. economics knowledge either reinforce or debunk this man's claims?
I don't understand the implications of a powerful economic player choosing to fix the value of their currency.
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vj7bx/eli5_can_someone_here_explain_what_this_guy_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c553e0a"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are two main parts to this: how do they fix the exchange rate, and what are the main effects of that. I'll skip the first part because it sounds like you're concerned about the second part.\n\nThe main effect of an artificially imbalanced currency exchange is to make exports cheaper on one side and more expensive on the other. Consider Canada and the U.S. Right now the currency exchange rate is very close to 1:1. Let's say for the moment that I can buy a bicycle made locally in New York for US$100, or a nearly identical bicycle made locally in Ontario for CA$100. Then there isn't really any reason to buy the bicycle from the other side. The number of people who have jobs making bicycles on each side of the border is proportional to the demand for bicycles on each side of the border.\n\nNow lets say the government of Canada decides to fix the exchange rate at CA$1.00 = US$.80. Now people in New York can buy a bicycle from Canada for $80 and keep $20. What will happen? All those people in New York who have jobs making bicycles will have to find other jobs.\n\nA similar strong market tipping effect happens with the export of raw materials (logs, coal, metals) and food products (wheat, corn, rice).\n\nSo the main bad result of a fixed exchange rate is that manufacturing and resourse-exporting jobs leave the strong-currency side. In an economy near full employment, this doesn't hurt that much because more jobs are being create in other area (services). But there is some question about whether there is a limit to that rebalancing. There are also (more recently) more serious questions about the elimination of whole industries because the strong-currency side can't even get a foothold making products to innovate and compete with (see the solar panel industry).\n\nThe main upside is that the people who buy things on the strong-currency side are getting sweet deals ($600 50\" plasma TV whoohoo!) and pocketing a lot of extra cash that they can spend on other things. Well, assuming they have jobs.\n\nIf you want to dig into how they implement the currency \"peg\", you'll see that the Chinese government ends up with a big pile of US$, which they use to buy US government debt, which lowers our interest rates. That could be a big help to us, or it could be a dangerous debt bomb that will explode with they decide to stop.\n\nThat's the best I can do. ELI15?"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC-ulGJ-tLU"
] | [
[]
] |
|
frygxo | how do stem cells replicate? what are they made of? | How do embryonic stem cells replicate? What are they made of? So I read that in a regular animal cell there's a nucleus with DNA, and a way for that cell to make proteins, can stem cell do any of that? How does it know how to turn into a different type of cell? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/frygxo/eli5_how_do_stem_cells_replicate_what_are_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"flyfzc2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A STEM cell is just a cell that isn't differentiated. What does this mean?\n\nWell, all of the cells in your body have the same set of DNA in them, but a neuron is obviously very different from a muscle cell. That's because although they have the same set of DNA, the neuron \"reads\" a different subset of DNA than a muscle cell. In animal cells, once a cell \"decides\" what kind of cell it's going to be, it's set pretty irreversibly down that path. \n \nStem cells are just cells that are undifferentiated-- they haven't \"decided\" what type of cell they want to be, so they can be any kind of cell. Most stem cells in your body exist to replace certain kinds of cells that die, like skin, blood, or gut cells. Stem cells also repair wounds, or replace disease-fighting cells in your immune system.\n\nHow do cells know how to turn into a different type of cell? Signals from other cells trigger \"switches\" that start the cell down some developmental path."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3ie489 | if a 50 story building collapsed, what floor would i be the safest on? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ie489/eli5_if_a_50_story_building_collapsed_what_floor/ | {
"a_id": [
"cufln4z",
"cufloh3",
"cufnvtk",
"cufqgze"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The furthest sub-basement? I think you're done regardless, but I would think the foundation levels would have more reinforcement in the concrete and hopefully thicker walls.",
"1. Then get the fuck outside maybe?",
"[Pasquale Buzzelli](_URL_1_) \"surfed\" on debris as the north tower was collapsing on 9/11/2001. Despite being enormously improbable, it's possible to survive a building collapse from the inside. \n\nEdit: [Bonus Interview](_URL_0_)",
"OP, is this question time sensitive?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWdCzX1ieOw",
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/september-11-attacks/9530013/911-survivor-tells-how-he-surfed-15-floors-down-the-collapsing-tower.html"
],
[]
] |
||
1kkqk7 | how does inflation work? couldn't someone just print off money, spread it around, and just not tell anyone? | If you don't tell anyone that there's more money, then inflation shouldn't be able to happen. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kkqk7/eli5_how_does_inflation_work_couldnt_someone_just/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbpwwie",
"cbpwyot"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"How are you going to give people money without telling them that you're giving them money?",
"Nope. Once you spend it, it's in circulation and will cause inflation. And it's not as though you can just make up a rule that the people you give it to can't spend it, as that means it's not really even money at all. Print money, get inflation; there's just no way around it... "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4d3lnt | why is netflix throttling such a controversial issue? | I live in Australia and do, as far as I know, have my Netflix quality throttled. I don't understand though why it's a problem of net neutrality, or a problem at all. Could somebody please explain? :) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4d3lnt/eli5_why_is_netflix_throttling_such_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1nfum6",
"d1nqij7"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's when the ISP is hand picking what websites are fast or slow that really gets people. It's an incredible amount of power where companies that used to be just neutral pipes to turn into places that hand pick what websites can or can't exist. \n\nThe fact that many of the largest ISPs are media companies and the sites they most often talk about throttling are media companies makes it even more double sketchy. A cable company would be very interested in making video companies that make it so you don't need cable tv anymore not work anymore. ",
"Its like if your mum said you cant be friends with a girl at school because \"she said so\". But in this case youre an adult that pays for a company to provide you with a service , but then the service picks and chooses what you get do with it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
9uf27r | if alcohol is very effective when it comes to killing germs and bacterias, why isn’t it effective to fight a bacterial throat infection by gargling with a alcohol? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9uf27r/eli5_if_alcohol_is_very_effective_when_it_comes/ | {
"a_id": [
"e93q431",
"e93ru5x",
"e93ruqj",
"e93yi6k"
],
"score": [
27,
5,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"It actually is, depending on the alcohol. Listerine is alcohol, and that is exactly what it is designed to do. You dont want to use a germy wheatie or sugary alcohol. But vodka for example, will work.\n\nIt's not ideal due to cost but there isnt much of a reason not to. Itll also torch your throat given enough time.",
"Alcohol is very effective at killing bacteria, but it needs to have the right concentration: Around 70% or so, I'm not sure how much exactly. Less than that is going to be less effective. In addition to that, bacteria often form a protective layer of slime of some sort to protect themselves from things like alcohol. Like for example plaque on your teeth, which doesn't go away from just swishing a bit of vodka in your mouth. \n\nSo in order to kill bacteria through this slime, you have to use other chemicals. Some of these chemicals don't solve well in water, which is why mouth wash often contains alcohol - not nearly enough to act as an antiseptic by itself though. Mouthwash without alcohol usually works just fine.\n\n/u/MysticMarbles, I suggest you read [this](_URL_0_)",
"Gargling keeps it in the mouth, how is it supposed to contact the esophagus?",
"The alcohol only kills bacterial on your surface layer, and as strange as it sounds, the cells lining your throat are a kind of surface layer. The infection, however is not on the surface layer. It's underneath that, and the mouthwash doesn't help with that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouthwash#Alcohol"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
78b6mr | stephen hawking’s properties of expanding universes | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/78b6mr/eli5_stephen_hawkings_properties_of_expanding/ | {
"a_id": [
"dost7fz"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"His thesis was just released and it is basically what he has been studying to prove since 1966. It considers the implications and consequences of the expansion of the universe, and its conclusions include things you may have seen as news on Reddit before, e.g. that galaxies cannot be formed through the growth of perturbations that were initially small.\n\nKrauss, another physicist who works closely with Hawking, has done work based on Hawking's thesis and found that there is not enough visible matter to hold galaxies together. This led to the theory of dark matter, an invisible *something* that accounts for the missing matter causing the gravitational pull.\n\nIt has had many developments over the years, and it is essentially Hawking's original proposal which started all these new theories going. Using math and all kinds of complex analysis, there is credence to the theories which are simply thought up by these physicists to help us understand the universe better. It leads to more questions but we get many interesting (and often bizarre) answers thanks to the work they've put in to making new breakthroughs in scientific understanding."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6mhsmj | if you're cooking a pizza for 25-27 minutes, why is the difference between 25 and 27 so huge? | In terms of difference, I mean 27 is burnt and 25 is well cooked. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6mhsmj/eli5_if_youre_cooking_a_pizza_for_2527_minutes/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk1pjn2",
"dk20yen"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Guess: 25 min is how long it takes for the majority of surface moisture to evaporate, leaving behind an unprotected layer of dry and therefore burn-prone crust and toppings.\n \nEdit: to elaborate on this, you cant really toast something while it's still wet. Before you can get that beautiful layer of golden-brown crust and toasted cheese, the water has to be evaporated. This same principle is important in searing meat as well, which most chef's will tell you must be dried before searing begins otherwise the outer layer of meat cooks too slowly. According to [_URL_1_](_URL_0_), it takes five times more energy to convert a single gram of water into steam than it does to raise the temperature of that water all the way from ice cold to boiling hot. This means that the majority of the cooking time will be spent raising the temperature of the moisture in the cooking food, and that the small remainder goes into toasting the newly-dried food after the moisture has evaporated. Without the thermal insulation provided by the moisture, the remaining food heats up much more quickly than before.",
"The goal of cooking a pizza is to get it to the point where the food has undergone a [maillard reaction](_URL_0_). \n\nThis is the nice browning of the crust that tastes good. Think of how toast tastes different than just bread. That is a good example of how the maillard reaction changes the taste.\n\nSo at 25 minutes the pizza has gone through this and is very tasty. But that happens right before things start to burn so if you keep going it becomes a problem.\n\nHow would you like to eat the pizza if you only cooked it for 19 minutes? "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.seriouseats.com/2013/06/the-food-lab-7-old-wives-tales-about-cooking-steak.html",
"SeriousEats.com"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction"
]
] |
|
d96c7r | what is the fate of a cell after a virus hijacks it? | When we get a cold it doesn't last long. So that could only mean that either the hijacking was temporary (like a joyride where you get your car back later after the culprits abandon it), or that your immune system destroys the entire cell in order to destroy the virus.
If your cell does survive after the virus leaves, does the cell return beck to normal or does the virus's implanted code remain except falls into disrepair and therefore is no longer functional (or cannot affect your cell)?
**Edited** typo | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d96c7r/eli5_what_is_the_fate_of_a_cell_after_a_virus/ | {
"a_id": [
"f1ewvjc",
"f1ex047",
"f1ex34q"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
10
],
"text": [
"Many cells, if the immune system either marks them as infected, or the cell notices it is infected before it is too late, will simply self destruct. If the virus infects the cell, the cell is most certainly doomed to work it self to death making more viruses, or doomed to be eaten by a macrophage- a cell eating cell designed to be a disposable vacume basicaly.",
"Viruses replicate within the cell until the cell bursts, killing the cell and releasing more copies of the virus into the body. The immune system doesn't recognize the virus when its in a cell since the cell looks like a normal, healthy cell from the outside. But the immune system does learn to recognize and eradicate the viruses before they can infect more cells.",
"Compromised cells are doomed.\n\nWhen they detect a viral breach, they initiate a self destruct mechanism and launch a warning flare. Then it's a race to see how the cell dies.\n\nThe virus orders the cell to crank out viral clones until the entire cell is filled with them, at which point it ruptures and the new copies enter the body to repeat the process.\n\nIf this takes too long, the cells own suicide process will destroy the cell mechanisms before the virus can complete its work. More complex viruses have ways to slow or disable this function.\n\nIf the warning signals are picked up by the immune system, killer cells will arrive to destroy the stricken cell and everything in it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6ccnmr | how were premium subscription (spice, playboytv) channels "scrambled" back in the day? what was the method to do this and how were they "unscrambled"? | We all remember the old scrambled premium channels on our cable box. The Pay TV channels such as spice and playboy where one could buy a certain amount/block or time and be able to tune in without issue. How were these channels "scrambled" (what was the method/science behind this). Also, one could buy a "descrambler/hotbox". What exactly were these doing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ccnmr/eli5_how_were_premium_subscription_spice/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhtlwz0",
"dhtm3ny",
"dhtm83x",
"dhu0qui"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a great question. And if somebody could elaborate on why I could use a magnet to make out the slightest hint of boob, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for the piggyback on your eli5.",
"There was also a device called a \"filter\". I wonder what that had to do with it. Something to avoid detection I believe. ",
"Well, back in the day, you didn't really have pay per view. You either paid for the channel (including less racy channels like HBO) or you didn't. \n\nIf you paid for the channel, a technician came out to your cable box and installed a descrambler, which decrypted the signal and allowed your channel.\n\nThe signals were scrambled interfering with the frequencies it was being broadcast at, allowing for tricks like running a magnet on the TV to show moments of clarity.\n\nOf course, such issues created an arms race between the cable companies and the pirate descrambler manufacturers, leading ultimately to the modern systems that regulate channels based on digital cable boxes.",
"The video part of the broadcast was 2 signals on the same frequency: A scrambled version on a strong signal and a clean picture on a weak signal. \n\nThe filter blocked out the strong signal and let the weak signal get through. \n\nPay-per-view items were dealt with by sending it on a different channel and the cable company sent a code to your box that told it something like \"from 1 AM to 3 AM, play channel 999 when the user switches to channel 99\" - the good stuff was always there, but you couldn't access it normally."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2fi2vx | when did minimum wage employment become an option for a career? | I realize this is currently a politically and socially loaded question, but with all the talk of this "living wage" I was hoping someone could explain from a social and economic stand point how over the last 50 years or so minimum wage jobs at Walmart, Mcdonalds and other fast food places, etc have evolved from stepping stone jobs for high school kids to jobs for people to support their family on. My intention isn't to offend anyone, I have just really been wondering how this transition from high school job to career was made. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fi2vx/eli5_when_did_minimum_wage_employment_become_an/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck9eq33",
"ck9ewv7",
"ck9ezj4",
"ck9fbdy",
"ck9fcvt",
"ck9fu74"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4,
7,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"You should Google \"the decline of industry in the west\". It might never apply to you, and hopefully you won't be outsourced, replaced or streamlined in whatever \"career\" choice you take. \n\nIt's 50/50 you will though. ",
"It didn't. Never has been, never will be. Don't believe that narrative.",
"When minimum wage was first made law. It was intended to provide a living wage for the people at the time. They however did not tie it to the cost of living or inflation and so it fell behind. ",
"You're imagining a past that isn't actually true:\n\n1. there have always been a larger number of adults making minimum wage, or near minimum wage jobs in the U.S. than would be acknowledged by the \"american dream\". The percent of people making minimum wage today is VASTLY smaller than the percent who were making it - for example - between 1975 and 1995. Shocking to me.\n\n2. Only 1.6 million of the 144 million U.S. workers makes minimum wage - that's 1.1%. Of those, about 450,000 are between the ages of 16 and 19. These numbers also surprised me when I read them.\n\n3. there are just flat-out fewer teens working now than there were in the past. When I was a kid, every kid had a job because that's what you did. Now...less so. So...kids that are going to go on to careers that are great just don't ever have that MacDonalds job, but this is because the kids aren't working, not because the number of adults in minimum wage jobs is radically different.",
"1938\n\nWhen minimum wage law was established in the United States 700,000 people, hotel workers, seamstresses, car manufacturers, lumbermill workers, and maids all saw their wages increased to $0.25/hour (about $5/hour in today's money). Most of these jobs were held by men who were the sole wage earner in their family.\n\nFast food and big box retail jobs did not yet exist. Since their founding, they chose to pay their employees the minimum allowed by law.",
" > stepping stone jobs for high school kids\n\nAre high school kids opening the place at 6am? Working the mid day shift? Closing it at night? Working at Taco Bell til 2am?\n\nHigh school kids are available for summer, weekends, and after school. Why do you people keep insisting that every McDonalds is staffed by nothing but 16 year olds living at home? That's not possible, and about 15 seconds of thought should lead you to that conclusion.\n\nSecond: The average income in 1940 was $1368. $.68/hr for a 2000 hour work year. Min wage was $.40. ~58% of the average. So yes, enough to keep you out of poverty, since its inception. To compare: average 2012 is $44k, or $22/hr. If minimum wage had kept the same rate to average wage that it had in 1938 it would be about $13/hr.\n\nie Enough to keep you out of poverty. Which was its intent from the get go.\n\nHere's a couple of questions for you: Why do, say, manufacturing workers deserve more than minimum wage, but fast food workers do not? Why does a steel mill worker deserve a living wage but a gardener does not?\n\nSoap Box: A business that can't pay its labor costs is a bad business model that should fail. If it can't make enough money to cover all its expenses without government subsidies in the form of welfare and food stamps to its workers it should shut down, not be encouraged. It's not a viable business, and you should stop making excuses for it. If McDonalds can't make a profit on a Big Mac and pay its workers then McDonalds is not viable and that money and labor should go elsewhere."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5ctjg2 | if humans possess bilateral symmetry,why aren't we ambidextrous? | Also do other mammals favor one side over the other? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ctjg2/eli5if_humans_possess_bilateral_symmetrywhy_arent/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9z9hgp",
"d9zaec5"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"For 99% of stuff we'd ever do we are ambidextrous. You can do almost everything with your right or left hand just fine. \n\nThe amount you are better with your right hand is extremely minor and only matters for really made up stuff like hand writing. It's just that civilization made really minor hand control a really important thing in a way it wasn't pre-technology. ",
"Humans only have bilateral symmetry on the outside. Arms, feet, eyes, ears. Inside, this is not true at all. Your liver and gallbladder are on the right. Your stomach and spleen are on the left. The right side of your large intestine is very different from the left. The right and left sides of the heart are also very different. Blood supplies to organs can also vary significantly between the left and right side.\n\nIn your brain, things are different as well. Language, spatial perception and numerous other things are also lateralized preferentially to one side or another. \n\nYour second question is somewhat controversial, but most of the evidence appears to suggest it is something unique to humans. Even our closest relatives among the apes generally don't show clear preferences for handedness. Some species, for certain activities (such as pointing) may show a preference but others have noted that in at least some of these cases, this only appears to be true for those raised in captivity, suggesting it might have to do with imitation of humans. So as I understand, there is no clear evidence suggesting they exhibit handedness preferences--if they did, they must be fairly minor or it would be readily observable."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2cf7yt | why can't we generate fake voices as well as we can generate realistic looking cgi? | I just saw Guardians of the Galaxy (great movie). Groot was voiced by VIN Diesel. **Very minor spoiler to follow**. I love a good Vin Diesel movie but Groot didn't require a great deal of inflection in his voice and had very few lines. Why couldn't they just computer generate a deep voice saying "I am Groot". I guess they benefit from the Marquis value, but that's a lot of money to pay for something that seems to me like it should be doable via sound engineering. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cf7yt/eli5_why_cant_we_generate_fake_voices_as_well_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjeuyh4",
"cjewpmm",
"cjexbk7",
"cjezff4",
"cjf38fp"
],
"score": [
30,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The benefit of CGI is that you can use it to create scenes that you couldn't easily produce with traditional methods, but it still takes artists a lot of work to do it. Hypothetically, I guess it is possible to engineer a realistic-sounding voice, but there's no point in doing so when having a voice actor is just as good, if not better, likely cheaper, and definitely easier.",
"The English language alone has a quarter of a million words, and there are many ways to say it depending on the sentence. Take the word \"hello\", for example:\n\n* \"Hello, sir.\" -Formal greeting\n\n* \"Hello? Who is this?\" -Telephone greeting\n\n* \"Hello!\" -Working in retail and pretending to be enthusiastic greeting\n\n* \"Oh, hello...\" -You just found something interesting\n\nSo you already require 4 different recordings for a single word. Of course, you can just change the pitch, but \"hello\" is 2 syllables and they don't both have the same pitch. Your only choice would be to cut the recording in half, and obviously that makes your CG voice sound choppy.",
"Not only is it more expensive and more difficult to create, but there's also the issue of uncanny valley. Look at animated characters, for instance. When CGI-style animation is used for human characters, there's always something that makes them look not quite realistic. Larger eyes, exaggerated shapes... they never look completely like a real person, because our brains will always be able to tell the difference, and that will make us feel uncomfortable. It would be the same with voices. Our brains would pick up on the little breaks and tweaks between tracks, and it could take hours to get the correct emphasis and make the voice sound emotional, because the closer it gets, the more the little flaws will stand out. \n\nNot to mention they wanted a big name in there.",
"Something that no one else mentioned yet: Vin Diesel voiced The Iron Giant which was a critically acclaimed film popular in nerd circles. I would bet money that whoever casted him was a fan of that movie and wanted to see him play a similar role. Equally likely is that Vin Diesel may be a GotG or Marvel fan and have sought out the role himself. He is a giant nerd after all, playing DnD and owning his own game studio. So casting him is probably more of a nerd circlejerk than a hollywood circlejerk.\n\nEither way theres really no reason to develop insanely expensive voice synthesizing technology when you can just run some intern's voice through a filter.",
"[Japan is getting pretty damn good at it.](_URL_1_) Those vocals are computer-generated.\n\n[They even have concerts](_URL_0_).\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/XI7x_cuyVw4?t=1m30s",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoOdaEK4ceU"
]
] |
|
2r1qva | linux users, what's the controversy surround ubuntu and/or canonical? | I've heard from several people that they don't like where both Ubuntu and Canonical are going in terms of development or something. I'm new to all of this.
What's the history of Ubuntu when it comes to controversies? Same goes for Canonical. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r1qva/eli5_linux_users_whats_the_controversy_surround/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnblmyv",
"cnbnm09",
"cnbyuks"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Not sure but I will tell you that Ubuntu took a turn down commercial lane and that's not the Linux way. ",
"iirc, the search bar in Unity sends the text to Amazon and shows products that might be relevant to the user. of course there is an option to disable this but the *nix community doesn't take kindly to such behaviour being baked into the distro by default. it also raises questions on the future path that Ubuntu/Canonical might take.",
"Canonical, the parent company of Ubuntu, is a business. As as business, their goal is to make money. This alone is enough to rub some Linux maniacs the wrong way.\n\nSome of the more recent versions of Ubuntu came with settings/features pre-configured in a way that some users consider to be an \"invasion of privacy,\" or \"data harvesting.\" The Amazon search bar is part of this controversy.\n\nCanonical/Ubuntu are on their own path when it comes to development. They have their own vision, and are working on it instead of contributing to the development of more popular software packages. This is part of the Desktop Environment debate. They also are working on their own display server. I think it is called Mir or something. Many linux users/developers feel that Canonical/Ubuntu is fragmenting the community by going their own way. Also, compatibility can be a little bit of an issue sometimes with lots of different back-end software to consider. \n\nI'm not an expert. I don't work for/with Canonical. or any other major Linux development companies. This is just my very basic(and maybe not entirely correct) understanding of what the beef is. \n For the record, I dual-boot Peppermint and openSUSE. Not a fan of Unity, although I can see why others are, and why it is the way it is."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
653j2j | how do "satisfaction guarantees" protect companies from people lying about their satisfaction? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/653j2j/eli5_how_do_satisfaction_guarantees_protect/ | {
"a_id": [
"dg76qpy"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"They don't! It is in fact very easy to lie or exaggerate a problem and get free stuff you're not really entitled to.\n\nBut for the most part, people rarely do this, only jerks do. Also, most people don't care enough to put in the effort of calling up a company to complain about something and try to get a free replacement. At best you'll get like ten dollars worth of free stuff. Plus you have to give them all your information: address, email, phone number. Now you're on hella lists for telemarketing, junk mail, spam email, etc. \n\nBut more important to the company is that when they bend over backwards to keep you happy, even when you're being unreasonable, it makes you love the company and stay satisfied, which means you'll keep buying their products in the future. They'll make all the money back that they lost on giving you free stuff. It's much worse for them to lose a customer forever by letting you be unsatisfied, even if you're a jerk who's making a big deal out of nothing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9hxsux | why do sports such as boxing and ufc win belts for being champion? when was this ever a thing and why belts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9hxsux/eli5_why_do_sports_such_as_boxing_and_ufc_win/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6fd4ay",
"e6fd5m0",
"e6fd8uc",
"e6fdk77",
"e6feocn",
"e6ff4p3",
"e6fgbgk",
"e6fhwyx"
],
"score": [
17,
103,
57,
529,
106,
7,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"It's much more dignified for a boxer than changing shorts or shoes in the ring, and they don't wear much else.",
"It seems that nobody knows the origin of the belt as a prize, though it’s been a thing in boxing for over 200 years. Other combat sports such as wrestling have copied the system from boxing.",
"Because championship socks would draw attention to the winners' feet and most guys don't care nearly as much about that part of the anatomy (though there are exceptions)",
"The best info I've found on the subject, though there's not much in the way of citations in this one-paragraph column: ESPN Magazine (_URL_1_). The gist: there are records of awarding prizes to fighters as early as the 8th century BCE, including a two-handled cup (which sounds a lot like a modern trophy).\n\nThe first real \"modern\" belt appears to have been given to (or perhaps made by) John L. Sullivan (_URL_0_) in the 1880s when he wanted to cement his claim to being the world boxing champion. Why he went with a belt rather than a trophy isn't clear to me. The article's author speculates that the tradition of belts and boxing came from a practice of boxers wearing a belt or sash of their sponsors' colors, then taking the colors of the loser to wear as a sort of \"spoils of combat\" or something. The ornate trophy-belt would thus be the next logical step.",
"There is a theory that the tradition of combat Sports recognising success and accomplishments with belts is based In Greek mythology, specifically the ninth labour or Hercules. For his ninth labour Eurystheus ordered Hercules to bring him the belt of Hippolyte, queen on the amozons, a tribe of warrior women. The belt had been given to Hippolyte by Ares, god of war and held her weapons. Hercules retrieved the belt after a hard won battle. And thus the taking of a belt from a vested opponent became how champions of combat Sports were honoured. ",
"Given that it's given in lieu of a trophy for combat sports, I always thought it might have originated from the use of weight lifting belts during training for the sports. It would make sense to give the best trained athlete in the sport an ornate symbol of the training that it took to accomplish their victory.",
"Rodeos have belts as well, there is no smart answer, it's just the tradition of the sport. Give someone some gold in a symbolic form for winning a competition. Done, every old competition had some silly symbolic \"trophy\" but the trophy is gold or worth money. That's it. ",
"Good luck getting that through the loops on your trousers.\n\nIt's a cummerbund, not a belt.\n\nAs far as I can tell from what I've read, the cummerbund was originally a sash such as what miss world contestants wear to show their affiliation to teams etc.\n\nThe next step was to use the same means to show winnings and titles."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.masisboxingbelts.com/johnlsullivan.htm",
"http://espn.go.com/magazine/vol4no06answerguy.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3dt686 | why are most logos on shirts located on the left pec? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dt686/eli5_why_are_most_logos_on_shirts_located_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct8ehji"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It is because of our traditional handshake. We reach across our bodies with our right hand to shake, which covers the right chest area. Hence left side to be seen by viewer. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1pqv2i | why does someone who's depressed because they're lonely also not want to socialize? | I'm really sorry if the title is unclear and if this is too much of a broad question. If so, just let me know and I'll delete it.
EDIT: You might tell me to "ask them" but as one of those people, I couldn't tell you why... I don't know... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pqv2i/eli5_why_does_someone_whos_depressed_because/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd51td2",
"cd52n35",
"cd536y9",
"cd546j7",
"cd55fhn",
"cd56k1a"
],
"score": [
13,
8,
8,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Generally because these people are afraid of being in social situations. These people, are often socially anxious or awkward.\n\nWhat is important to understand, as a side note, is that the root of social anxiety is the fear that people are constantly judging you when really they're not.",
"My depression and loneliness came with a good deal of self-loathing. When you're alone, it's easy to get trapped-up in your own thoughts. As I hated myself and focused on everything about me that was to dislike, I had a really hard time imagining how other people wouldn't do the same. So, I wanted to be alone, even though I was lonely.",
"Most truly depressed people are stuck in a pit of despair. They simply lack the ability to get up and do something positive.\n\nI remember being extremely depressed and knowing that I needed to do something to help myself, but honestly the thought of even getting out of bed was too much effort. I simply lacked the will.\n\nNow, if you mean *sad* because they are lonely, that's another thing. ",
"I don't know how to answer this, but I would love for someone to give a good answer, as I have been dealing with this problem for over 4 years now. ",
"Because the more lonely i feel the more hurtful is rejection. And there are many kinds of rejection, at some point event those simplest \"no\" answers can hurt as fuck. And loneliness causes insomnia, which causes me to look like shit, and makes me unable to think straight, and i just can't talk to people when all I'm thinking of is that i want someone to love me, and let me love, and i mean all I'm thinking of. It's like every person in the world is behind a huge fucking window and this window has a big scratch that says \"you are lonely, and dumb, and you are unable to achieve anything\", and this sign is always the first thing i see when looking through this window at someone. I don't know how to get more accurate than this. I'd rather be lonely than lonely and constantly reminded of this.",
"Really depressed people aren't a lot of fun to be around when they are in their default setting - they hate themselves, they're exhausted, nothing seems fun and everything is completely overwhelming. When they are alone this is what they are thinking about or feeling all the time.\n\nBut to go out and socialize you need to put on your \"public\" face. You need to shower, get dressed, act normal, have conversations without breaking down and yelling \"I CAN'T FEEL ANYTHING.\" You're putting on an elaborate performance of normalcy and it takes a massive amount of energy. And we're talking about people who already don't have any energy. \n\nWhen you're lonely and depressed, you *want* to go out and socialize but you're so overwhelmed and exhausted that you can't come up with the energy to go through with the elaborate performance that is required of you. And you're afraid that everyone thinks you're annoying and horrible. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ozw6x | what does it mean when video games run on different engines? i.e. crytek, unreal. | I think it has to do with game physics and mechanics but I'm unsure. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ozw6x/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_video_games_run_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cms0xfb",
"cms132c"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The game engine is the underlying software that handles all of the graphics rendering and physics of the game. Game developers then take that engine and use it to build their gameplay 'rules' and art/textures on, thus creating a finished game.",
"A game engine is basically a set of computer code and libraries that do \"basic\" stuff like drawing things on the screen, handling the movement and physics of objects, playing sounds, etc...\n\nMany games (above a certain complexity) use engines to save the cost of developing all of these things by themselves (\"reinventing the wheel\"). This way the game developers can focus on the gameplay and the stuff that makes their game unique.\n\nWhile engines were originally pieces of code made internally by a company, so that they might use it in the different games they made, overtime some iof them started selling those engines to other third companies. Overtime, some of the engines gained traction, such as Epic's Unreal Engine, Valve's Source, Crytek, or Unity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
49gbf6 | why is molten salt(?) used for heat transfers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49gbf6/eli5_why_is_molten_salt_used_for_heat_transfers/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0rlcts",
"d0rok6c",
"d0rrsa4",
"d0ruewa",
"d0ruosg",
"d0rw54l"
],
"score": [
31,
155,
3,
8,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Salt is really, really good at retaining heat, so you lose less energy when you use it for that. Metal, for example, is very bad at retaining heat. ",
"1. Relatively large heat capacity: on the order of 1 J/gK\n2. Relatively dense: on the order of 2 g/cc\n3. Very good working range: depending on your choice you get a few hundred degrees of working temperature between \"melts\" and \"boils/otherwise breaks\"\n4. Relatively cheap\n5. It turns out that a LOT of compounds are technically salt\n\nWhen you're designing a heat transfer system, you want something that can carry a lot of heat per unit volume, that is relatively cheap, and that works over the range of temperatures you need. Liquids work well (in comparison to gases, which don't usually hold as much heat in a given volume), and if you're looking for a liquid that works at 500C -- pretty much all the results you'll find will be different salts.",
"Certain salts melt at temperatures that are advantageous in certain applications. The energy they can store during this phase change is way higher than if they were just heated as a solid or liquid. This makes them much better at storing heat than something like a hot water tank, while also requiring less volume. Source - senior BSME project somewhat related to this shit",
"I haven't seen anyone mention vapor pressure, but ionic liquids essentially have no vapor pressure. They can remain liquid in a vacuum without boiling away, allowing for things like [siphons in a vacuum](_URL_0_), but it also means that they can get very hot at low pressures. When water gets hot, it boils. If you want to keep it from boiling, you keep it under pressure. If the containment system springs a leak, you have superheated water bursting through the hole, the water all boils instantly, increasing the volume and leading to catastrophic structural failure. Ionic liquids could probably be used at atmospheric pressures, making leaks much less deadly.",
"There's a lot of good and correct points here so I won't repeat them but a major safety reason that no one has mentioned yet is pressure. Pressurised system are dangerous and expensive. If something goes wrong and materials fail because of the stress they're under the consequences can be horrific. \n\n It obviously depends on what youre trying to achieve as to what the benefit may be. You're actually quite limited in the number of materials available for high heat transfer rates. \n\nGases don't necessarily have to be pressurised to achieve heat transfer (think fans) but aren't very efficient from the perspective of the volume of gas you need to move to remove a unit of heat (think water cooled PCs as opposed to air cooled). If you want to achieve high heat transfer rates without a correspondingly enormous flow rate you need to up the pressure. This puts stress on your equipment. So it has to be stronger in the first place which is going to cost you a lot of money. What if something breaks? You could kill someone with a high pressure high temperature blast of gas. Or potentially worst case scenario you could lose cooling capability if the pressure drops. If we take a nuclear reactor for example (which is what I think you have in mind) you'll then get heat build up in the core which will be.......bad.\n\nOr you could use a liquid, for which your only option is pretty much water. Very good at heat transfer but it boils so we either allow that which is fine in some applications but can cause corrosion issues or you pressurise it and then you have the same problems I mentioned before.\n\nSo molten sodium beats these two by having the benefit of high heat transfer capacity and flow at ambient pressure. There really is no need to pressurise the system. It's pretty nasty for corrosion but if it does corrode you only get a leak instead of an explosion and that leak can potentially seal itself anyway. There are also some other really high level benefits if we're talking about nuclear tech that can be the topic of another post if you care. \n\nWhat's holding back adopting this technology? It's pretty nasty stuff. If it solidifies in the pipe which it could if shutdown you're going to have a nightmare getting the whole circuit to a liquid state again. \n\nHope that's worthwhile info. Feel free to ask me questions about nuclear energy if you have any.",
"Best use seen in that all day solar concentrator, to store heat to be used during night time for electricity generation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F4i9M3y0ew"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3tdfc1 | there are 48,828 american troops in japan and 37,704 in germany, what are they doing? | Are they just all logistical people or something? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tdfc1/eli5_there_are_48828_american_troops_in_japan_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx57tna"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The US has bases all over the world, and these bases need all sorts of personnel to operate. American troops also may be on loan to other militaries for training/coordination efforts, coalition activities, NATO stuff, American embassies, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
owh6c | how does mining for metal work? | Where do metals come from? Do metals like iron appear as deposits that are dug out of the ground, or is it dispersed in small bits in the soil? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/owh6c/eli5_how_does_mining_for_metal_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3klat4",
"c3klj5c"
],
"score": [
5,
9
],
"text": [
"There are multiple ways. Some elements are massively prevalent, like titanium, but most often you find them only in a bonded state. These you have to go through a chemical process to extract and refine. \n\nThen there are ore's which are large deposits of raw material, such as iron. These are typically combined with another substance and can usually be extracted through refining, such as smelting in a forge to separate and remove impurities (though this often requires chemical reactions as well).\n\nAnd then some substances, like sodium, you can get just from evaporating ocean water. Again you would probably want to go through a chemical process to purify the mixture, but it is a purely physical way to get sodium.",
"There are metal-containing minerals called *Ores* that are naturally occurring. These have higher than average metal concentrations than regular rock. These deposits are dug out, scraped up, or otherwise extracted from mines on or under the surface.\n\nThe ore is then [processed](_URL_0_) to get it to a point where it can be melted in a furnace. By grinding it, magnetizing it, blowing it around, frothing it, treating it with chemicals, or using the force of gravity to turn it into *mineral* and *gangue*. One is used to make the metal, the other is cast away as tailings. \n\nThe mineral is then heated in a furnace to break the very stable chemical bonds of its natural state. Drive away things like oxygen and carbon and you get your refined metal."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_processing"
]
] |
|
6lrxgy | what exactly is happening when a video game is loading? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6lrxgy/eli5_what_exactly_is_happening_when_a_video_game/ | {
"a_id": [
"djw4v7f",
"djw8j63",
"djw9gkg",
"djwbfb8",
"djwf7mo",
"djwgd00",
"djwiotp",
"djwjvsy"
],
"score": [
894,
2452,
34,
21,
2,
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"The computer moves needed data from its hard drive to RAM.\n\nWhen doing all the calculations needed to play games, the processor needs fast access to all the data necessary to do what it does, in this case, play the game. A typical hard drive is way to slow for this, it needs the data fast. So we came up with the idea of Random Access Memory, or RAM, which acts as super super fast memory that stores data needed for running programs.\n\nBut the data needs to get into the RAM in the first place, and this is why loading happens. Hard drives are once again, slow. \n\nThat being said, if you use a Solid State Drive, which is just a faster type of permanent storage, your load times will be significantly reduced.",
"Simple ELI5 Answer. \n \nSuppose I have a box of Lego, and my son wants to make a Death Star with them.\n\nThe box of Lego is the game's contents saved in a hard disk (HDD), the process of making a Death Star is the gameplay content that will be visible to the player (my son) at the time.\n \nNow I have 2 ways to do this: \n \n1. Either I take all of the neccessary pieces out at the beginning, and let my son make a Death Star with them\n \n2. Or I just take out each piece when my son's working on that particular part.\n \nThe first method require my son to wait a long period of time while I prepare; while the second method require my son to wait a little bit each time he needs a new piece. After some tries I find out that the second method create hiccups during my son's gameplay, during which he has to stop playing and wait for the next piece to come, and soon he loses interest in the Death Star and give up. Finding my son's interest in making the Death Star vital for the glory of the Empire, I decided to go with method 1.\n \nBut then I faced yet another problem: after requesting the construction of the Death Star my son only see me run away somewhere without saying anything. He's confused, wondering why I'm away for so long. Did I not hear his request? Or am I too busy to serve the Empire? Maybe I just forgot about him completely?\n \nI forgot to tell him what I was going to do. So I run back, telling him I'm getting the pieces and will be right back in a couple of minutes, and turn on a distracting cartoon for him to watch while I'm away. That, is the load screen.\n \n_________________________________________________________\n \n[Source](_URL_0_)",
"Before its full load game: \n\n* moves data from slow hard-disk to your computer's fast memory and video-card memory storages; \n* decompresses data from highly packed formats which take less space but are computationally difficult to access into unpacked ones which are easy to access; \n* possibly generates large dynamical level, texture, geometry and other necessary structures from templates or using some algorithm; \n* verifies local data with remote server and downloads levels, settings, etc if it's a network-enabled game, it takes time for those to complete; \n* some games do nothing for some time to show you advertisements; ",
"Edit: Sorry, this comment became a little bit huge. \n---\n\nAll those points that were covered here are valid and correct, but its not the complete truth that applies always. I'm myself in the game development industry, so i have quite some insight into those things.\n\nTL;DR: Different types of games, different approaches. generally, the quality of assets (graphics, sounds, etc) and the size of the level affect the amount that needs to be loaded, your computer hardware defines the amount of time it takes to load those assets. Also, the higher the quality of the game is, the higher usually the base requirements of the engine are, i am currently working on a AAA game where the engine (unreal engine 4) alone is of quite some size and needs to be loaded too, before even starting up the whole game.\n\n---\n\nLong form: Lets take some different types of games into account.\n\nA) Most simple, low requirements offline games, think of them a little bit like those old text adventures that we had in the beginning of computer games\n\nbasically no loading times.\n\nB) Still offline, but more advanced games, for example fancy textures, procedural generation, etc etc. (think of some basic offline mobile game, although that might not be so much the case because most are actually driven by very advanced game engines. how expensive they are computationally differs extremely)\n\nloading times range between loading-everything-when-i-start-the-game (which might take multiple seconds, because all those graphics and assets need to be copied into RAM) and i-load-bit-by-bit-when-i-need-it where you can come up with some fancy animation or some ad popup while loading the next level, you have lots of loading steps which take very short time (like, half a second or less).\n\nC) offline open world games (think of the newest legend of zelda for example)\n\nthe reason why i chose to seperate open world games is that they need to be handled substantially differently than \"normal\" games. the ability for the player to run around *anywhere* in a huge level makes it often impossible to load up all the stuff when the game starts, not only because of long wait times, but also because of limited amounts of RAM (besides, always calculating everything for the entire world is a hell lot of overkill)\n\nwhen developing open world games, you usally seperate the world in smaller pieces (called chunks). when you start up the game, you load the initial chunk where you spawn, and as the player moves around the game loads the chunks that the player is just about to enter and unloads those he leaves (this is called level streaming because you basically stream the level from the hard disk to the ram and have constant hard disk accesses, as it is needed). in this case you try to have rather short loading times (like one second) and if it is one predefined map you can also load it up while the player is still in the main menu.\n\nD) Offline open world games with procedural map generation (think of an offline minecraft game)\n\nwhen you create the map, you need to wait several seconds because the computer is generating the world (or, to be more precise, the initial chunk(s) (in minecraft a chunk is 16x16 wide, so you usually see many chunnks)) when you then load this map, you load the initial chunk(s) from disk as point C). the tricky part is now, when you explore beyond what is already generated. then, your computer doesnt have to load up the world from the disk into ram, but rather generate it on the fly in ram (which is way more expensive) AND write it to disk (well, you dont visually see the writing to disk, but that usually takes longer than reading from the disk). that is the reason, why if you are running minecraft on a low spec computer and explore further and further sometimes you see chunks of blocks appear in the distance seconds after they should be visible. the computer first needs to generate them\n\n---\n\nThat was the group of offline games. when it comes to online games, things are more complicated\n\n---\n\nE) Online games that use level streaming. (an online minecraft game)\n\nhere the term \"level streaming\" is way better than if you are just offline. the server has the complete map and actually streams it (in minecraft every block) to the client as the client moves around. here also the server handles world generation. loading times mostly differ based on your and the server's internet connection as well as the server's general hardware specification (the server need to have *all* the chunks from every player in memory, not just those from one player like the client). i've also seen games where the initial connecting-to-server process includes downloading the (whole) map (smaller size maps) and afterwards you only send \"block updates\" so if a block is destroyed or has changed.\n\nF) Online games that dont use level streaming (all the ordinary shooters and online games, Counter Strike, Call of Duty, Battlefield, just to name a few)\n\nHere you usually have a combination: because you are connecting to a server, you cannot know the map in advance like in point C) but only know it in the moment when you join the server. additionally, you have the whole process of server connecting, handshaking, authentication, anti cheat systems, etc (all that usually works in the background while you see a \"connecting to server\" or \"loading\" screen), usually only after that the actual map is loaded. so connecting to a server might take a second, then loading the map usually takes a few more seconds.\n\nG) Online games that use some mix between not level streaming and level streaming (a stateful world; prominent example: Ark: Survival Evolved)\n\nFirst, you have to establish a connection to the server (~1 second). next, you get the info which map to load and do that (ark is open world, so you have level streaming from the disk; multiple seconds). and then, you also need to stream the state of the world: structures players placed, houses they built, positions of players, positions of NPCs, which trees are already cut down, which arent, etc etc etc. basically a subset of all the changes you need to do to transform the \"base map\" you have on the disk to the current state. \n\nH) Game engine loading times\n\nthis usually happens before anything that you as developer can control happens, so either before you see *anything* or while you still see a black screen. depending on the game engine this takes a few seconds too.",
"imagine you want to build something inside your garden but you have all your tools in the garage. one way to do it is to pick each and every tool from the garage when you need it, go back to the garden, do what you need to do and then go back to the garage, pick. another tool and put the one you were using back and so on. \nit's a time consuming process though, and you don't want to pass days building, so you pick a little box, you take your time to put every single tool you think you'll need inside it and then you go to the garden and start building. \nfor a computer or a console, your garage is either the disc or the hard drive you have your game installed on (in this case called rom memory) , meanwhile the box is the ram memory,which is a faster but smaller memory that the game uses to store the data picked from the disc or HD before it starts building the game for you to play. \nthat's the reason why nowadays you install games even on consoles...picking the data from the disc is even slower than from an hard disk, like instead of needing to go to your garage to pick tour tools, you need to go to the store and buy them. ",
"Mostly it is allocating memory in one variety or another, be it RAM or vRAM (on your graphics card).\n\nTo a certain extent there is some amount of early processing the game may need to do to set itself up, which is also being done here.\n\nLets say you have a deformable terrain. The game might just store the original terrain and then a list of deforming events. During loading, it churns through the events and recreates the final terrain.\n\nThat's 'probably' not the best way to do that, but it is an example of what I mean.\n\nAllocating and deallocating memory is effectively the slowest thing you can do in a program. This is why most games use \"pools\" of objects. An example is the visual effect of a bullet in FPS games. The effect is generated during loading for say ~30 bullets. The first bullet that gets fired uses one of those, and once the bullet hits, the effect is put back in the pool for use by another shot. Now you might ask, what happens when bullet 31 is fired? Well, that depends on the game. In some games, it just allocates another few bullets and hopes it doesn't have to do that again. In other games, the code is maintaining a queue of the bullet effects. Presumably, the oldest bullet fired isn't really close enough for players to see anymore, so instead of allocating a new bullet (and slowing the game down for a frame or two), it just takes the visual effect from that bullet and reuses it. Note: This doesn't effect the \"physical\" bullet. It will still hit its target just fine, you just won't see it coming.\n\nEven open-world games like GTAV have loading setups in place, they are just hidden in nice ways that combine with chunking. If you've played minecraft, you are probably aware that in any normal situation, there is a 3x3 grid of chunks surrounding the player which are loaded. As you move \"up\" the bottom row of chunks is removed and a new top row appears. GTAV does the same thing, just on a much grander scale.",
"Data files are being unpacked and loaded into Ram, shaders are being compiled on your graphics card, the game is almost certainly talking back to the publishers to verify that the game license you hold is valid.\n\n And people in the multi-player lobby are cursing at you as you load slowly. ",
"Games are like IKEA furniture. \n\nWhen a game developer makes a game, they make it in its complete state. Likewise, when a piece of IKEA furniture is designed, it's designed and tested in it's completed state. \n\nThen, like a game developer, IKEA furniture manufacturers have to figure out the best way to deliver that furniture to you. \n\nSo, a game developer will take their game and break it up into pieces and compress it down into a tightly wrapped up package. Sometimes this is in the form of .ZIP files, sometimes it's in .JAR files (such as Minecraft), and sometimes it's in some unique, proprietary file type that was created by the developers themselves. No matter the file type, the goal is always the same - to break down the game into smaller, compressed pieces. \n\nLet's say you buy this game, or, in our analogy, a piece of IKEA furniture. You know what it should look like. You know what it's supposed to do. But when you buy it, it's in broken down pieces and in a compressed package. It's easy to store on the IKEA shelves, or in the game's case, on your hard drive. It's relatively small (compared to how big it would be if fully assembled - so those 50GB games would be MUCH bigger if uncompressed). \n\nThankfully IKEA furniture comes with instructions. Games come with instructions on how to assemble the pieces. (The game engine) \n\nIn the case of IKEA furniture, *you* are the CPU, and your living room floor is your RAM. You take pieces out of the box, load them into your RAM, then using the included instructions, you assemble the pieces into the final product. \n\nLarge games (like Skyrim) are more like an entire IKEA store/warehouse, and you only load necessary pieces to furnish your living room (or one area of one level/stage/city/etc in your game), because there's no way your house (your RAM/HDD) can hold an entire IKEA store's (game's) worth of assembled furniture (uncompressed, fully loaded data) \n\nLoading takes time, just like it takes you time to read the instructions and put the furniture together. The better tools you have and the more people helping you (the better your CPU/RAM), the faster it is to load. \n\nRegarding HDDs vs SSDs: \n\nA HDD is like an IKEA warehouse full of manual laborers. Lots of moving parts. Prone to errors, and sometimes the workers are lazy and slow. \n\nA SSD is like an Amazon warehouse. Fully automated, using robots, super quick and efficient."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.quora.com/Why-do-games-have-loading-screens"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
65t2f4 | if we all came from africa, what parameters do genetic heritage tests use to decide if someone is of asian descent vs. african vs. european descent etc.? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65t2f4/eli5_if_we_all_came_from_africa_what_parameters/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgd14l2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are inherited genetic markers - that started out as random, favorable mutations - that happened after people first left Africa. By the time the second wave migrated out of Africa, there were new markers in both the Africans and the first groups that had migrated toward Asia thousands of years earlier. As groups got spread out on the planet - people living in the Asian steppes crossed Beringia to reach North America and started working their way south; the second wave out of Africa went north and west - there became isolated pockets where, due to the limited size of the gene pool, certain patterns of genes were found in everyone.\n\nNowadays many of those isolated pools aren't so isolated, and a lot of people have a mix of genes. Using the markers that came into existence *after* one group or another left Africa, and markers that appeared in Africa at different times between waves of migration, many parts of our gene sequence can be shown to match, say, people from the 2nd migration out of Africa who settled in Europe, or if you are one of the ~16 million men alive today who are direct descendants of Genghis Khan.\n\nY chromosomes are passed on only from fathers to sons. Mitochondrial DNA is matrilineal regardless of gender. Both mean that parts of your genetics can be traced backwards, one following male ancestors, the other following female ancestors, and any mutations in those lines of descent can show roughly when your descendants split off from another group and/or interbred with another group.\n\nThis [documentary](_URL_0_) is relatively recent and up-to-date. The guy ends up answering your question over and over, explaining to people all over the world what he is doing and what the significance is."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf7EcSkYivQ"
]
] |
||
2ukgcv | how do bookies at an event keep track of wagers when everyone's shouting at them and handing them money? | In movies/television, sometimes there's a scene where a bookie is taking wagers from the crowd on the outcome of an event. How do they keep track of who gave them money, how much they owe, etc? As far as I can tell they're not writing anything down, people are just handing them wads of cash and shouting at them... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ukgcv/eli5_how_do_bookies_at_an_event_keep_track_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"co96m5q",
"co99ua5"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It's overly dramatized in movies. You can't actually just shout at a bookie and throw them money and expect your bet to be recorded.",
"I'm more interestsd in the stock exchange scene in Trading Places"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2i06tq | why don't computers use cable instead of ethernet to communicate. | I know cable modems translate the cable signal to an ethernet signal but why dont computers just use cable for data transfer. Wouldn't cable be faster? Why use ethernet if we could all just use cable?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i06tq/eli5why_dont_computers_use_cable_instead_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckxl164",
"ckxl4h2",
"ckxnz09",
"ckxqqzo"
],
"score": [
10,
9,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They used to.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nCoax cable only has two lines - the center and the ring. Ethernet (CAT5/CAT6) cables have 8, in 4 twisted pairs. Twisted pairs allow for less interference and therefore higher throughput.",
"Ethernet cabling *is* faster. Connections are more reliable and less expensive. \n\nThere is a capacitance problem with coaxial cables that is easier to manage with twisted-pair wiring.",
"Ethernet is a standard. So it defines how all the network tools should work together. This includes interfacing with routers/modems and computers. Cable is just cable. Beyond the other correct answers, about being faster and less interference with Ethernet, people use it because it's standardised and they know that other manufacturers will follow the same standards",
"You're mixing different things. Ethernet is a protocol and cable, or specifically, coaxial cable is the physical link. Ethernet is just a way signals are transmitted over any physical link which can be: cat5/6 \"ethernet cable\", optical fiber, coaxial cable, the air (wifi), etc. Cable modems use a protocol called DOCSIS which accomplishes roughly the same thing as ethernet, but is designed for long cable lengths with a shared connection (all the other houses connected to the same cable in your neighborhood). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10BASE2"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
xal5g | why do we become infatuated with/"fall in love" with celebrities? | I've been thinking about how much I like Emma Stone and why I do. I've never even met her. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xal5g/eli5_why_do_we_become_infatuated_withfall_in_love/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5kpjf3",
"c5kqhel",
"c5krt3x",
"c5kuew8"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"We don't. You got problems.",
"I don't, you do simply because you idolize their fairy tale lives, obviously the media usually do not portray the nasty stuff (sometimes they do). You are just attracted to the life they are living, nice trips, big cars, nice clothes, expensive jewellery and restaurants. The same way all these little 15 year old boys are obsessed with Wiz or Drake, they envy their \"lives\" even though most of it is a fucking script. ",
"I don't think you're going to get an amazing answer to this here based on the two that have been posted so far basically making fun of you for it. I'd say the answer you're looking for is either psychological or can be explained through neuroscience to some extent, thus potentially /r/askscience or /r/asksocialscience could be a better option as it has people better equipped to deal with a question of this nature. Don't forget to read the posting guidelines there as they help your phrase your question in the best way to get the best answer.\n\nFrom my limited understanding of psychology, which mostly revolves around getting people to think something or buy something (marketing & PR) you might want to have a google about something known as the 'mirror neurone', might be helpful but may not be the right answer to your question.",
"I think people are either idolizing something about the celebrity, their richness or fame, or they're lonely individuals who feel close to a person like Emma Stone or Emma Watson which reddit is obsessed with. They see them act a certain way for a certain part, and they wish they had a girl like that. They basically fall in love with them and will watch or collect anything they're in. Some people get really creepy with it too.\n\nOn the less creepy or obsessed side of things, people are just immediately attracted to certain actors/actresses, so they enjoy watching them. It's the same as if you met some attractive woman. You'd laugh even if she wasn't that funny, pay more attention to her, flirt with her. Obviously you can't flirt with movie stars since you're watching a screen, but it's kind of the same idea, and it doesn't really go beyond that. \n\nIn that way, we have extremely obsessed people who are head over heels for certain celebrities that were in something they love like 'harry potter', or maybe they're obsessed with a music artist plastering posters and other items from them everywhere, and screaming/crying when in the presence of such a person.\n\nI don't think I'd ever scream for any celebrity. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
761jxo | is it more efficient to put your food in the middle, or the outer portion of the rotating tray in your microwave | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/761jxo/eli5_is_it_more_efficient_to_put_your_food_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"doakqro",
"doamh1c",
"doavzca"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"There are always various spots in your microwave that will receive more or less heating. Putting your food on the outside of the tray ensures it gets moved around and it's less likely any one part of the food spends most of the time in a cold spot.",
"The wavelength of the radio frequency energy in the microwave is 12.24 cm. The energy is bouncing back and forth inside the oven but inside the oven, the waves appear (if you could see them) to stand still, and are called standing waves. Each standing wave has anti-nodes spaced 1/2 wavelengths (6.12cm) apart, and at those points the food is cooked. This means there are also nodes spaced 1/2 wavelengths apart where the food does not cook.\n\nAs the food spins it passes through the cook-zones and no-cook-zones over and over. To heat faster, you want it to spend more time in the cook-zones but without measuring exactly where the cold spots are, it's impossible to say what placement would be more efficient. At a guess I'd go with the outside.",
"The outside would be my logical choice, simply because that's the position that gets the food physically moving around the interior of the oven more. \n\nIf you sit it right in the middle, the centre of the food will literally not move position it'll just rotate on the spot. If that happens to coincide with a cold spot in the microwave (and they do occur otherwise you'd not need the turntable at all) then that bit won't properly get cooked. \n\nOn the edge the food is moving round and round the outer edge of the wheel, which should I'd have said, result in more even heating. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2muyza | when a slightly overweight person loses weight how does their skin get tighter? | Just to clarify I don't mean extremely obese people, just people who might weigh 10-20 lbs too much and then lose it. How does the skin in say the abdominal area tighten up to show off their newly gained abs? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2muyza/eli5when_a_slightly_overweight_person_loses/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm7ul95",
"cm7vu5m",
"cm7vzzp",
"cm7x9md",
"cm7zll6",
"cm7zuhk",
"cm80atz",
"cm84zkd",
"cm8l9xj",
"cm8tuv7"
],
"score": [
126,
18,
18,
7,
6,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's elasticity to skin. Just like there's elasticity to a rubber band. \n\n**Look at a rubber band.**\n\nIf you stretch out a rubber band by *only a little bit*, even if it's for a *suuupper long* time, it'll go right back to its original form with ease when you let go. \n\nIf you stretch out a rubber band by *A LOT* for a *suuupper long* time, it'll look long and stretchy even when you let go.\n_____________________________________________________\n\n**Now look at your skin.**\n\nIf you're just a bit overweight for a *suuupper long* time, you will likely go right back to your thin form with no \"stretchy skin\" even after you shed some pounds. On top of that, you may even experience muscle gain to make up for lost mass, thus keeping your skin stretched to the same relative place. \n\nIf you're super duper overweight for a *suuupper long* time, your skin will look long and stretchy even when you lose weight. \n\nNOTE: This may be completely incorrect as it's only what I think is common sense, and has absolutely no scientific background. ",
"Cells can shrink and expand. \n\nMore cells develop in extremely obese people as there is a limit to the size a cell can expand. When they lose weight, they don't lose the extra cells so they have excess skin.\n\nSimple as that.",
"Sometimes it doesnt (When they loose weight very fast) like with this guy... _URL_0_",
"This is exactly what I went through (103kg to 77kg) and I've still got a fair amount of skin even a year later. It doesn't look baggy or anything, but it's there. I've been told my body will adjust in time ",
"Someone tell me if I'm wrong or right. I was told or read that your skin given enough time (Depending how much you have) will naturally start to reduce. But past the age of 28 its much harder for the body to do.",
"If you are losing less than 30lbs your skin is like an elastic band and will just snap back. Shortly after it will just rest like that. If you are losing more, it won't and may never recover. Former obese persons will always have scars showing they were obese.\n\nSource: Former fatty",
"While not about the skin directly, this is a great video about gaining weight, losing weight, etc, so still topical. It's called Why Are Thin People Not Fat. Really informative.\n\n_URL_0_",
"There is proteins that give structural support and elasticity such as collagen and elastin. The body loses it's ability to express these proteins as we age. These proteins have mechanical properties that act as a scaffolding and spring\n\nHence why weight gain, especially later in life, makes it harder for the skin to regain normal elasticity.",
"ok so a lot of people have commented but I'm still confused. I've been working out for a while and haven't really lost much weight because I've been gaining muscle at the same time. However the skin around my stomach and my lovehandles are flabby but when I flex my abs I can see definition. Is this skin ever going to tighten up or am I just stuck with a kind of flabby stomach?\n",
"I have read that over the age of 30 drastically cuts down your skins ability to heal and takes a big blow to how elastic it is. But ways to improve the skins healing power are collogen rich foods, protect from excessive sunlight, and a high % cocoa butter lotion. Also vitamin E. Another thing I read was that your skin is a organ just like you heart or any other muscle. So make it expand on muscle it will \"*reset*\" itself to adequately protect your muscles. And shrink in the process!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW7x3c8Ouew"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAQr77QMJiw"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2bo5x0 | what are computer specs? what is cpu, gpu, ram and all that other computer talk and how does it computer? | When people post their computer "specs", they always include all these weird acronyms and whatever else. I have 0 knowledge of computers, and I have no idea whats considered good or bad. I'd like to know what the common terminology means and how it effects my computer. Help!
edit: messed up the title. it was supposed to say "and how does it effect my computer" | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bo5x0/eli5what_are_computer_specs_what_is_cpu_gpu_ram/ | {
"a_id": [
"cj78uak"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The important components of a personal computer are the hard drive sometimes called the Hard Disk Drive (HDD) or Solid State Drive (SSD), important for storing large volumes of information in a compact manner. The Random Access Memory (RAM), important for taking data from the hard drive and holding it for use by the processor. The processor, also called the central processing unit (CPU) in charge of orchestrating computer tasks. The graphics card or graphics processing unit (GPU), needed to carry out graphics intensive tasks and shoot that information to a screen, and finally the motherboard (MOBO) which holds all of these pieces in place.\n\nFor the analogy I’m going to use an accounting firm with 3 floors. On the top floor we have the executives of the firm, a small group of very talented people that have a variety of experience in many fields. This is the **CPU**, these guys are in charge of all of the tasks that are carried out by the firm and are busy from sun up to sun down taking requests, calling brokers, negotiating with stockholders, naming wages etc. They have a large and diverse workload and must work quickly and efficiently to get it done.\n\nThe secretaries of the firm will act as the **RAM**, they hold all the information the executives need during the day, where they need to be, who they need to call, what they need to wear, they also mediate who and what is sent to them and how quickly they can see them.\n“Just sit over there sir, the boss will see you in a moment.”\n\nNow, if the secretaries are missing some information that they need, they head to the bottom floor which is lined with file cabinets. This file cabinet floor has all the information they will ever need, but it takes them a while to find. They can eventually deliver it to the CPU, it just takes them longer. This floor is what a computer would call an **HDD**. The RAM has to physically take the memory from the **HDD** and store it before it can give it to the CPU, it takes longer this way because they have to go down the elevator search through the cabinets, get back up the elevator and then they can deliver it to the bosses.\n\nThe next piece of the puzzle is the **GPU**, this component we can consider the second floor, which is the where all of the accountants are. Thousands of accountants line this floor, each crunching very specific numbers to accomplish a similar task. The bosses send them their daily instruction and then they punch the same type of numbers over and over and over again, each individually working efficiently at their own mundane and repetitive task. These results are seen by whomever the accountant is managing numbers for and in a larger sense all of the accountants together make up what the firm has to offer. Here what “the firm has to offer” is what is shown to the user on a monitor; it is the picture you see on the computer screen. “Whomever the accountant is managing numbers for” is the pixels on the monitor that each core on a GPU is individually rendering. The **GPU** is complicated but its task is straightforward, to make the picture you see on the screen. It makes 60 frames per second (60fps) on a monitor that refreshes the screen 60 times in a second (60hz refresh rate).\n\nFinally we have the **motherboard**, this is the easiest to explain, it is the building and infrastructure that holds the firm together and allows transport between and around floors. The elevators, stairs, hallways, lights and equipment that the individual people of the firm use are all part of the motherboard. A motherboard works by sending signals to each part using electric current, it holds all of the pieces in place and conducts electricity from part to part, and the flow of electricity is what commands each part to carry out a task.\n\nAs for the case and the power supply unit (**PSU**), you don’t really need a case, a case just makes everything look nice. I guess a motherboard is the building and infrastructure and the case is the walls, windows, doors, flowerpots, fountain in the main lobby, gilded tiles, marble countertops etc. The PSU you can think of as a generator for the building that grabs its power from the grid."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
16rpsp | why/how can gas stations place a $125 hold on my account when i buy significantly less than that amount of gas? | _URL_0_
Chevron has $165 hold and QT does $125 - if I only buy $5 of gas, why are they allowed to hold an additional $120 of my money?
What benefit does it serve them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16rpsp/eli5_whyhow_can_gas_stations_place_a_125_hold_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7ystla"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Credit card pre-authoritization-- it is how credit cards work. Gas is a metered sale.\n\nMost times when you shop at a merchant, you pay with your credit card and it is approved/declined on the spot. \"Pay first.\"\n\nGas stations, by habit allow you to fill up first then you pay-- the problem with this is if you do not have enough money to cover the transaction then the gas station loses money, the product could be contaminated or not resell-able and they will not be able to \"force\" you to pay.\n\nSo, they pre-authorize your credit card for a preset amount-- $125 was set by that individual gas station location, so if you were to continue to get gas until the price was $125, the pump would shut off before it became $125.01 forcing you to reswipe your card for safety measure.\n\nSo now theres pre-authorization, the merchant set on your account $125.00, but you only bought $50 worth of gasoline-- there is usually 24-72 hour limit until the business does \"settlement\" (usually faster for certain industries, e.g. hospitality and gasoline/pos) which tells the credit card processor that you only bought $50. The transaction gets revised from $125 to $50 and your bank will then release the funds instantly back to your account.\n\nThis is also how deposits work at hotels too. \n\nPicture of how this works:\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/fMHBh.jpg"
] | [
[
"http://blog.unibulmerchantservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Submission-Clearing-and-Settlement-of-Credit-Card-Transactions.jpg"
]
] |
|
3alnwv | why do cellphones in movies have fake os's | I always see people who clearly have iPhones or other popular phones, but always a completely different OS. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3alnwv/eli5_why_do_cellphones_in_movies_have_fake_oss/ | {
"a_id": [
"csdr59s",
"csdr5dm",
"csdreis"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The same reason they you don't see them use google when searching for things but always use some generic search engine. There are strict laws regarding product placement in movies and TV shows. In France it's against the law to even mention facebook or twitter on TV.",
"* They don't want to give free advertisement. \n \n* They don't want to be sued. \n \n* The usage of the phone may be something it doesn't normally do.",
"Then there's the opposite end of the spectrum with overly obvious product placements in movies. You know that the producers in Skyfall didn't just HAPPEN to have a few bottles of Heineken lying around. Coke, Sony, Heineken, BMW, Omega watches and others dished out around $200 million US to have James Bond seen on film with their products. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2d0e0f | how do "sobering" moments work? | How can a brain "stop" being drunk because something has happened? There is still the same amount of alcohol in the brain and blood, surely? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d0e0f/eli5_how_do_sobering_moments_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjkthqd",
"cjkv6mg"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It can't.\n\nSobering moments don't work.\n\nA slap won't work\n\nCoffee won't work\n\nCold water dunk won't work\n\nYou are still as drunk as you were before.",
"I've been high as fuck, but once pulled over I feel 110% sober. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5yu2ya | is there anything that says you can't cheat in a us election? if cheating was proven true, would it have any effect on the results? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5yu2ya/eli5_is_there_anything_that_says_you_cant_cheat/ | {
"a_id": [
"desw4ks",
"deswkjw",
"desx7qa"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It is illegal to vote multiple times. Illegal to vote under someone else's name. Illegal to vote in a jurisdiction you do not live in. Illegal to stuff the ballot with false votes. Illegal to take away votes from a competitor. And many other laws regarding voting. So yes there are lots of laws that say you cannot cheat in a US election. \n\nDoing so will result in you being arrested and fined, and there may be grounds for there to be a recount. If the person running is the one guilty of such a crime (such as stuffing ballot boxes) then they are removed from office and often arrested. ",
"Pretty much by definition it's illegal. The \"rules\" for an election are the laws. So if you're cheating, you're breaking a law. If you're not breaking any rules, then you're not cheating. You might be acting like a dick, but that's not the same thing as cheating. \n\nThe election agencies can't just decide to throw out the results because someone cheated unless they did so in a way that would invalidate them. You still have to be tried and convicted. Depending on local laws and the position you're elected to, you could be removed or disqualified from running automatically. In other cases there might need to be a separate process to remove you from office if you don't resign. ",
"Certain things are illegal, like those mentioned below. Things that directly impact the actual voting process. \n\nWhat the Russians and others are alleged to have done in this past election is a little different. Even if it's proven without question that the Russians hacked emails and used social media and the internet to strongly influence voters in the election and favor Trump, that will not change the results. Trump still won and they will not be removing him from office over this, even if we know the Russians did all of these things. \n\nLaws may have been broken there, but it's the actual votes that are placed that determine who won the election. Unless you've hacked a computer directly to make more votes appear in your column, then you haven't violated that. Manipulating voters into voting for a certain candidate may be unethical, but at the end of the day the voter has free will, so if they make the vote and it's recorded correctly then it's a legitimate vote. \n\nHope that makes some sense. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3i4n25 | what's to stop someone from outside us from simply taking a "vacation" and never leaving? | With all the immigration debate going on, I was just curious. This is not political whatsoever.
EDIT: Vacationing to the US. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i4n25/eli5_whats_to_stop_someone_from_outside_us_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"cud8t0n",
"cud8t78",
"cudcb3z"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Nothing. Until your money runs out. Then you need a job. Which requires you to have a visa, or other valid document. Which you won't have, because you never did the paperwork. You can offcourse do various \"non-official\" jobs, but then your risk getting caught by police, or any other authority that deals with money, jobs, insurance, etc....",
"Nothing. Many students come on student visas and stay. Many people come on vacation and just don't leave.\n\nIn many cases, if an illegal alien is here and not causing trouble, they aren't actively sought. Law enforcement often sees it as low priority.\n ",
"This is actually how about 40% of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. arrived. They got some temporary visa and overstayed it. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1g6a3l | how we can breed dogs in all shapes and sizes, yet we can't make a cat-sized elephant. | Oh I assure you, the demand is there. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1g6a3l/eli5_how_we_can_breed_dogs_in_all_shapes_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cah5cfb",
"cah8n7n"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"Because we haven't been trying for tens of thousands of years to breed elephants.",
"Dogs are one of the very few species that can be bred into dozens of distinct breeds. Most species only have the genetic complexity for a handful of breeds. [Here's an explanation on QI](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/zKSf7H8gU0k?t=1m42s"
]
] |
|
1wx50i | why do humans like to watch things break, get destroyed, or crash? | We all enjoy watching controlled building implosions, Will It Blend? is popular on YouTube, and there are countless videos of crash test vehicles available online. What is it about destruction they we're so attracted to? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wx50i/why_do_humans_like_to_watch_things_break_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf683vf",
"cf68cd9",
"cf68u13",
"cf6e6ap",
"cf6ip4a"
],
"score": [
5,
21,
5,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I suspect it has to do with our natural state as creators. You cannot give order to something without chaos preceding it. On a subconscious level, we must view the destruction as the prerequisite to rebirth.",
"The neurologist Sigmund Freud, the founding father of psychoanalysis, suggested that humans have a \"death drive\" or destrudo which is the opposite of libido, the drive to create life. The concept is still highly controversial.\n\nI interpret it as humans are attracted to destruction because of the huge of amount of entropy, or disorderliness that it generates. Like how we are impressed by things made by humans (artwork, sculptures, buildings, etc.) that required a great deal of energy to make, we are impressed by things that produce great deals of energy and/or randomness (nuclear bombs, blended bits, buckled cars, etc).\n\nWatching the world burn would be quite beautiful.",
"This is completely speculative. Perhaps the ability to cope with, or even revel in, carnage and violence provided an evolutionary advantage. The ability to be violent when the need arises provides evolutionary advantage.\n\nPerhaps it is similar to why we enjoy things like horror movies or rollercoasters. They provide a very primal rush that our ancestors felt more frequently than we do today, a rush that helped them survive. Today, this responce is becoming more unnesecary in day to day life, and we crave it.",
"All humans can physically do is create things for the most part. But, to destroy things, we have to use natural forces or create other things whose sole purpose is to destroy. The obvious exceptions are things like paper... but, nobody is going to find much intrigue in the fact that you can rip up paper.\n\n\nHowever, getting back to the point, we can create beautiful buildings or fancy vehicles, but we cannot destroy it with our bare hands. No, we need the help of other things that we build, like crushing or shredding devices... or explosives. Or we need tools from nature like wind, water or fire to cause destruction. There is a certain love affair with the fact that we can create, but we, by ourselves are virtually powerless to destroy. So, when the opportunity arrives to watch a man-made effort to destroy something, people become intrigued.",
"Controlled destruction feeds the attraction people have to violence and other novel sights, without creating a threatening feeling.\n\nAlso, breaking expensive things is decadent. You get to indulge the \"how cool would this be\" side without having to deal with the expense and consequences, not to mention the \"how badly could this go wrong\" side for things."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5t9ky5 | how do ants know where to make an anthill. | They seem to work methodically to generate an anthill, how do they decide where is a good location? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5t9ky5/eli5_how_do_ants_know_where_to_make_an_anthill/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddlehrq",
"ddlir1m"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm no ant expert but from my understanding where ever the queen goes the rest of the colony goes too. And all that dirt on an ant hill is from the worker ants moving dirt out to make their little ant highways in the ground. ",
"My understanding of ants is this.\n\nQueen flies off and digs a hole, starts laying eggs. Eggs hatch and the workers begin expanding the hole into a series of tunnels. The hill is the dirt they removed from the tunnels. If the place sucks for ants to live in and they all die, no hill is formed. \n\nSo, only good areas will have an anthill...there's probably countless failed colonies you'll never know about\n\nBasically/TLDR they don't choose, you only see successful places \n\nEdit: and yeah iirc ants fly during mating"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
19z9dp | why/how does covering a bomb with one's own body 'muffle' the explosion? | Like in situations where people dive on top of grenades, mines, etc to protect others... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19z9dp/eli5_whyhow_does_covering_a_bomb_with_ones_own/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8snet8"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The most deadly aspect of a grenade is the shrapnel, the metal case of the grenade that is sent flying away at high speed, essentially thousands of little sharp metallic bullets.\n\nJumping on the grenade is going to cause most if not all of that shrapnel to get sent into you, if any does manage to make it through you it will likely be traveling at less than lethal speeds. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
ey8v7b | how does not wearing warm clothes in winter get you sick | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ey8v7b/eli5_how_does_not_wearing_warm_clothes_in_winter/ | {
"a_id": [
"fgfpzn6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Its false. You get sicker in winter likely due to being in close quarters with people more frequently due to weather/temperature.\n\nCold, dry air irritates your nasal lining, and as a result, your nasal glands produce excess mucus to keep the lining moist. So people tend to have more bacteria/viruses on their hands in colder times/locations from wiping noses/faces which gets spread to others."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
57kt0e | why do some american bridges have little roofs on them? | its like little barns over a river - what is the point of this? it seems like a waste of resources considering the rest of the road doesn't have a roof. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57kt0e/eli5_why_do_some_american_bridges_have_little/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8ssmi4",
"d8ssrpd",
"d8su7v9"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"It protects the wooden bridge from the weather. The road doesn't need a roof because the rest of the road isn't made of wood which can rot or otherwise be degraded.",
"Bridges are sometimes built of materials that last longer if they're kept dry, like wood. In that case, a roof will keep the bridge's structure from needing repair sooner than it has to.",
"Protection from the elements is the correct answer. I would like to highlight the fact that covered bridges are no longer built, unless serving as a preservation or aesthetic endeavor. The technology dates back to a time before there were other practical/economical ways to protect the wood. The cost of the extra material used was offset by increasing the life of the bridge, which was typically only 10 or 15 years for an uncovered bridge. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
14iyt6 | what is the difference between cannabis/hemp/marijuana | I hear all used, are they just the same thing with multiple names? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14iyt6/what_is_the_difference_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7dgznq",
"c7dk1bs"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"As far as I know. Cannabis is the medical term. And hemp is all the parts of the plant that are not psychoactive agents",
"cannabis is the genus of the plant, hemp is the stalk used to make products like paper or rope, and marijuana is mexican slang."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6fmqga | all these facebook ads where you get their product for free and 'only' pay the shipment fee | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6fmqga/eli5_all_these_facebook_ads_where_you_get_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"dijcha1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because you have to pay more for the shipping than the product is worth. They still make a profit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
x4mxv | the business behind gps? | I don't know much about how my sat-nav works, but I do know that putting things into space costs a lot of money.
When I watch satellite TV I pay (subscription or ads), when I make a phone call I pay, but for some reason I never pay a cent to have a complex network of flying space computers tell me to "take a left turn in two hundred meters". Why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x4mxv/eli5_the_business_behind_gps/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5j4573",
"c5j498n",
"c5j4swl"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It was paid for decades ago by the government for military use. It was already paid for through taxation. \n\nJust another case where military spending provides benefits for the public",
"To supplement what My_Empty_Wallet [said](_URL_0_): it's worth noting that the satellites aren't complicated flying space computers and don't tell you when to turn. They're just atomic clocks with radios and a bit of laser rangefinding gear. Your satnav/phone/whatever has a radio receiver that picks up the clock signals and uses a lot of sophisticated math to compute your positions, then goes from there with whatever it needs to do (like telling you to turn left).\n\nThat isn't to say that GPS doesn't represent a really incredible amount of infrastructure, but it's still not nearly as complicated as you might think.",
"To add to both the responses, the GPS satellites just provide time signals. Your device does the calculations to figure out where you are, and does all of the mapping and turn by turn directions itself.\n\nThe satellite lets you figure out how far away from it you are. Imagine there's a radio in Philadelphia, and it is broadcasting to you. You know that the radio waves go 50mph. You get a radio wave that says \"It's now 1:00pm\". You look at your watch, and it says it's 2:30, so you know you are 75 miles from Philadelphia, but not which direction. You then get a \"It's now 2:00pm\" transmission from New York. You know that you're 25 miles from new york, so you must be in North Jersey, but you're not sure exactly where - there are two locations that you could be at. Finally, you get a \"It's now 1:30pm\" transmission from Atlantic city. Knowing those 3 distances and the locations of those transmitters, you can 'triangulate' the position.\n\nGPS works the same way, except that the timings are far more precise, because radio waves travel at 186,000 miles per second, but essentially it works the same way - comparing the clock signals from a minimum of 3 different gps satellites. Then it figures out where you are, and uses the maps it stores internally to give you directions. You are no additional burden on the satellites, and the military paid for them, so they let you use them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x4mxv/eli5_the_business_behind_gps/c5j4573"
],
[]
] |
|
8qnstj | in space, what opposing force keeps orbiting entities, like planets/satellites, orbiting against the constant pull of gravity? | Is the opposing force unlimited (never runs out) like gravity?
I understand that lateral motion along the orbit keeps it from "falling in", but how can it go on _forever_ without some force compensating for slowly decreasing speed due to pull of gravity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8qnstj/eli5_in_space_what_opposing_force_keeps_orbiting/ | {
"a_id": [
"e0kmq93",
"e0kmqa0",
"e0kp6xy",
"e0ktxu8"
],
"score": [
2,
13,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It doesn't go on forever. Orbits decay over minutes, hours, years, eons, whatever. It depends on the system, but all orbits decay.",
"There is no opposing force. Orbiting is when something is falling due to gravity, but it continually misses its target.\n\n > but how can it go on forever \n\nIt doesn't because nothing goes on forever. In the context of the universe at large, it's very important to make the distinction between \"Forever\" and \"For an unthinkably long time\".\n\n > without some force compensating for slowly decreasing speed due to pull of gravity?\n\nAnd why would it slowly decrease? There's no friction in space. There's *nothing* in space.",
"so things get complicated with real orbits, but in a circular orbit, the pull of gravity never opposes the direction of motion. \n\nif you think about a satellite, gravity is pulling down and the satellite is moving *tangent* to the planet, meaning gravity and the direction of motion are at right angles. ",
"Imagine you had a tall step ladder, so tall, in fact, that you need a space suit to climb to the top and survive. If you threw a baseball as hard as you could from the top of the ladder, it would land way further away from you than it would if you were on the ground. Now, suppose you had a super duper baseball throwing machine. You might get the baseball to land hundreds of miles away from the base of the ladder. \nNow, you crank the throwing machine up to **eleven** and it might travel half way around the planet before landing. Crank it up to **thirteen**, and it might go *all the way around the planet* before crashing into your ladder. Throw it even faster, and it might hit you in the back of the had. Faster! Faster! Faster! If you throw it faster, it might go *over* your head. If there's no friction to slow it down, it'll just keep going around and around and around. If your ladder is tall enough, and you throw it fast enough, it will keep orbiting until something slows it down. That something won't have anything to do with gravity, but rather bumping into the occasional stray molecule way out in space. Likewise, the occasional stray molecule might bump into it and speed it up a little. The faster the baseball goes, the higher its orbit is. \nAt the height of geosynchronous satellites, there's a *whole lotta nothing* for the ball to run into to slow it down, so it'll probably keep orbiting for hundreds or thousands of years. \nTo get a good intuitive understanding of orbits, I *strongly* recommend playing Kerbal Space Program for a couple dozen days.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
89q4q0 | if part of wwii's explanation is germany's economic hardship due to the treaty of versailles's terms after wwi, then how did germany have enough resources to conduct wwii? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/89q4q0/eli5_if_part_of_wwiis_explanation_is_germanys/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwsnq8c",
"dwso92p",
"dwt5h9x",
"dwt85th",
"dwt99qj",
"dwta8xf",
"dwtai2s",
"dwtam79",
"dwtdwo4",
"dwte4f9",
"dwtepus",
"dwtf5bz",
"dwtfqe0",
"dwtfxn8",
"dwtfyjj",
"dwtgbgy",
"dwtgnni",
"dwtgzxi",
"dwth074",
"dwthhbv",
"dwti1mc",
"dwti3ua",
"dwti566",
"dwtjq9m",
"dwtko7k",
"dwtlmc9",
"dwtmhws",
"dwto9yp",
"dwtq632",
"dwtqpfi",
"dwtsmfx",
"dwtt8i6",
"dwtwc6j",
"dwtwhwd",
"dwtzjv2",
"dwu2yzb",
"dwufslm"
],
"score": [
8900,
7,
64,
3,
14,
4,
32,
5,
87,
3,
8,
2,
2,
3,
2,
446,
2,
3,
4,
3,
4,
2,
7,
225,
3,
13,
12,
37,
3,
67,
8,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Multiple factors, roughly in chronological order:\n\n* Stopped paying reparations which caused a huge influx of money into the economy\n\n* Borrowed lots of money from banks\n\n* Devalued currency to drive exports\n\n* Nationalized businesses, allowing the state to direct them towards state goals (e.g. weaponry)\n\n* Confiscated minority property, e.g. that of Jews.\n\n* Confiscated property in occupied territories and forced cheap/slave labor\n\nRemember, Germany may have been in a deep depression, but it was thoroughly a modern and industrialized economy, and you could view its woes mostly as a finance problem and not a problem of knowledge, skill or equipment. Solve the finance problem (as the above bullets did) and you unlock the economy's potential.",
"From my understanding, most of Nazi Germanys economy stemmed from counterfeiting money and taking resources from occupied countries like France of Poland.\n\nHowever, I don’t think Nazi Germanys economy for war was all that great to begin with. Many units still incorporated horse drawn carriages for carrying supplies. They also had issues with natural resources like oil.\n\nI read a book one time that was a collection of German veterans from the Normandy landings. In one account, a soldier describes his disbelief as American GI giving up repairing a Jeep after thirty minutes and instead bring a replacement Jeep.\n\nIf anyone can correct or further explain my post, that’d be great. I’d like to hear further knowledge.",
"History buff here\nGermany basically went on an industrialized craze and as for the Treaty of Versailles they simply ignored it. Even after the war they got back on their feet pretty fast. Germany took off on a pretty magnificent economic boom in the West that a lot of conservatives like to hold up as one of the great examples of capitalism and was even used as a [big argument for Brexit.](_URL_0_) So people fall into different camps on why, but Germany just seemed destined to be an economic power. On a more historical front, this area geographically happen to develop as a crossroad of european populations and trade borders that formed a sprawling economic zone. as the fate of history showed the [blue banana](_URL_1_) was here to stay.",
"Germany pretty much convinced other countries that they needed some supplies for themselves so they could still be a country and a defense to stop invaders (which is how they built a military) and then they invaded Poland from the no-man's land.\n(explained to me a couple years ago so corrections would be fantastic)",
"Like you are suspecting, the versailles treaty was much more of an excuse than a cause of ww2. By 1930 Germany had gone through the worst of the Versailles trouble and had a booming economy.\n\nLook at Japan - it got fucked to a much greater degree than Versailles did. The flaw of Versailles was that it did not go far enough- it angered germany without taking from it the tools of revenge.",
"It is often easy to confuse money with power.\n\nFor nations money and power are often unrelated. The western powers wanted Germany hurt economically so that it couldn't just rise up to fight again. Rome made the same mistake with Carthage. The mistake they both made is that the real value those societies had was in all the stuff that made them money. Take away the money for a few years and all that other stuff still exists and can get put into over-drive to make more money. ",
"The reparations that Germany had to pay for WW1 were far less harsh than what Hitler and the Nazi party trumped them up to be. On top of that, little in the way of actual reparations were ever repayed with Germany constantly bidding to delay payments and reduce them, which England and France allowed. At the end Hitler entirely refused to make any payments at all.\n\nThis still leaves the question of how exactly Hitler financed Nazi Germany's rampant militarism and rearmament. \n\nPart of the answer is by mass confiscation of property from persecuted minorities and annexed territory, often quickly burning through the reserves of these annexed territories, plundering anything of further of value as well. They would then force occupied states to pay for the Nazi occupation. This was still not enough.\n\nHitler further financed Germany through MEFO currancy, a strategy similar to what Enron used where they create a shell corporation to loan money to the parent company even when such loans wouldn't make sense. Its a sort of private money that can't reach general circulation. It further set up strict wage and price limits and high interest rates to allow them to print large amounts of money without seeming to create inflation. They set their money to a set value in gold despite mass printing and the fact that it was obviously not worth that amount of gold to anyone outside of German jurisdiction.\n\nThe German government essentially financing itself on borrowed time and risked complete collapse without constantly expanding and plundering.",
"Germany was one of the first countries to recover from the Great Depression because they were one of the first countries to leave the gold standard. They left the gold standard five years earlier than France and thus had a longer recovery preceding the war.",
"Technically speaking, they didn't - the country would have been much richer if they hadn't fought the war, and during the build-up to the war the quality of life of the average German did not increase as might have been expected - the best example is the Volkswagen programme, whereby citizens entered a sort of bond where they gave the state a small amount every week to build up enough for a car. No cars were ever delivered. \n\nLots of tanks were, though. After 1942, Germany was pretty much living from hand to mouth with very few reserves of metals, petroleum, or foodstuffs, and by 1944 most of industrial Germany was totally destroyed. It was a miracle that Albert Speer managed to keep war production going, and he had to use slave labour to do it.",
"Frankly, they did not have enough resources. They had enough resources to start a war and conduct one for a couple years, but the German high command even was fully aware that they needed to take the Middle Eastern oil fields, the Caspian oil fields, and they already had arranged for access to Romanian oil.",
"WW2 explanation as a cause of economic Hardships is of course not complete.\n\nEconomic Hardships did help to achieve the right sentiment in Germany that made unpallatable nazi rhetoric acceptable at that time. However using this argument alone makes entire narrative not honest.\n\nMost of your questions will be fully addressed if you would find some time to explore not \"official\" versions of why ww2.\n\nSome hints for you:\n- Soviet Union trained Germany's officer corp to bypass Versaille treaty\n- Soviet Union was a major supplier of raw materials (oil, ores, lumber, grain etc.) prior to mid of 1941. Soviet Union exports supported nazi war machine.\n- Soviet Union co-occupied Poland by taking half of the country together with nazis.\n\n",
"The same way that the DPRK, which is full of a malnourished, utterly impoverished citizenry, maintains an army of over a million and has developed both nuclear weapons and ballistics technology to deliver them. If you commit all of your resources to the military, it builds fast. We only spend 16% of the budget on the military in the US, and we have the #1, 2, 3, and 5 biggest air forces in the world.",
"They took the resources for an entire country and concentrated them into a military machine. Then used that machine to capture nearby territory, enriching themselves. ",
"The most basic explanation I can give is this. A treaty only works if both parties fufill their side of it. Nazi Germany basically just decided to ignore the Treaty of Versailles. They stopped paying reparations and started building up a massive army. France and England infamously ignored these violations through the policy of Appeasement.",
"The hardship came during the time of the Weimar Republic. They were responsible for \"negotiating\" Germany's side of the deal (there wasn't much negotiation on their part, France basically told them to stuff it, which was why the deal was so harsh) but afterwards, the Weimar Republic was overthrown because they were perceived as laying down and taking it (they didn't have much choice).\n\nHitler/Hindenburg/Stresemann between them sorted out Germany's economy, by a) stopping the payment of reparations, basically calling the bluff of the recipients that they wouldn't do anything about it. b) big loans and famous deals with the US, c) devaluing the currency/introducing the Rentenmark and then the Reichsmark. Respectively Hitler, Hindenburg and Stresemann did those things.\n\nA big part of it is that, as well as making excellent financial and economical decisions, they just straight up stopped paying reparations and hoped we wouldn't do anything about it.",
"It's a myth that Hitler \"rescued\" Germany. \n\nAmerica, particularly American investment banks gave Germany a firm footing. \n\nSometime in 1923, the Allied powers realised that a weak Germany was a source of problems and the hyper inflation and the sorry state of the German economy needed to be fixed. \n\n\nIn comes Charles Dawes, he proposed two things,\n\n* The Ruhr (the industrial heartland) be evacuated by the French and handed back to the Germans. This was vital because the Ruhr was the source of much of German steel. \n\n* Repatriation payments were reduced and restructured. \n\n* Wall Street banks would issue bonds on behalf of Germany (German bonds were worthless at that point in time) and then loan the money to Germany which Germany could then use to repay the allies. \n\nWithin about 3 years the German economy was on the rebound. American firms were investing a lot of money in Germany and the Germans themselves slowly started their rearmament plans. The plan though started to destabilize the economy and was replaced by (or was supposed to be replaced by) the Young plan. \n\nThen the great depression hit. \n\nHitler came along and what did he do?\n\n* Initiated a massive public works program overseen by Hjalmar Schacht. \n\n* This had a Keynesian effect and spurred growth. \n\n* The books were cooked, for instance women were in one stroke considered not a part of employment rolls and thus unemployment fell by half. \"fell by\" as it didn't really fall. \n\n\" Mandatory labour via the RAD (Reich labour department) for all males aged 18-25 and also mandatory military service. \n\n* Aggressive rearmament. \n\nNow this is where Hitler hit a wall. To fund the infra building and the rearmament he needed money. Money he couldn't print because that would cause hyper inflation and nor could he issue Bonds because the German economy still wasn't that solid. \n\nTo get around this, Schacht came up with a very ingenious ploy. *Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft* or the infamous MeFo bills. The company Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft, was a shell company that had only one purpose. \n\nIn a nutshell, how the worked was, the arms manufacturers would be paid in these MeFo bills instead of Reichsmarks. That meant that Germany didn't need to print any more notes. These bills were valid for 3 months and could be extended for 6 more. These companies usually waited out the full period and then went to a German private sector bank and handed these over. The Pvt sector bank handed over Reichsmarks and then promptly surrendered that to the Reichsbank (their federal reserve) who would then pay out these to civil contractors and the cycle would repeat. \n\nJust imagine your current govt issuing Monopoly money that had no real valie but using it to transact for official business? That's exactly what Hitler did. At one point in time it was estimated that the value of MeFo bills circulating in Germany was roughly 80% of the total currency value. Now if any country tries to print that many notes, you will have hyper galloping inflation (think Zimbabwe). \n\nA combination of these factors helped the German recovery. \n\nStalin also helped as he gave favourable terms to Germany and gave away vital resources very cheaply. \n\nMind you, the economic \"miracle\" was hardly one. It was a literal Ponzi scheme and needed conquest and resources to sustain it. Without it, there is only so much Monopoly money can do. \n\n\nIf you have any follow up questions, please do ask. ",
"When WWI ended the ally’s took a territory from Germany which was called the Rhineland. It was important for economic wealth. When It was returned in 1935 during the rise of the Nazis there were several other important recoveries Germany made including the alliance they had with Austria which was severed after WWI. The biggest answer to your question is they created a new currency which abolished all old debts with their previous currency.",
"After Hitler came to power in ‘33, Germany made largescale investments in infrastructure and military. (The two were in many ways one and the same since Hitler’s goal always was to fight another war and win it this time). The Nazis also privatized a lot of State industry and took on a lot of debt. German GNP (precursor to GDP) was actually up around 9 or 10% from 1935 onward.",
"huge investment from america, the british royal family, the dutch royal family, and also a french industrialist\n\nbut mostly money from the usa and england\n\nhere watch this\nthe original video post has like 6 million views but its been hidden\n\nyoutube documentary called ‘jfk to 911: everything is a rich man’s trick’\n\n_URL_0_",
"As well as the good answers already listed, It's worth remembering that Germany didn't really have the resources to fight WWII in the first place; Britain and France were outstripping Germany's aircraft production individually by 1939, and then there were MASSIVE orders placed by the allies in the USA; America produced 50,000 aircraft 39-45, Britain something like 25,000, Germany not even 10,000.\n\nOn top of this, Hitler's naval expansion plan signed off before the war was reliant on being at peace until 1942/43. Adm. Raeder saw the outbreak of war in 39, turned to his contemporaries and said something along the lines of well that's it, we can't fight the Royal Navy, we are doomed to sink as soon as we leave port, we haven't had the comnitted resources to build a navy to challenge the British.\n\nThe allies knew they outresourced Germany massively. Their plan all along was to absorb the initial blows from Hitler, build up a massive resource base behind them and then fight back. This was the plan carried out in essence, aside from the hiccup of the Fall of France, which was only from one of the biggest strokes of military luck in history.\n\nHitler went to war in 1939 because he knew it was now or never; strike now, crush the \"little worms\" (GBR and FRA) before they could work out what was happening, then turn East.",
"Also remember most of WW1 was fought on French soil, most of the German manufacturing and agriculture was not laid to waste like much of Europe so their productivity was much higher in the years after the war. ",
"The Weimar Republic (Under Chancellor Stresemann) actually did a pretty good job recovering. When Hitler came to power, he used the anger people had about being set back as a way of gaining their vote and eventually begin a second war.",
"Blaming WWII on Versailles is not only idiotic but outright Nazi propaganda.\n\nThe lack of logic is pretty staggering, its basically \"oh yeah sure we started the most devastating war in the history of mankind and killed millions of your people but we lost the war and surrendered, you better be nice to us or else!\"",
"Keep in mind that Hitler suspended Treaty of Versailles payments (and broke nearly every other rule laid out in the Treaty). \n\nEven Hitler’s financial advisors informed him in the late 1930s that he was on the verge of massive economic collapse. \n\nHad he maintained the peace brokered by appeasement and the Soviet non-aggression pact, he would have seen his own nation thrust into serious financial difficulties which would likely have led to him losing favor with the people. For Hitler, 1939 was a “now or never” situation. \nEdit: spelling",
"Tacking onto the other people here: \nThey also broke the Treaty of Versailles's terms. In it, due to them accepting the war guilt, they were not allowed to build an army or navy. They disregarded this, and starting manufacturing weapons and vehicles. This, and the fact that there was a massive influx of people into the military, dropped unemployment and helped the economy. ",
"International industries invested into Germany as a buffer defense against the Soviet Union. Many industrialists were afraid of workers rising up and disrupting operations in other countries. Ford Motor Company, IBM, ITT, JP Morgan Chase all were heavily invested in Germany's success. American lawyer from Sullivan Cromwell, John J. McCloy sat in Hitler's box at the 1936 Olympics. He later pardoned over 70,000 Nazis and served on the Warren Commission.",
" > how did Germany have enough resources to conduct WWII?\n\nIt didnt really. Thats why it lost.\n\nAs soon as the war turned into a war of attrition (after the swift operationial success in France and the initial success of Barbarossa in late 41), the war was basicially lost for Germany.\n\nThe Soviet Union alone could produce several times more tanks, airplanes and artillery every month than Germany could ever hope to produce, and that was even before the USA, the by far largest economy on the planet entered the war.",
"Through a scam called MEFO at the heart of which was a dummy company Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft issuing promissory notes and/or bills of exchange. \n\nMEFO had no actual existence or operations and was solely a balance sheet entity. The bills were mainly issued as payment to armaments manufacturers.\n\nMefo bills were issued to last for six months initially, but with the provision for indefinite three-month extensions. The total amount of mefo bills issued was kept secret.\n\nEssentially, mefo bills enabled the German Reich to run a greater deficit than it would normally have been able to. By 1939, there were 12 billion Reichsmark of mefo bills, compared to 19 billion of normal government bonds.\n\nThis enabled the government to reinflate their economy, which culminated in its eventual rearmament.\n\nWar was inevitable as asset seizure through conquest was the only viable route to possibly paying back the MEFO bills. In the mean time all that was owed was a twice yearly or quarterly coupon paid in Reichsmarks like any other government issued debt. \n\nThe whole thing was a big bubble of paper wealth. ",
"From what I understand, Hitler implemented a number of works programs to put the unemployed back to work. Such as the autobahn highway system. Which he actually built with the intention of using it as a fast way to move his troops. But it soaked up a ton of unemployment and put some weight back into the economy. Much of the tools implemented for war were mostly done in secret though. It still didn't have nearly enough resources to fight a long war. It was counting on a very quick victory. His Generals begged him to give them at least 3-4 more years before they went to war with anyone....\n\nFunny thing is, if Hitler had not gone to war or committed crimes against humanity and murdered millions of people. He could have very well made Germany one of the most powerful, prosperous and happy nations. He was one of the few politicians who did exactly what he set out to do and what his people expected of him. he should of stopped his land grab after the appeasement and he may have likely gone down in history for positive notes rather than bad ones...",
"Hitler geared the whole of Germany's industry and production towards becoming an autarky - completely self sufficient in the event of a war. This was started somewhat slowly by Hjalmar Schacht, who was replaced by Goering and his Four Year Plan in 1936. The basic principles revolved around rearmament, reducing unemployment and (thusly) rebuilding a self-sufficient Germany.\n\nAs others have mentioned, unemployment was somewhat artificially reduced by removing many women from the workplace (until 1937 when it became apparent that more workers were needed in the industrial sector) l, as well as systematically removing Jews and other \"untermenschen\" from the workplace (and indeed society) or confiscating their businesses. Work schemes were also put in place such as the DAF which saw the building of schools, hospitals, autobahns (motorways) and other public works which improved the infrastructure of Germany and provided employment. Similarly any men between 18-25 not otherwise employed or in the army had to do 6 months manual labour for the Reich Labour Service (RAD). This paid low wages, and technically replaced unemployment benefit, as this would be refused if you would not work. The wages were actually lower than unemployment benefit, which saved the government some money.\n\nRearmament was also a major factor. Not only did increasing the armed forces provide more employment for young men in the services, it also massively increased industrial production which at the same time boosted the economy. The government had control over what each factory produced in order to meet demands, but factor owners made a lot of money. In real terms, workers were paid less for longer hours, but trade unions and strikes had be banned so there was little they could do. Besides which many Germans were bolstered by a growing sense of National pride, as well as the Strength through Joy programme which rewarded them with holidays (in Germany, of course), theatre/cinema tickets etc. for working hard. Of course the removal of basic human rights and regular arrests of those who spoke out against the state kept most workers quiet. There was also the very famous scheme where workers paid money in to buy a VW - this money went straight towards the war effort, and not a single person got their car!\n\nNot forgetting of course that as Germany gradually took over territories it could absorb their industrial output. \n\nIt is always amazing what you can achieve if you have no care for human rights; what Hitler achieved was terrible, but brilliant in a horrifying way. Perhaps the biggest factor was that so many of the German population bought into it so heavily, as Hitler offered an alternative to the terrible circumstances they has seen after first hyperinflation, and then the Depression.",
"* The Nazi government under Hjalmar Schacht paid for its own programs using Mefo Bills- official I.O.U.s\n* Hitler didn't recognize the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, left the League of Nations, and didn't pay back Germany's remaining debts to the WWI allies\n* German banks were forced to buy government bonds to supply the gov. with more cash, and private property was seized as well.\n* They ~~didn't~~ only dubiously had the resources to conduct WWII. Even after ignoring the treaty of Versailles and making banks buy war bonds, they still ran a deficit every year- by 1939, Germany was 38 billion Marks (the national currency) in debt. They entered into WWII on the assumption that the land, resources, and labor gained by invading other countries would pay off their deficit (which, while obviously unethical, wasn't wrong.)\n* Not to compare the two countries in any other way, but to use a modern example, it's like how the U.S. can afford to go to war with multiple countries at once despite being trillions of dollars in debt- spend tons of money on military expenditure and simply ignore deficit problems for as long as possible. ",
"One of the biggest reasons is that despite losing ww1 the land of Germany was never invaded. There was no reconstruction required of any sort, so they had a leg up on countries like France who took a lot of damage. ",
"Before ww2 hitler was a celebrated leader for reviving germany in part by renegotiating/refusing to pay war reparations from ww1. This is specifically why hitler was time magazine's man of the year. People forget about the lengthy peaceful period of hitlers rule or the Spanish civil war german fought on behalf of the Spanish king. So yah not only the resources for ww2 they won a war in spain before all that.",
"GDP did not alter is PP which remained constant. Germany didn't purchase much from other nations and provided everything it needed internally to fuel it's war effort.\n\nAnnexations and private property removal did the rest.",
"[The Guardian came out with an article in 2004](_URL_0_) detailing information about the relationship between Prescott Bush and one Fritz Thyssen, German steel industialist. Among other claims in the article, one goes on to say that Brown Brothers Harriman (largest US investment bank at the time), and UBC (Thyssen's bank) allowed for a significant contribution to be made to Hitler's Germany by the rich American families. I quote, \"By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.\"\n\nThe article further explains the details of their dealings, including discussion about whether or not Bush benefited from post-1939 Germany, but it answers your question (or at least part of it): Hitler's Germany was financed from abroad, in certain cases up until 1942. ",
"They did not have enough resources to conduct ww2, thats one of the reasons they lost. They seriously lacked oil and rare minerals, thats why they invaded the USSR in a hurry for oil. They had to modify a lot of their equipment because of the scarcity of nickel, tungsten and other metals. ",
"Lots of great anseers on here. How important (give us some numbers?) was the role of the American and/or Swiss banks? Did American banks stop their investments/loans after war broke out? did Swiss banks only start lending monet after war broke out?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/eYqzcqDtL3k?t=25m34s",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Banana"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/aySN0FGJYpM"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
c67b0l | why is it taking so long to develop gene therapies to address all our health issues? we have giant computers, and a fully sequenced genome for over 15 years. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c67b0l/eli5_why_is_it_taking_so_long_to_develop_gene/ | {
"a_id": [
"es6ksxd",
"es6kuei",
"es6nh33",
"es6udx7"
],
"score": [
26,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The computers aren't big enough. \n\nThey're nowhere near big enough. \n\nThey're so far from big enough it's not even funny. \n\nIt takes the world's most powerful supercomputers hours or days to simulate seconds of the effect of a single gene and a few tens of thousands of molecules folding a protein, doing so for any significant part of the human genome for the lifespan of a human *can't be done before the Sun dies* even if we used every computer on the planet today.\n\nWe don't know of a single thing that's harder to calculate than how proteins fold.\n\nEdit: [relevant XKCD](_URL_0_).",
"Because we don't only need to understand our genome sequence, but also that of the multiple virus, bacteria, fungi, and parasites that cause a lot of those issues, plus understanding the genome doesn't include understanding how the mutations that affect it work",
"Each gene is responsible for multiple things at once. If it stops one disease it might make you more vulnerable for others. The complexity goes deep and our models are only so good at predicting outcomes that it’s hard to say what each genes does",
"What do you mean by \"gene therapies\"? \n\nTake hypothetical disease X. What is it caused by? First you have to answer what gene is associated with this disease. The human genome, by itself, will not answer this. Often, genome-wide association studies will answer this partially, by comparing a population of gene sequences with each other to identify disease-associated genotypes. But you probably won't get one gene. You might get 10 genes, with a total of 100 different positions each with some unknown role in the disease. \n\nBut let's say you find the exact gene and the exact disease-causing genotype. \n\nNow what? Gene editing works great in vitro, but it's problematic in vivo. \n\nFirst, getting it to the right cells is a problem. You might get 5% of cells in a target with a particular vector, but that might not do anything to resolve the disease. You could edit cells in vitro and transplant them, but that is an extreme procedure with plenty of other risks. \n\nSecond, editing is not 100% specific. You always run the risk of off-target effects which can lead to, for example, cancer. \n\nI could certainly go on, but the point is: it's complicated. These things take decades of research and billions of dollars in investment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://xkcd.com/1430/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1o2tll | why do people's moods and emotions change when seasons transition? | (the transitions from summer to fall then fall to winter. Why do people tend to have more sudden mood changes when it gets colder?) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o2tll/eli5_why_do_peoples_moods_and_emotions_change/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccobxfi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In winter the amount of daylight is reduced. When it is dark a chemical (also known as a neurotransmitter) in the brain called melatonin is produced from another chemical called serotonin. Melatonin's job is to make you get ready to go to sleep. However, if serotonin levels become deplete it can lead to low mood. So in winter when there is more darkness people who are already close to being depressed may be pushed through the threshold. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3xlzcp | how is social security not a ponzi scheme? | I'm not an expert on fraud (yet haha) but I've understood Ponzi schemes to generally consist of two things: 1. Paying current investors with funds from new ones AND 2. Constantly recruiting new members so it doesnt all collapse. This seems like our SS system in a nutshell. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xlzcp/eli5_how_is_social_security_not_a_ponzi_scheme/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy5r8tg",
"cy5r9zu",
"cy5thr8",
"cy5tik3",
"cy60mev"
],
"score": [
3,
30,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It looks like a ponzi scheme now because it has survived into an age where everyone is living ten or more years longer. When Social Security was instituted, the average age at death was something like 55, and the lack of modern medicine meant that old age didn't last very long, so most people going into the system would never actually be paid by it. That sounds bad, but remember that Social Security doesn't actually exist to be fair, but rather to prevent the phenomenon of elder poverty, which was rampant in FDR's day, and also to stimulate the economy by having more people able to participate (which it does admirably).\n\nAll that said, the constant warnings we are seeing about how Social Security is going to collapse in our lifetimes could be stopped with one simple fix. Right now, the payroll tax only applies to the first $112,000 of income a person makes in the year. This applies to nearly all Americans, but it only applies to a fraction of the income due to how lopsided income inequality in this country is. If we removed that cap, Social Security would be completely solvent forever.",
"In order to be a ponzi scheme,you recruit new people to hide the fact that you're losing money (to pay anyone who pulls out).\n\nSS is different because it's more or less fully funded,and it can go on _URL_1_ also doesn't promise fraudulent returns.\n\nEdit: \nI found this link when responding to another comment. I have to catch a flight so I'm adding it here for visibility. It goes into a bit more depth\n\n_URL_0_",
"Your second point is incorrect. A Ponzi scheme is guaranteed to collapse. The broker wilfully lies about the health of the fund to trick new people into it. SS is transparent and is sustainable (as long as the overall economy stays running and fraudsters don't cock it up for the rest of us).",
"Social security is an insurance program and it works like like every other insurance program. Everybody pays in to it, the program pays out what it says' it's supposed to pay out. And the hedge/bet is that the individual receiving benefits will die before he can collect more than he has paid into the program. ",
"Ponzi schemes are (1) investments and (2) based on lying about returns. \n\nSS is neither. It's actually a form of extremely-long-term insurance, against the situation of being old and destitute.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme/2011/08/25/gIQA2t0dcL_blog.html",
"forever.it"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://angrybearblog.com/2008/11/why-bill-gates-gets-social-security.html"
]
] |
|
1ssdn4 | what are the differences between cigarettes and cigars? | Which one is more dangerous? What makes a cuban cigar such a prestigious smoke? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ssdn4/eli5what_are_the_differences_between_cigarettes/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce0qtmc",
"ce0qtxu",
"ce0rxcz"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Cigars are 100% tobacco. Most mainstream cigs add in a crap ton of excess chemicals. \nCubans are more scarce due to the embargo between US and Cuba.",
"A cigar is shredded tobacco wrapped in a tobacco leaf. A cigarette is finely shredded tobacco wrapped in paper. \n\nCigars are more expensive because wrapping a cigar is still a manual process, whereas cigarettes are produced by the millions by machines.",
"The difference is also in how you smoke them. Usually you'd want to inhale cigarette smoke, but you don't do that with cigars. Cigars are mostly meant for \"puffing\", you intake the smoke in your mouth, then blow it out. Cigars are alot stronger and more painful to inhale than cigarettes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6cbc7r | why does it seem like people of jewish descent are so common in so many areas of life, when there are relatively few of them? surprisingly many scientists/comedians/actors/businessmen are jewish or of jewish descent. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6cbc7r/eli5why_does_it_seem_like_people_of_jewish/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhtc7sm",
"dhtcgga",
"dhtcubd",
"dhtd8zc",
"dhthc5y",
"dhtm6gy"
],
"score": [
5,
7,
2,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"is it surprising that a culture and people who promote intelligence and education are in rather highly educated professions?",
"That's hardly many areas of life, they're just common in some high-end jobs, typically business, media, law, medicine. You don't see Jewish plumbers or Walmart employees, because their culture places a lot of importance on education and they have the money and connections to get places, because Jews are very, very nepotistic among their faith/culture.",
"There are almost ten million Jewish people in the US, which makes up three percent of the population. I don't think they're particularly over represented so much as just that if you pass thirty people one of them will probably be a Jew.",
"It's not exactly rocket science to figure out. Remember the time that guy tried to kill all the jewish people like 70 years ago? Think of who had the money and means to leave and move to america and who didn't. \n\nIt wasn't exactly the ditch diggers that were able to afford to move to the US and it wasn't the ditch diggers that the US was letting in. And it's not really a shock if your parents were successful businessmen that you now own a business. If only the well off people got to move it's not shocking a lot of them are well off. \n\nIt's the same as looking at like a somali refugee community where everyone had to move to the US because they were poor and asking why everyone that lives there is poor. ",
"I don't even have to guess where you're from.\n\nYou either live in the states or are in contact with US media a lot.\n\nAnd when we're talking about the US, there definitely aren't very few of them. [Quite the opposite actually.](_URL_0_)\n\nWere we talking about Germany for example, you wouldn't feel like Jews are common in many areas of life.",
"There are some good posts already about the historical/cultural reasons why Jewish people succeed in certain professions, but don't forget two big other factors:\n\nThere are a handful of very prominent Jews, like Einstein, Seinfeld, and the Rothschilds, and stereotypes spring up around them.\n\nAnd because of confirmation bias, people notice when a Jewish person matches the stereotype. E.g. if you meet a Jewish lawyer, you think of him AS a \"Jewish lawyer,\" and your brain slots it into part of a pattern (\"Jews make good lawyers.\")\n\nUnfortunately our brains are better at confirming old stereotypes than they are at rejecting them. So, despite Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, etc... there's no stereotype that black people make great comedians, at least as far as I know."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country#Table"
],
[]
] |
||
1auzdo | why am i scared of spiders and not ants? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1auzdo/eli5_why_am_i_scared_of_spiders_and_not_ants/ | {
"a_id": [
"c911e1r",
"c913y65",
"c9150gq",
"c916vow"
],
"score": [
5,
11,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"This is actually a really good question. And I'm afraid you wont find a concrete answer, but I shall try my best. \n\nOne theory is **conditioning**. When you were young, you probably saw your mum or dad and just people in general freak out when they saw a spider. Killing it or now wanting to go near it, so as you grew up you were conditioned to act the same and thus you became scared of them. \n\nAnother theory is that evolutionary, we have been conditioned to fear spiders by thousands of years of evolution. Back when we were monkeys and very early humans spiders often meant death/illness to our kind so we were again conditioned to fear it. It's why most humans have an innate fear of the dark and spiders and such.",
"As a biologist that researched both spiders and ants, I always wondered this. Orb weaving spiders are among the most docile, gentle and chill creatures you'll ever see, and people freak the fuck out when they see them. In several years of handling them in the field I've never once been bitten. Ants are some of the most vicious, aggressive little fuckers to grace the face of God's great Earth, and people think they're 'cute'.",
"Ok I have a low to mild case of arachnophobia. Certain spiders don't trigger it. Daddy long legs (which I don't think are really spiders), and those small, fast-moving, spiders don't trigger my arachnophobia.\n\nHere's the issue for me. The way spiders look creep me out. From the legs to the way they move is really creepy. It's less about danger and more about overall creepiness. They way they live their lives, the way they eat, the way they move, the way they just exist, creeps me out.\n\nI have no idea why. I don't really care why. People say because it's an evolution thing. Ok whatever. I don't know enough about the subject to argue it. All I know is that spiders are creepy and ants are not.",
"Adding to all the answers:\n\nWrapping their prey in their film, liquifying them and then sucking the juice out is a bit scary for a kid. Spiders lurk in the dark and spiderwebs are an annoyance. (well, not really but in your face they are.)\n\nAnts are seen as hardworkers and venture into the sun."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fe2rp2 | can bugs hear? i was at a loud symphony yesterday and there was a moth just flying around. i also heard that for humans, a sound so loud can cause like a heart or lung embolism. is the same true for insects? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fe2rp2/eli5_can_bugs_hear_i_was_at_a_loud_symphony/ | {
"a_id": [
"fjlgyjr",
"fjln8di",
"fjlp6e1"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Im not sure about all bugs but female crickets are attracted to the song of males before they mate. Mute males even detect the vocal males and can intercept their potential mate by hanging close by lol",
"Certain kind of moths can are sensitive to ultrasound for bats (their predator). So i would say that no they can't hear the nice music but maybe they were there for other reasons cus even if it was about ultrasound they would go away instinctively. \nBugs have their own senses to interact with the world, they do not need an auditory system that process the same waves as us, so some can hear but it isn't the same kind of \"sounds\" for them.",
"It depends on the bug. Crickets of course specifically use sound to attract mates, as well as cicadas, and various other insects that I'm sure most people are familiar with. Little known fact, mosquitoes can actually hear. Certain types of moths can hear in higher frequencies to avoid bat's calls. However, most insects (such as roaches, ants, dragonflies) cannot detect sound. There is also a gray area that, depending on how you define the sense of hearing, includes more insects. Flies for example, hear with their antennae, which detect changes in air pressure based on the movement of the fly's surroundings. This could be compared to feeling a gust of air when someone passes by you, but it can also be compared to someone blowing in your ear."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3dsezf | why do children tickets cost less than adult tickets? for example at the movies etc... | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dsezf/eli5_why_do_children_tickets_cost_less_than_adult/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct86uzh",
"ct87oah",
"ct87s5c",
"ct880br",
"ct8hbw0"
],
"score": [
33,
8,
13,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"It's usually done as a courtesy. Most kids obviously don't have a source of revenue. It also encourages parents to bring their kids if they know they can get them in for cheaper.",
"It's a form of price discrimination. It is the same reason things like senior discounts exist. This practice occurs so a company can extract as much revenue as possible from the potential customer base. ",
"Because most of the time, a child will only be going to the movies with a parent or adult and doesn't have the means to pay for their ticket so the burden is put on the parent or adult to pay for it.\n\nIt's done as a marketing maneuver so that the parent will be more willing to attend the movie with their children, thus increasing sales for popcorn or candy.",
"Simply, it encourages parents to come to the movies who might otherwise not go because they would have to pay for the kids. So instead of losing out on those customers, the theater offers discounted tickets for the kids so they can gain the business of the parents.",
"Imagine two experiments. \n\nThe first is that you charge adults and children the same. The second is that you charge adults the normal price, but do not charge children at all. Everything being equal, over the course of the month, what experiment would yield the most amount of tickets for adults? How about for children?\n\nIf you are thinking the same way I am, you'd say that charging the adults full price and the kids nothing would bring in more adults and more children. Certainly, people will bring their kids to the movies even if they have to pay full price, but many more will bring their kids if they don't have to pay anything.\n\nNow in some way, this could imply increased profits, but it can get a little complex. You don't want too many children, because then there will be less room for adults, and adults are the only ones paying. Worse, having too many kids might drive many adults away. I know I've had experiences where there were just too many kids at a movie theater, and I wish they charged children double. So you also want a price which will reduce the amount of kids.\n\nSo, there is where some testing is needed. You want to find a price for children which attracts the most amount of adults while also reducing the amount of children to as low as possible. You of course have to factor in the revenue gained from the children into this.\n\nConsidering all the factors, it gets a little confusing. Yeah, it'd be great for the movie theater if they could charge children the same or more and not have it affect people's decisions to go the movie theater or not, but they make more money when charging less for children because the price children pay is very important to people. Though it may be profitable to charge a little less, at some point it becomes not as profitable because you either could have filled those seats with adults, or because too many kids will drive adults away."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3qjyvw | why is it sometimes (on a 3g phone connection) a better idea to refresh a page rather than waiting for it to load? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qjyvw/eli5_why_is_it_sometimes_on_a_3g_phone_connection/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwft12a"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Your browser send a request for data, and it received a response that data would be send, but never actually received the data (it got lost somewhere along the way), the browser keeps waiting until it times out, in the event of the time out, it either tries again, or displays an error.\n\nWhen you refresh, you just instantly resend the request, the data is send, and this time, isn't lost. so you near instantly load the page."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6mslox | when a country gives financial aid to a poorer country, how does it guarantee that it is used for its intended purpose? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6mslox/eli5_when_a_country_gives_financial_aid_to_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk40hl4",
"dk40its",
"dk40swk"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They don't. In any way. If they give food, they have no way to guarantee it gets to the people starving, if they give money they have no way to make sure it is directed toward the projects it is intended. ",
"The intended purpose is almost always to buy influence, so strings are generally not attached and it is accepted (nudge and a wink) that the people who's influence you are buying will take a fair portion of the money for themselves. \nFinancial Aid is bribery at a national level.",
"I used to work for an organization that would give out scholarships for some of their programs. They never have full scholarships. The idea was that a full scholarship, even if need based, could result in the recipient taking the scholarship and the program for granted. Also by paying for part of it, the recipient of the scholarship was showing that they indeed wanted to attend the program and weren't just taking advantage of something for free.\n\nInternational aid can work the same way. The country giving aid wants to make sure their money and resources won't be taken for granted, so they won't fully fund a program. They will grant some money to a program that is partially funded by the recipient country. Certain promises are made that the recipient country will continue supporting and funding themselves.\n\nObviously this is all assuming that everything is above board. These types of situations can become easy opportunities for corruption and graft. We don't live in a perfect world, so it doesn't always work out as planned."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7c1r0f | how do explosions trigger car alarms? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7c1r0f/eli5_how_do_explosions_trigger_car_alarms/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpmgbis",
"dpmgdhw"
],
"score": [
5,
11
],
"text": [
"When an explosion occurs, regardless of the source, it creates a shockwave. In large explosions, say like a nuclear blast, shockwaves can level cities/infrastructure just as well as the actual blast itself. Shockwaves can also kill people caught in them if they're powerful enough.\n\nWhen a bomb goes off, lets say in a terror attack, the blast will do immediate damage (likely with fragmentation, being a terror attack and all) while the shockwave will cause massive infrastructure damage. Windows will be destroyed, barriers and fences too. The effect of the wave crashing over a car is what sets off the alarm, since it's enough force to physically rock the vehicle/impact the sensors that trigger the alarm.",
"Most car alarms detect movement on the car, like when someone tries to break in. If it is too sensitive, it can be set off by someone leaning on the side.\n\nAn explosion sends out a massive shockwave, which shakes the car and sets off the alarm."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
3nfbil | are spam/fake facebook accounts like this one (screen shots in description) automated, or controlled by actual humans, and what is the purpose of them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3nfbil/eli5_are_spamfake_facebook_accounts_like_this_one/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvnjaxj"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Probably spam accounts. It can artificially inflate the numbers/popularity of certain groups/interests. For example, it can make it seem like a certain candidate for office has millions upon millions of followers, when that number may be much less. Plus, if these fake accounts can comment, it can make it seem like there's group consensus on a subject."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
45ytlf | who actually benefits from so many people being in jail? | I am asking specifically about people being incarcerated within the US, and non-violent offenders. Obviously people who committed heinous crimes, such as rape and murder, should be locked up and it does society good for them to be unable to harm anyone else. However, there are a lot of people who are spending a good chunk of their lives behind bars and they aren't being rehabilitated or "fixed" by being incarcerated, not to mention, it costs a LOT of money to keep them in there. So who does this actually benefit? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45ytlf/eli5_who_actually_benefits_from_so_many_people/ | {
"a_id": [
"d013so9",
"d013v1u",
"d014ctk",
"d0177t1",
"d01cd2b",
"d01dqzq"
],
"score": [
14,
19,
6,
2,
4,
16
],
"text": [
"Lots of people - the people who are involved in incarcerating people - benefit. Probably the most obvious benefit, though, is that politicians benefit from being or appearing to be tough on crime, which makes their constituents happy.",
" > it costs a LOT of money to keep them in there\n\nThat's right, but who does that money get paid to? That's who benefits.",
"Politicians who get elected for being \"tough on crime\". Towns and cities where the prison is the number 1 employer the population. Privatized prison who house prisoners. Companies that employ prisoners paying 15 cents/ hour instead of minimum wage. Companies such as Keefe, who stock the commissaries. Phone companies who charge 10 times more for prison calls. Attorneys and judges who are always needed. All of the employees inside of the prisons. ",
"Systemic corruption will persist so long as law enforcement / \"corrections\" is driven by profit and seen as a revenue source. \n\nNot that this would be popular, but I'd rather they just raise taxes instead of over-criminalizing and over-imprisoning the American populace.",
"There's three parts to incarceration. Rehabilitation,keeping them away from others, and punishment. \n\nIn the us we tend to lean on punishment heavier than say,europe. The idea being that it should scare people into behaving,and if not,well,they get punished.if they don't learn,they get thrown back in. It's hard to go into a ton of detail,but there's Puritan influences as well as other stuff.\n\nIt's worth remembering that only a few decades ago,there used to be pretty massive crime. It's hard to imagine now,but in the 70s and 80s it was much worse. That meant there were a lot of people who wanted politicians to be hard on crime. They didn't care how it got fixed,as long as it does. You don't want to raise your kids living next to a crackhead,even if he's not violent (and even if it is nonviolent,it tends to be associated with a lot of other behaviors that aren't good for your neighborhood)\n\nThis mentality is still extremely prevalent.its a big reason younger generations are a lot more lenient on nonviolent crime.\n\n\nPrison is supposed to be more of a punishment in the US. However we also don't have support structures to help people break their addictions outside of prison,so they tend to get swept up into it.and the average voter doesn't really give a shit- they just don't want them near their kids/don't want to pay for treatment (even if it's cheaper in the long run,nationally we tend to hate paying for other people's stuff)\n\nTldr;\nVoters don't give a shit,they don't want to be taxed to pay for someone else's treatment, they just want you to keep criminals of the streets,doesn't matter if they get better.",
"The for-profit private prison system: _URL_0_\n\nScum of the earth..."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/"
]
] |
|
4a9bpn | why is music by mozart, bach, etc. considered intellectually stimulating? | Deciding to call one type of music supremely complex to others and then say it helps learning, focus, etc. seems very arbitrary to me. Objectively speaking, Mozart and Bach are just sound, and likewise Drizzy Drake, JBeebs, and LDR are all just sound––but this doesn't mean Drake is intellectually stimulating.
Feel free to cite stuff | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4a9bpn/eli5why_is_music_by_mozart_bach_etc_considered/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0yhfrq",
"d0yhhkq",
"d0yi1x7",
"d0yiuk2",
"d0yiz2u",
"d0ylqkj",
"d0ymjea",
"d0ypefq",
"d0z3mrj"
],
"score": [
7,
234,
31,
16,
14,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a limited amount of research into the [Mozart effect](_URL_0_) that suggests certain types of music or other stimulation improves performance on some cognitive tasks. This is, not surprisingly, controversial. The Wikipedia article gives some citations for both sides. ",
"saying \"it's all just sound\" is just garbage, the Parthenon is just a pile of stone and cement and so is the latest government-housing block of flats to go up in your city. Doesn't say anything, does it? \n\nThe reason why classical music is considered more complex than typical pop music is that *objectively speaking*, it typically is – in terms of structure, rhythm, harmonics, composition, etc. Taking the example of Bach, a lot of Bach's compositions revolve around a technique called counterpoint whereby different voices are played with different rhythms but in harmony. Compared to a Drake song with a beat of two-bars and 3 chords over and over, to not only listen to but to *appreciate* Bach would require more appreciation and artistic appraisal because *there is just more to it*. This is the reason why Bach would be considered intellectually stimulating.\n\nalso, getting more into aesthetics and taste, it could be argued that classical music expresses more refined or heightened emotions or sentiments, much like \"high\" literature might be seen to compared to pop literature.\n\nedit: make sure to check out the comment form /u/REDLiteDJ",
"I think people are misunderstanding Op's question. I don't think he's asking why some people find it more enjoyable or stimulating. I think he's asking why it is said that someone listening to that music has increased learning or focusing capabilities. Kind of like how they sell classical CDs that's for babies to help stimulate their mental development. So I think op is asking why that would help and some other genre of music wouldn't.\n",
" Because, put simply, it's factually FAR more layered, sophisticated and has a much higher level of complexity in general. \n\n By your logic, you could say that the paintings at the Sistine Chapel is just the same as the doodle I scribbled onto my math notebook because it's \"just a picture\".",
"This is hard to explain without getting deep into music theory.\n\nLet's start with: Mozart's music is objectively more complex. First off, that doesn't mean objectively better (I myself am not huge in classical and like simple jammy rock songs too). So how do we define complexity? Again there's a lot of music theory and math involved. Complexity isn't just a lot of notes played quickly. There was a lot he did in key changes and progressions, different harmonies, and musical structure that is considered really brilliant. A lot of mathematicians like to study his music and find patterns that relate to mathematical concepts. Not going to get into them, but a quick google search will give you plenty of results.\n\nNow I believe the idea is that even if you aren't a music theory genius, on some subconscious level you can still be stimulated by this complexity in his music. Like even if you don't know any music theory or science behind soundwaves and harmony, you can still tell when two notes are in harmony or dissonance. When sung a pattern of notes in the scale, you have a good idea of the next note. A lot of this is innate, and in the same way I believe the idea is that all these complexities in Mozart's music, even if not explicitly appreciated, is somehow stirring something deeper in your mind. Whether that's true I have no idea, personally I lean towards unlikely (I mean maybe but it will depend on the person), but that's the idea behind it.",
"It stimulated you to ask?",
"Studied music theory and have had a huge interest in psych all my life.\n\n\nThere is no real basis to the claim that classical music is more stimulating than modern music. From what I understand and I'm on mobile and citing sources isn't a direct option right now; tests were done with troubled students listening to classical and listening to nothing while they worked (fun fact, I was a participant in something similar. I had a terrible speech impediment and speech & motor skill therapists had me listen to classical some days and nothing and days before we did exercises). The circle-jerk of this began when a doctor setup a study to look at how the brain lights up with classical music, and current top 40s were playing (this was in 2009ish). The classical music lit up more of the brain that's focused on creative thought.\n\n\nSince that study though, genres spanning EDM, to nightcore, rap, etc, have gone through the same process and found that different types of music help you think while others help you enjoy yourself.\n\nMusic with more complexity and predictability, but fewer words (EDM, Classical, Swing, Psych Rock, hard metal) lit up areas of brain to help one think creatively. This however does not mean focus. Focus varies from person to person too greatly for the studies done.",
"Music is a form of math and the way the notes tie in to each other brings a kind of order to chaos in a similar way to how numbers do. I like to think of music as emotional numbers, because when I see an elegant equation or sequence of numbers, I think \"Hey that's cool\" but it doesn't speak to me on an emotional level like it might a math person. But when I hear music, it forms visions and colors and structures in my mind as I listen, and the choice of intervals and structure impart a mood to me and an emotion. \n\nListening to Bach's harpsichord variations wakes my mind up in a similar way to looking at intricate geometric shapes like fractal patterns. It's stimulating in that it piques my curiosity and I can become lost in the details. The way that note and chord structures can build tension, or resolve that tension, is a kind of language. ",
"I'm seeing a lot of arguing here, but I'll try to explain as best as I can; I will be using theory terms because it can't be explained well without them.\n\nThe way I see it is the music is intellectually stimulating due to the complexity in terms of composition/texture, topic (in operas and oratios), and the emotion meant to be portrayed. Lots of today's music is made up of very basic chord progressions (I, IV, V, maybe VI to V, then repeat) with a few inversions, and one modulation into a new key during the bridge (if the piece has one); I'm talking music theory 101 to 102 level complexity, maybe a little higher if there's modulation. Meanwhile, masterminds like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven (they honestly were, that's no exaggeration or myth) use many different progressions and chords along with their inversions, nonchord tones (pitches outside of the typical spelling of a chord), and temporary tonicization (when the music is technically still in one key, but is borrowing chords from a different key to fool the ear into thinking there's been a modulation) in such a way that captivated listeners and had them greatly engaged in the music, often wondering where it was going to go. For example, one style of music literally called \"theme and variations\" did exactly as its name suggests: a theme was established at the start and then the composer tinkered and experimented with it (much like improvisation in jazz). Listening for and comparing the differences of the variations and original would be considered intellectual stimulation, right?\n\nAs for topic, anyone who's been to an opera or heard an oratio can tell you it's a dynamic story. The topics of most music today fall into the categories of \"society is messed up\", \"my gf/bf dumped me\", \"dat booty tho/I had sex/clubbing\", \"I went fishing/mudding/hunting\", or \"I'm so high/drunk\". Once you actually pay attention there's very little variation, really. It's the same topics over and over again in different genres. Meanwhile operas and oratios tell elaborate stories about wit and cleverness, tragedy, great love, suffering, etc, oftentimes retelling famous mythology. These topics are much more engaging than hearing \"ass and titties\" on repeat over a bass line or that same damn chord progression you hear in every country song.\n\nEmotions explored in Bach's, Mozart's, and Beethoven's music obviously aren't different from those expressed today, they're just more accurately addressed (at least in my opinion). This bit honestly depends on the listener, but I've always found the careful harmonic nuances in the instrumentals make me feel the emotion trying to be portrayed more than just lyrics will do (because let's face it, most of the popular music today doesn't have a bit of the delicacy and intricacy needed to portray emotion harmonically). Classical music portrays joy, anger, happiness, love, heartache, loneliness, playfulness, stoicism, and humor, just to name a few emotions. Meanwhile, today's music is mostly about love, hate, loneliness, LUST, or desperation due to addiction, and you're only getting those vibes from the lyrics alone; you literally have to take the singer's word for it. In classical music, you're left open to interpretation, but it's often very clear.\n\nTo make a long story short, musical complexity attracts the ear's and brain's attention while a repeated musical pattern loses interest quickly. (One reason pop songs make it: the different verses add variation which interests us.)\n\nI hope this helped. I have to add that for much of classical music to be truly stimulating, you have to be an active listener. It's not music that can really be appreciated when you're doing homework or meditating.\n\nSource: is a music major"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.