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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1nrmxx | how exactly will obamacare lower the cost that that hospitals charge the insurance companies for an er visit? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nrmxx/eli5_how_exactly_will_obamacare_lower_the_cost/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccle19v",
"ccle6bx",
"cclepyj",
"cclfh6m",
"cclfiyd",
"cclghuy",
"cclh4yv",
"ccln7n4"
],
"score": [
4,
24,
4,
9,
2,
2,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"The theory is, because some people skip out on hospital bills, hospitals are forced to up the price on the people who pays to balance the accounting book. If everybody has insurance, then you *in theory* eliminate those who dine and dash, which *again, theoretically* removes the need of hospitals to increase the numbers.\n\nIn reality, it's only an *optimistic hope* that individual \"costs\" are lower because all legal entities would technically have insurance to cover, so that you dont need to charge someone else to share an uninsured person's cost, but there is literally no incentive to lower prices to make less money because the people pocketing massive capital gain are not stupid. Also, there are always going to be illegal entities who won't have insurance and they'll continue to dine and dash.\n\nOf course there's always the possibility that they'll do what universities does - rack up as much money as you can because someone else will be paying for it, and you'll agree to the best treatment possible because you have a \"fixed low rate\" and don't have to personally front 200,000 dollars.",
"A) If everyone is covered, ER costs don't need to make up for uninsured people. Hospitals are required to treat everyone that comes into the ER, regardless of ability to pay. The hospital has to write-off the cost & take the extra money from people that are paying (if you're following along at home, this is effectively socialism)\n\nB) When everyone's covered, it becomes reasonable for people to go to the doctor *before* it becomes an emergency. If a patient is treated earlier, before a condition is serious, it can often be prevented at a far lower cost than dealing with a critical situation. Keeping people healthy keeps the overall cost of healthcare lower.",
"one of the reasons why hospitals cost so much is because people have insurance. since insurance is paying the bill and not the actually people, hospitals kind of charge whatever they want since there are no disputes about the price. now this is my personally theory but when obamacare kicks in everyone's gonna have insurance so it's gonna increase the demand for healthcare so prices are gonna rise. it is true also that hospitals cost alot because they include in that price the people that don't pay for their treatments.",
"It doesn't. Hospitals still have no incentive to lower their costs even tho everyone will be paid for now. It is the biggest loophole in the entire law. Hospitals have never had incentive to keep costs low. The only force working against them was the insurance companies price negotiations. Now that Obamacare has capped the profits of insurance agencies it is not in their best interest to negotiate lower prices. It is actually more beneficial if prices are higher because 20% of $10000 is a lot better than 20% of $1000. In essence the higher the cost of a procedure...the more the insurance companies can now charge customers to increase profits. So hospitals and insurance companies will collude to simultaneously jack up their rates since it's mandatory for everyone to be insured.",
"It doesn't lower any costs directly. It is a designed to relieve a few points of strain in the current system, so that hopefully hospitals will feel that they can lower some of their costs.",
"Hospitals cost so much because of the abundant law suits in the US.",
"Reading through the replies I'm realizing the entire system is flawed. especially for people like me, I can not afford health care. I looked into the market place, the cheapest plan would literally take every dollar I have that isn't already going for bills. Leaving me with healthcare but no food, gas or any way to pay my part of the health coverage if I do get injured or ill. \nAn upside is I make too much money for financial assistance and my company will not pitch in to help with the cost.\n\nTl;dr Canada is looking good.",
"This video may help shed some light on why the Pre-ObamaCare system was so inefficient, presented in a way that (IMO) isn't infected by political bias. Political bias (again IMO) is why this issue is so murky and confusing in the minds of the common American.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/qSjGouBmo0M"
]
] |
||
bd4zuz | if the universe is infinite (assuming the curvature is flat), does this also imply there is infinite matter? how can the space expand any further if the universe is infinite? | Suppose expansion freezes, and you travel in a straight line at the speed of light. Will you just go on forever or end up at the same spot eventually? Will new galaxies just keep coming forever? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bd4zuz/eli5_if_the_universe_is_infinite_assuming_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekvrsp8",
"ekvshze",
"ekvwmi1"
],
"score": [
4,
6,
3
],
"text": [
" > does this also imply there is infinite matter?\n\nAlong with the assumption that the universe is homogeneous, then yes it implies infinite amounts of matter.\n\n > How can the space expand any further if the universe is infinite?\n\nSpace isn't expanding into any other space, it doesn't require area to get larger. So space just expands.\n\n > Suppose expansion freezes, and you travel in a straight line at the speed of light. Will you just go on forever or end up at the same spot eventually?\n\nWe don't know for sure but I think the current theory is that you could go forever in any direction and just find more universe which is basically the same as what we see.",
"So, you need to think about what \"infinite\" means here--and probably what \"dimension\" means, too.\n\nA \"dimension\" is just a degree of freedom of movement. We live in a 3 dimensional space--that is, we have three degrees of freedom of movement. We can move up and down, we can move left and right, and we can move forward and back. \n\nSo what does \"infinite\" mean, in this context?\n\nIt means no matter how far you move up, there will always be more room to move further up--and you will never end up back where you started by continuing to go up.\n\nSame with down, left, right, forward, and back. \n\nNext, let's think about \"expansion\". The expansion of space doesn't mean it's expanding *into* something, as people popularly thing. It just means that, as time passes, there will be more space in between two points than their was previously. Something that is 2 meters to your left today might be 4 meters to your left tomorrow (side note: not really, because gravity and other reasons, but still. Between non-gravitationally-bound objects, it works like that). \n\nNone of that guarantees that there will always be more matter, so the answer to your first question is no: there is likely not infinite matter. \n\nTo your second question: The universe can expand because adding more space doesn't conflict with always being able to move further. \n\nTo your third: Nope, you will never end up at the same spot, eventually.\n\nAnd to your fourth: That's a hard question. There is not necessarily infinite matter, so the answer to this question is \"not necessarily.\" But at the same time, matter seems to be relatively, but not perfectly, evenly distributed throughout the visible universe, so the answer to this question is going to have to be \"probably, but not definitely.\"",
" > How can the space expand any further if the universe is infinite?\n\nIt sort of \"stretches\". Everything becomes farther apart without actually moving apart. The distances increases as the space itself expands.\n\nThis is often demonstrated with a popped balloon. Take a sharpie and draw two dots on the ballon. The stretch the rubber. Although both dots remain on the spot they have been painted - the distance between them increases."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5qdkcy | what was the state department's senior management team and what was their responsibilities? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qdkcy/eli5_what_was_the_state_departments_senior/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcydvum"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The state department is the agency that is tasked with international relations, so basically all of our dealings with foreign governments. These officials were the top officials, who work directly under the Secretary of State. These were the career diplomats/bureaucrats who are technical experts rather than political appointees. These are the people who have been actually doing the job day in, day out for decades dealing with foreign governments on things like trade deals, agreements and enforcement of international treaties, coordinated security, extradition of criminals, basically anything that involved the U.S. and a foreign country needing to work on something."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4cm11o | why haven't the native americans revolted in canada/usa like native populations in other countries? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cm11o/eli5_why_havent_the_native_americans_revolted_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1jddch",
"d1jdkr7",
"d1je3c1"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They did, actually. The [Indian Wars](_URL_0_) lasted from the time the first European settlers arrived in North America in the early 1600's until the early 1900's, roughly 300 years. Native Americans absolutely did not just roll over and let Europeans take over their land.",
"And the Sioux have been suing the U.S. gov for the past 40 years and it went to the supreme court... they were offered 186 million dollars but they didn't take it, because they just want their land back. And the fed won't give it. ",
"Why haven't you done some research before asking such a willfully ignorant question? There has been a large-scale Native revolt in Canada *within the last three years*, FFS. [Start here](_URL_0_) and then check out /r/IndianCountry and /r/NativeAmerican for more."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars"
],
[],
[
"http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/01/16/idle-no-more-movement-dummies-or-what-heck-are-all-these-indians-acting-all-indian-ey"
]
] |
||
3355ml | math being truly universal. | Is it possible for another intelligent lifeform to have the same math as us (not just different units?
Why would they call math the universal language?
Can math be used to communicate with others?
Can Pi even be the same numbers as other intelligent life within the same universe? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3355ml/eli5_math_being_truly_universal/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqhm629",
"cqhmdyp",
"cqhn5nw",
"cqhsyd1"
],
"score": [
15,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, math is universal. 1+1=2 is not a human truth: it is a description of the fact that if you have one thing and another thing, you have two things. Before humans were around, one fish and another fish were still two fish.\n\nPi would still be the same. A circle is a circle, we didn't invent the circle. We discovered what pi is, just like we discovered what gravity is, but those things would still be true whether we'd discovered them or not.\n\nThe reason that math is considered a \"universal language\" is not because it can be used to communicate, though I suppose it can in some capacity. It's the universal language because math can be used to show another lifeform that we are intelligent. For example, we could send a message which lists the first ten prime numbers through a series of beeps. If an alien picked up our message, they would recognize that the pattern of the beeps are the pattern of the prime numbers, because the prime numbers are a universal truth. They would thus understand that this wasn't some random radio wave that a star emitted, it's an attempt by another intelligent lifeform to contact them.\n\nAnother way to put it is that math can say \"hello, we are smart\" to any other intelligent life form. It can't really say \"it's raining today\" or that kind of thing.",
"Mathematics is a logical system. That is, if you accept the fundamental premises, everything follows from those premises automatically. The physical world and the culture don't matter at all.\n\nMathematics is a 'universal language' in this sense - it doesn't matter where you come from, the math remains the same. However, it's not a 'language' in the same sense as English or Sanskrit because it doesn't carry any real world context with it. If I tell someone \"blerg is the integral over blarg over time\", I might be making a true statement - but they don't know what it's a true statement *about*.\n\nThat being said, the mathematics translates across language in a way that actual language doesn't. Mathematicians will routinely read papers written in languages they don't understand because while the text doesn't parse, they understand the context of mathematics. Even in non-mathematical fields, this is true. If I write down \"14 (s + 1) / (s^2 + 5s + 2) (s)\", I've just told an engineer something important about a system.\n\nFor communications, you first need a context. \"1 + 2\" might mean \"take one apple, add two more\" or it might mean \"take one apple, add two pears\" or it might even mean \"take item one and collect it in the same group as item 2\". The symbols we use and the way we use them are a context that's necessary for the math to have any meaning.\n\nAs for Pi, it's a universal constant expressing a multiple of the ratio of a circle's circumference/area to it's radius/diameter. As long as you define those terms the same way I do, we'll come up with the same value of Pi.",
"So my coworker keeps saying that it's impossible for math to be universal because humans group things. 2 bananas is 2 bananas to humans but to someone else it wouldn't be 1+1 banana it would be 1 separate thing and one separate thing because they can see genetic makeup and they see they are slightly different, we just say it's two bananas because it's easy for us. What if other life cannot simplify things like us, so it would be impossible for them to grasp the concept of adding them together.",
"Tldr; The physics of the universe is constant so another species developing similarly to us will understand it. The formulas are all uniform no matter the species, it's the symbols that change. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
61f44s | why were revolvers created to generally have 6 shots? | It would make sense to have 5 or 10 considering we have a base 10 system, but it's not. Was there any historic reasoning behind this number specifically or was it only a random choice that stuck for the rest of production? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61f44s/eli5_why_were_revolvers_created_to_generally_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfe1kzv",
"dfe23qh",
"dfe2fux",
"dfe2i33",
"dfe30aq",
"dfe37uh",
"dfe3e89",
"dfe3mgi",
"dfe3qk9",
"dfe4bc9",
"dfe4dwo",
"dfe4uya",
"dfe4vcn",
"dfeab4u"
],
"score": [
203,
73,
10,
8,
2,
4,
175,
2,
2,
133,
5,
5,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Ease of design, mostly. If you stack 7 circles in as close a shape possible, you get an hexagon with 2 on top, 3 in the middle, and 2 at the bottom. Use the centre as a rotating part, and you get 6 holes in a symmetrical way, without having to do weird complicated math.",
"We don't use a base 10 system for measuring movement on a circle though. Revolvers are kind of clockwork devices. They require a precision in their design that is less complicated than the clocks I'm using as an analogy or the mechanisms of their more modern autoloader counterparts. Even the simplest of revolvers requires a gear calibrated to allow a cylinder to rotate enough to move the next round in between the barrel and the firing pin or \"hammer.\" You can see the complicated design of Samuel Colt's first revolving rifle [here.](_URL_0_) Other design concerns include the width of the round, the rod the cylinder moves around, and the amount of material needed to make sure the rod, cylinder, and frame can withstand multiple firings. All of that needs to fit onto a handle that will fit securely in the palm of your hand.\n\nEdited per editor's request.",
"Size and weight. A revolver cylinder would have to increase in diameter to add extra chambers and at some point it's just too much. Especially with larger bore rounds like say .44 and .45 calibre. Smith and Wesson managed to fit seven chambers into their 686 revolver, their smaller j-frame pocket guns use five round and the large n-frame like the trr8 have eight round chambers (all in .357). They also make a smaller 5 shot .44 mag and a regular size 10 shot .22.\n\nIt's all to do with the size of the gun, a fatter cylinder with extra chambers is more bulky and heavy",
"It's interesting you mention the 5 or 10. I don't know if that influenced the decision or not, as opposed to the size and weight considerations, but...early revolvers had 6 chambers, not necessarily shots. In most cases, one chamber was empty, giving you 5 shots and a safe place to lay the hammer.",
"For the same reason that cell in a beehive are hexagons- that is the most efficient way to rotate holes (to put the bullets in) around a central shaft. Some revolvers have fewer in order to be smaller.",
"It's a function of size, weight, caliber and chamber pressure. The chamber size, the overall cylinder size are factors and the chamber pressure is a factor because there must be adequate cylinder strength to keep it from exploding. \n\nAs the cylinder size increases, so does the gun's width and weight. \n\nContrary to the comments about 6 being the best number of rounds numerically, it's much more than that. \n\nFor example, I own a 10 shot revolver chambered in 22LR. This works because the chamber size for 22LR is much smaller as is the chamber pressure. There are 9 shot, 7 shot, 6 shot, 5 shot revolvers in 22LR. I believe the French made a 20 shot revolver but I don't know the caliber BUT it must have been small caliber or the gun would be huge. \n\nOn the other hand, I also own a 5 shot .357 magnum which has a a fairly high chamber pressure and caliber so you can't squeeze in many more rounds, 6 would likely be a good balance as the gun would get heavy or the cylinder would be too weak to be safe. ",
"It was the result of the best ratio of diameter of the cartridges in use at the time to the acceptable fatness and also expense of the gun.\n\nThe cartridges can only be placed around the perimeter or the cylinder, so you have to make it dramatically larger, heavier, and most importantly, more expensive and use more materials to make it hold more shots. There must be enough metal between each hole/chamber in the cylinder to contain the pressure of the powder going off so the gun doesn't blow up in your face. So adding more shots is a case of diminishing returns. There is nothing technically preventing anyone from doing it, and there wasn't even at the time. It's just impractical.\n\nIt's worth mentioning that not all revolvers were or are six shooters, either. Five is/was also common. Earlier \"pepperbox\" guns, the arguable precursor to revolvers, commonly held four. There were some small caliber revolvers at the time that held *more* shots as well, since the smaller diameter cartridges took up less space along the circumference of the cylinder.",
"There were 20 shot revolvers made. Google it. They had an inner and outer ring of chambers.\n\nI have a 5 shot revolver. 5 used to be quite common amongst small frame revolvers. Once you increase the frame size you can increase the cylinder size giving room for an extra bullet. Size and ability to be concealed is a factor for why the high capacity, large caliber revolvers fell out of favor. ",
"There is nothing special about 6 shots, revolvers hold as many shots as can fit given the quality of steel the cylinder is made from and the size of the gun and bullets. \n\nNo one buying a gun for self defense has ever said they wanted fewer bullets and not more. ",
"Educated guess for a 5yo reddit child: I believe that the chosen caliber drives the design. Let's take a look at the boundary (extream) conditions and use between 20 & 2 bullets. Okay, grab your grapes and we will do this together.\n\nNot those grapes, the grapes in your lunchbox. Place 20 bullets (grapes) in a ring. Now place one grape in the middle for the central pivot. There is a lot of room in the middle! Much more than is needed.\n\nNow place two grapes side by side with one grape in between for the pivot. Now there is a lot of room around the ring. \n\nHow much room is on that ring? Room for 4 more bullets for a total of 6. \n\nCould there be 5 or 7, sure but from a machinists perspective, striking three equally spaced lines through a center point is much easier than 5 or 7 equally spaced lines. Durring the time of the iconic six shooter, machining was more difficult so anything that would save time/math was favorable. This leads us to a little history.\n\nHEY, pay attention you little shit!\n\nSamuel Colt was on the forefront of mass production, up to that point a firearm was made by a single worker/artisan start to finish. Due to advances in tolerancing, Colt could mass produce parts knowing that they would be a relatively close fit. This allowed for assembly by less skilled workers lowering costs and pushed revolvers into more hands.\n\nOkay, back to the design. In addition to holding the bullets, the cylinder is also the chamber where the ammunition fires so a certain amount of material is needed to contain the explosion.\n\nAlso, gearing is proportional to number of bullets and would be a thin ring about 1/4 bullet diameter which is why I chose a full grape rather than a raisin for the central pivot. And as I stated at the beginning, this is all reative to the caliber of the bullet as it can be scaled up or down. \n\nNow eat your grapes.\n\nEdit: Thank you kind stranger.",
"Just seemed to work out that way as the best compromise between calibre, weight, size, etc. Other ones were made or tried, if you are a fan of the Forgotten Weapons channel Ian has covered [many revolvers](_URL_1_) with differing amounts of chambers, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 and even a [ludicrous 20 shot one](_URL_0_).",
"Something that most people haven't addressed - maximizing area.\n\nA revolver cylinder is a circle by cross section, but if you think about it as more of a hexagon, you end up with a series of equilateral triangles. This means that circles - which the cross section of ammo also is, fits efficiently within them. The ammo size was functionally set.\n\nNow we can't maximize the entire area, originally there may have been some machining limitations but since the bullet is effectively fired from inside the cylinder chamber, it also needs to be tough enough to retain those forces so the wall of the chamber have to also be a certain size.\n\nHowever we could imagine trying to make revolvers with more chambers. As we add chambers, the interior angle of the section gets smaller to hold the width of a bullet and its required housing you have to move further from the center and the size of the entire construct gets much more unwieldy.\n\nI believe that because of these things, functionally 6 chambers is the point at which you don't have to make the cylinder much bigger than any previous numbers of chambers. I did some checking and there are plenty of other sizes made over time, but also it seems 6 was not immediately the standard. However there's enough advantages from an engineering standpoint, combined with 6 being pretty good from a number of shots standpoint for most of the realistic self defense needs, that I think people just settled on it.",
"Mostly convention based on experimentation. Designers tried all kinds of crazy things in the early 1800's until the sweet spot of 5 or 6 rounds was found. Theres a great youtube channel called \"forgotten weapons\" that chronicles some those very interesting ealry designs. \n\nIn general, more shots means a bigger cylinder, higher bore axis, and an overall heavier gun. There comes a point where people have trouble using it because of the size, weight and recoil characteristics.",
"One of my favorite geometric coincidences here! (This is fun) Take 7 coins of the same size - 7 pennies, if you will. put one on the table, and arrange the other 6 in a circle touching and surrounding it. Perfect, eh? So, six shots is coincident with the order of the universe, and the setup of machinery."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Paterson"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StSyVLW3RB8",
"https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons/search?query=revolver"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8ecbwp | how do newborns learn to keep their eyes open? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ecbwp/eli5_how_do_newborns_learn_to_keep_their_eyes_open/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxu19o8"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"Most babies will tend to open their eyes more if they are held in an upright position (this is called the \"doll's eye\" reflex). Their vision is very out of focus at first, but they can see things within 6-10 inches away, and they are naturally fascinated by human faces, which is why it's so important to interact with even tiny newborns. Newborns sleep a ton during the first few weeks of life, so they do spend a good chunk of time with their eyes closed, but often they really enjoy being held upright and staring at mom or dad's face! Sight is the last sense to develop in newborns, so while they can often hear extremely well, their eyesight is very poor in the beginning. As their vision gets better and they are more able to focus their eyes on different objects, they keep their eyes open for longer periods of time and will often become fascinated looking at different colors and types of movement. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3v57tc | what's the difference between salsa, taco sauce, picante sauce, and pico de gallo? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v57tc/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_salsa_taco/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxke2si"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"*Salsa* is Spanish for sauce. In the US, it frequently indicates a less finely chopped/blended mixture than what Mexico calls *salsa*. \n\nTaco sauce is a very finely blended tomato based sauce more like ketchup (though usually with spices). \n\nIn Spanish, *picante* means to sting (referring to the spice's effect on the eater's mouth) so it means spicy (it's used as an adjective so picante salsa would be hot salsa). It shares the same root with the English word piquant, which also means spicy, but is frequently used to describe metaphoric spice rather than spicy flavor in English. \n\n*Pico de gallo* is a chopped mix of onions, jalapenos, tomatos, and cilantro. It might be best considered one specific style of salsa (salsas can include a much wider variety of ingredients, while *pico de gallo* usually just alters the proportions of those 4 ingredients--sometimes swapping for a spicier pepper). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
e69ih6 | how did they figure out the best order of letters on a keyboard/typewriter? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e69ih6/eli5_how_did_they_figure_out_the_best_order_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9ont3u"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"When in development, the typewriter had a bunch of levers and keys. They initially designed the keyboard to be in alphabetical order, but these little levers you’d trigger would often overlap. This leads to them being stuck, and very tedious to fix. So instead, they organized the letters to be in order of common usage. This way, the levers wouldn’t get stuck as easily. This is where “The Fox Jumped Over The Lazy Dog” comes in, where you will check to see if all your keys were working.\n\nWhen inventing the keyboard for the computer, they just simply transferred the layout so they didn’t have to change how they taught how to type."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2emr9k | when "playing" back a song in your head is it audio memory from a time of hearing the song or does the mind create the song from scratch like the voice in your head? | So really the only way i can explain this is whether the mind uses a memory, like remembering the first time someone told you they loved you for instance, you can hear how they said it from memory. Or whether it’s something like making gibberish sound in your head or when you talk to yourself in your mind. Im sorry for the poor quality of the question I just can’t think of a better way of describing it.
edit: any brain/mind/hoodoo scientist out there at all to awnser this question? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2emr9k/eli5when_playing_back_a_song_in_your_head_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck0xzbi",
"ck12j4q",
"ck13iqa",
"ck182qm",
"ck1bqpd",
"ck1huzg"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is only from my personal experience, but I have thought about this question a lot. I am a musician and I ALWAYS have a song in my head. I find that when I listen to the song that is stuck in my head, in my head I was *'thinking' it in the correct key.* I do not have perfect pitch, which leads me to believe that it is an auditory memory, as you asked.\n\nI have no idea if this is true, but I know I do *not* have perfect pitch, just many years of musical training. I believe I just have a very good AUDITORY memory. Another example of this is that when I did theatre, I would memorize my lines only by having them read to me and then repeating them back. I never looked at a script. Have I just exercised my \"pitch\" memory this way?",
"When I was a 7 year old boy, my first PlayStation game was Rayman, and anyone who has played it will know it had a wonderful sound track. I enjoyed the game, but it was far from my favourite. Moving forward 18 years later, having not played it in that period, and with no conscious memory of the game's music, I had a dream that included the music that played on one of the first levels. It was a crystal clear piece of music being played as background music. I actually woke up, singing the song to myself. I then verified I was humming the right song by searching for Rayman songs on YouTube: sure enough, my dream recreated the song perfectly and precisely.\n\nHad somebody asked me to hum the song before the dream, I wouldn't even know which note started first, let alone the whole thing. Even sat here now, I have no idea how the song goes. It was a perfectly preserved memory that under no circumstances would I have been able to recall willingly.",
"I cannot say which of those two it is, or if it even is one of those two at all, but the former is more likely. It is an imprinted memory, and by \"playing back\" the song you are actually recalling that particular memory. You aren't actually \"hearing\" it -- it's in your head -- but rather *remembering* it. You could think of it as an *imagination*.\n\nThis imagination is not dissimilar to a visual imagination, one that you envision if you were to close your eyes and think up of a scene.\n\nOne interesting thing is that these imaginations become hallucinations if you were to take psychedelics. So, say you're on LSD, and you think of a song in your head. What might happen is that you actually perceive and hear that song, exactly as if it were playing. That's hallucinating: perception in the absence of stimulus. Obviously, this won't happen in normal circumstances.",
"Everything I've heard is every time you remember something you're recalling the memory.\n\nI've asked a question similar to yours before but it just got no votes or responses.\n\nMine involved how whenever I have part of a song in my head, that if I physically listen to that song I can instantly recall all parts of the song I was previously unable to listen to. Sometimes even if I just hit \"play\" and see the song title, the memory comes back before the song has even started. It's something I'd love to understand.\n\nI need to go to school and study neuroscience.",
"I think in this case it would be helpful to think of memories not so much as snap shots, but rather as \"worn paths\" in your brain. If you walk across the same path of grass every day, it will eventually wear down to a dirt path. No one time that you walked did it get there but rather through repeated use. Note that I'm not saying you can't make that path in one go, just saying for this example lets assume the memory of the song isn't from some pivotal moment in your life, but rather from repeated \"listenings\". \n\nNow back to your question, even if you were just making gibberish you would reach a point where you would notice that this gibberish is actually this particular song. The only way to come to that conclusion is to compare your ramblings to this known path of this song and find that they match. So whether you start on the known path and walk down it or you start with gibberish and find that it is the same path, it is ultimately coming down to comparing something to this known path.\n\nI also noticed in another reply you mentioned you tried to alter the song as it is in your head and I think this fits this analogy nicely to taking the path to a certain point and then trying to branch off or form a parallel path, etc.\n\nDisclaimer: I'm just some guy on the internet, not a scientist.",
"Short answer: the mind \"creates a song from scratch,\" which it then \"plays back\" (this is what you would tell an actual five year old.)\n\nLonger answer:\n\nTechnically speaking, any and all memory is never recalled but always reconstructed. Memory acts less like a collection of photographs/videos/sound files, and more like loose and scattered components of all of these things, which must be reassembled each time a person tries to recall a memory. Naturally, this can be influenced by other biological, cognitive, or social goings-on, which can – and will – affect the accuracy of the memory. This is why human memory is so fallible.\n\nTo address sound specifically, researchers Baddeley and Hitch came up with what is called the \"working memory model,\" which was based on the earlier, less complex \"multi-store memory model.\" One of the components of the WMM is the phonological loop (which is more for language than for music, per se, but it is relevant.) When you hear someone speak, what they are saying is stored verbatim in the short-term phonological store. Most of what they say will deteriorate quickly once in the store, but through repetition/rehearsal, the sounds you are processing can be stored long-term. This repetition is done by what is called the articulatory rehearsal component, which recreates sounds stored in the phonological store. Wikipedia puts it in simple terms that I rather like: \"The phonological store acts as an \"inner ear,\" remembering speech sounds in their temporal order, whilst the articulatory [rehearsal component] acts as an \"inner voice\" and repeats the series of words (or other speech elements) on a loop to prevent them from decaying.\"\n\nSo long story short, when you are trying to recall something you heard, the articulatory rehearsal component is reconstructing what details or components you have committed to memory, which will probably be quite a lot if you have listened to that song/speech/whatever you heard quite a lot, but will probably be very little (if anything at all) if you have only heard it once or twice (and weren't paying very close attention.)\n\nSource: psych student\n\nFinal note: if anything here is wrong, it might be because I am remembering it incorrectly (memory is fallible!) but I'm also kind of doped up on pain meds. If it doesn't make sense I will be happy to (try to) clarify!\n\nTL;DR: memories are all reconstructed (hence memory fallibility), and sound memories are reconstructed through the same cognitive processes that helped create them in the first place."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1l9djj | is there a good reason for me to buy life insurance? | I'm having my first child in a few months, and a number of parenting books talk about buying life insurance; this makes no sense to me!
The way I see it: when I buy life insurance, I'm essentially placing a bet against a company that has spent a fortune making sure they know how likely they are to lose that bet, and that company gets to set the terms of our bet. Maybe when households were more traditionally one-income it made more sense (if I died, my wife would need a cushion to get back on her feet), but my wife and I both work and we have *some* savings to help us a little in a tragedy.
So, basically, what are the good reasons for buying life insurance? Why does it make sense for anybody to do so?
EDIT: All right, I understand the theory of "pooling risk." But if we're capable of saving a certain amount of money every month, isn't that better for us than spending it on life insurance that likely won't come to fruition? Plus, everyone keeps talking about life insurance as if it is a certainty to pay out because death is a certainty, but my understanding is that insurance companies don't offer policies that last your entire life anymore. Also, I want to emphasize that my wife and I both work: if we were going to take out an insurance policy, it would need to be on both of us, and to get two premiums that are cheap enough to not be a burden it would give us a small enough policy that it *really* doesn't seem worth it. Anyway, thanks for explanation--I do appreciate it! I guess I have some issues with the sell on life insurance sounding like fear-mongering, though. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l9djj/eli5_is_there_a_good_reason_for_me_to_buy_life/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbwzayi",
"cbwzeuq",
"cbwzwnz",
"cbwzynk",
"cbx00ne",
"cbxbrbq"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Between paying off debts, funeral costs, and your family being without your income, dying can cost a lot of money to those you leave behind. Life insurance is a way to lower the burden. ",
"Sure, the easiest thing to do is figure out how much income you think you will need until your child is 18. Make sure to include the cost of closing down the final aspects of your life, and shifting to her new one. I hate to be morbid about this, but since you asked...it is very possible for a small nest-egg to be completely consumed by funeral costs. Then calculate how much money your wife will make in that same timeframe.\n\nThe difference is what you will need in life insurance. What you probably should be looking at is something called \"term life insurance\". For young healthy individuals, this insurance is very cheap. It's cheap because they aren't investing the money, the rate is only available for a fixed \"term\" and will go up as you get older (and more likely to die). ",
"If you can guarantee staying alive long enough, and having enough discipline, to save up enough to look after your family after you die, then there's no point in buying it. Assuming that you can also guarantee that no tragedy will befall your SO in the same timeframe. \n\nIf you can't guarantee those things, that's what the insurance is for.\n\nPlus: in my case I've no kids. I took out life insurance when we got a mortgage. Because if I die, the last thing my SO wants to worry about is either moving out, or paying off the mortgage on her own. ",
"Insurance isn't about making a bet with the insurance company, it's about spreading out the risk. The reality is that over a large population, statistically a certain number of people are going to die at certain ages, although it's hard to predict which individuals it will be. So everybody contributes a little bit to help out the families of those unfortunate individuals, and in exchange, they get a little piece of mind that their family will get those benefits if they happen to be one of the unfortunate. \n\nIf something were to happen to me, we've got enough saved up to help my wife and daughter a little as well, but I don't want them to just get a little help. I want them to be put in a position where financially they have nothing to worry about for at least a few years. More specifically, I want to make sure that they have more than enough money to pay off the mortgage, and ensure that they don't end up losing the house.\n\nAlso, when my daughter was born, life insurance was taken out on her. This isn't intended to benefit myself or my wife, because we expect our daughter to outlive us, but rather my daughter's future family. But by buying life insurance for her when she's younger (and statistically less likely to die), we can lock in lower rates for this life insurance. Basically the insurance company's statistics show that she can be expected to contribute to the insurance fund for a longer period of time, therefore her yearly contributions can be lower, because they'll likely add up over time.\n\n",
"In addition to what would happen if you died, take a moment to think about what would happen if both you AND your wife died. In my case, my children would go to my sister, who would have to move to a larger house because her tiny house is already bursting at the seams. It would be a HUGE financial burden to her to take on my kids as well. \n\nSo, I did the calculation and invested in a life insurance policy that would make sure that things are taken care of in case that scenario happened.\n\nThat being said, insurance is not for everyone. If you are fine without it, then don't buy it! After all, you definitely won't care what happens after you are dead. You won't even exist. In my specific case, I don't want to screw anyone over by dying at an inconvenient time.",
"Don't have a stupidly expensive funeral, live within your means, keep a savings account or buy government bonds. invest in various markets if you feel confident in that gamble. If you live a financially responsible life (most people don't) then the value of life insurance significantly drops."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
aq6llm | how negatives are converted to colored pictures? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aq6llm/eli5_how_negatives_are_converted_to_colored/ | {
"a_id": [
"egdpiz5",
"egdq9wf"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Are you asking about negative or about black & white?\n\n[Negative](_URL_0_) is the image with the colors inverted, for example black becomes white, red becomes cyan, and so on. No detail is lost, you just need to invert the colors to get the originals.\n\nIf you're talking about colorization of black & white photos, then we don't know what the original colors were - it's just a guess.",
"It is easiest to explain with black and white film. The black in a the negative is white in the positive image and the the other way around to. the gray scale is also inverted. \n\nPhoto paper is white and when you expose it to like and the develop it it get darker the more light that hits it so you what the most light on the black areas and non on the white so projecting a negative image to the paper result in a positive image. The film works like the paper the more light the darker so that explain why is it negative.\n\nColor film is the same way but you use three types of pigments so the amount of each pigment is reversed. The result is the complementary colors. Red is cyan, green is magenta and blue is yellow and vice versa. Black and white is each other complementary colors to.\n\nSo it work the same way in color but what the complementary colors is and how to interpret it is a lot harder to see directly then black and white"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_(photography\\)"
],
[]
] |
|
a8uahq | do calculators and other devices ever compute wrong result? | Every machine or process has a level of inaccuracy to it. Do calculators have those? If yes, do explain it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a8uahq/eli5_do_calculators_and_other_devices_ever/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecdrsk8",
"ecdrw1c",
"ecdsiss",
"ecediu7"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
" > Every machine or process has a level of inaccuracy to it.\n\nThis is true of physical devices, but is not true of digital information processing. \n\nAs long as the number has few enough digits, a calculator's answers are 100% correct. Its limitation is that it can only hold a limited number of digits, so for example 1/3 (which has infinite digits) is not represented precisely.",
"Yes. The calculator is designed to produce the same result if you give it the same starting parameters. Always. Unless something goes wrong with the machinery (i.e. like some dust obscuring the circuit so it doesn't work how it's designed to.)\n\nThis is a pretty big problem for data centers that house a bunch of servers so they use this RAM called \"error-correcting code\" which detects when an error has been made, and it will correct it. \n\nIt's basically just the environment messing with the computer/circuit's ability to perform the functions as it was designed to. If no outside force acts on it ever, then the computer will always give the same result for the same starting parameters. Always. It's literally just physics. ",
"[Yes, most decimal computation has some level of inaccuracy because there are many decimal numbers that you can't express in binary](_URL_1_). For example, .1^2 = .01. The closest you can get to 0.1 on a 24-bit floating point system is 0.100000001490116119384765625. Square that on single-precision hardware and you get: 0.010000000707805156707763671875. However, the closest you can get to 0.01 on a 24-bit system is 0.009999999776482582092285156250. Which means your system would not consider .1^2 to equal .01. User-facing systems would account for this.\n\n[One time, a radar system was left online for over 100 hours without rebooting, and the errors built up to the point that it missed an incoming missile and 28 soldiers died and 99 were wounded.](_URL_0_)",
"On top of environmental issues, there can be design issues as well. The central processing unit (CPU) in a computer is very complex and probably every two or three years there are major design flaws revealed. One of the most famous cases, that involves simply 'computing the wrong result', is the Pentium FDIV bug. In the mid-1990s it was discovered that Intel Pentium Processors would calculate the wrong results for division. As other threads have pointed out division of floating point (or fractions), is an approximation on calculators, but the approximation is normally guaranteed to be very close.\n\nOn the affected processors the following division (4,194,835 / 3,145,727) would produce produce 1.333739... where the correct answer is 1.3338204... Intel eventually had to recall all the processors that had this bug.\n\nMost publicized design flaws (at least the ones that make the tech news sites) don't normally affect computing mathematical results, but affect other computations pertaining to security, where you a program can trick the processor into telling it things it shouldn't. An example of this happening is if you imagine two different non-administrative users at a school or business running a program on the same computer, and user A can write a program to read user B's data. Modern Operating Systems are designed to prevent this but rely on certain guarantees in the CPU to prevent it and they can be compromised. This is what the recent Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities were concerned with.\n\nAnother example is where a program can trick the computer into doing something it shouldn't. Modern Operating Systems are designed so that a non administrative user shouldn't be able to crash the computer. Again in the 90's there were several classes of bugs in CPUs where users could write malicious programs to crash the computer, including the Pentium F00F bug, and the Cyrix Coma bug.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEdit: Small tweaks"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Quartermaster_Detachment#Al-Hussein_Missile_Attack",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-point_arithmetic#Accuracy_problems"
],
[]
] |
|
404lfk | - why don't insects face the repercussions of inbreeding like animals and people do? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/404lfk/eli5_why_dont_insects_face_the_repercussions_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyrg0df",
"cyrrktt"
],
"score": [
100,
3
],
"text": [
"Most do, although there are a few things to consider:\n\nHive insects with a central queen do not inbreed. New queens leave the hive and establish a new hive far away to avoid inbreeding and competition with the initial hive.\n\nSome don't care because they undergo massive death tolls after birth. Flies are a good example. Flies overbreed, producing far more offspring than local resources can support. This means that most of the offspring are expected to die arbitrarily, without any great selection pressure on the ones that survive. They survive by luck. It doesn't matter if a chunk die of genetic diseases, most are going to die regardless.\n\nA few are special cases and actually have genetic control mechanisms that prevent the negative effects of incest. For example there is a species of wasp, if I remember correctly, who determines sex not with sex chromosomes, but by number of chromosomes. Two of each chromosome makes a female, one of each makes a male. Because the males only have one copy of each chromosome, and thus each gene, they can't act as carriers of recessive diseases. They die. So, the males that survive are clean, they don't have any genetic diseases to pass onto their offspring, and thus they avoid many of the deleterious effects of inbreeding. And interesting consequence of this is that species that do regularly engage in incest have a male to female sex ratio of about 1:5, 1:6, because unlike species that don't regularly engage in incest the sexes do not compete with each other genetically because they are within the same family and thus don't need to sexually compete with each other.",
"First: why is inbreeding a problem? All individual organisms carry a handful of mutations that we call \"harmful recessives\". That is, if you had two copies of each mutation, that would be bad for you. But having just one copy is generally OK. The only way to get two copies is to inherit the same mutation from both of your parents. There are zillions and zillions of these, so when two unrelated people marry, it's extremely unlikely that they will have any of these mutations in common. However, because these mutations run in families, if you have a child with a close relative, the odds are much much greater that you and your partner will share some of these mutations, and you run the risk of having children with two copies of some of them.\n\nIt's important to understand that inbreeding doesn't *cause* genetic defects, it just increases the chance of defects that are already there being expressed. It's also important to note that the chance of having a child with a defect and how severe the defect would be depend greatly on the specific genes carried by the parents. There's been a weird backlash in recent years of people trying to claim that inbreeding is totally fine and the whole \"kids with defects\" thing is a myth. That's an incorrect overstatement, but it IS true that there's a reasonably good chance of having healthy kids, depending, again, on the parents' genome.\n\nNow, if you have a population that's heavily inbred for many generations, some of these harmful mutations will get eliminated or reduced by natural selection. So in lab stocks or heavily inbred domestic lines, you can sometimes eventually reach a reasonably healthy population.\n\nOK, then, what about insects? As has been pointed out, the same forces apply exactly the same way to insects. Social insects are not actually highly inbred, because actual mating occurs between individuals from different colonies. All of the members of an insect colony are very closely related, but they're not mating and having offspring."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
47gte1 | why do sites have mirror downloads hosted by other sites? | I am downloading imgburn, and when i go to the official website to download it, it provides me with like 5 or 6 links of other sites that have "mirrors". What is the point of this? Why can't i just download it directly from the official website? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47gte1/eli5why_do_sites_have_mirror_downloads_hosted_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0ct9v2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"yes, but if a lot of people are downloading it, then it might take a long while for it to download.\nmirrors allow more people to download updates all at once.\nit also is cheaper for the producers of the software instead of having to buy expensive internet plans and really fast servers, they can cheap out and just outsource their server power.\nand if one of the website fails and is offline there is still others, have you ever experienced a mirror that doesn't work? or a website that has a broken download, well while they try to fixing having another mirror still allows you to download the software."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1isfym | why can't i consciously keep my fingers completely and 100% still? | When I deliberately try to straighten my fingers out for at least 10 seconds without having them twitch in the slightest, it never works. It's freaky and it happens to everyone, i think.
why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1isfym/eli5_why_cant_i_consciously_keep_my_fingers/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb7lc88"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you keep your fingers straight, your brain is trying to keep a constant balance between the muscles that flex and extend the finger joints. The longer you try to keep that balance, the more your muscles fatigue, the harder it becomes to stay still.\n\nIt's much like trying to hold a book out at shoulder level - after a while your whole arm starts to shake. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3ybpg5 | can someone explain reaganomics? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ybpg5/eli5_can_someone_explain_reaganomics/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyc4mr5",
"cyc4unx",
"cycgjen"
],
"score": [
38,
28,
3
],
"text": [
"Also referred to (more positively) as Trickle-down Economics. The big idea is that you reduce taxes on wealthy business owners, and they in turn spend more money. That money trickles down through the economy, where it eventually reaches the working class.\n\nCritics of Reaganomics, including myself, argue that the tax break dollars will probably end up in savings accounts. Instead, we could give those tax breaks to working class people, who are more likely to spend those dollars (and stimulate the economy).\n\nEdit: by using 'savings accounts' I was trying to stick to the spirit of ELI5. \"Investment vehicles\" would be a more accurate statement, but the point is that those dollars aren't being used to buy consumer goods.",
"Is the idea that if you make rich people even richer some of the wealth will trickle down to the middle class and then to the working class. It has been proved a myth by economists because the wealth concentrates at the top and doesnt trickle down. It, therefore, leads to the exacerbation of economic inequality (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer).. It is the basis of the GOP (US Republican Party) economic policy.",
"Bush sr. Called it \"voodoo economics\" when he ran against Reagan in the primaries before Reagan was elected. Seems he got it right."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
30w7ld | can you leave earths orbit on a jet? | And actually enter space, not be orbiting Earth. Like on a jet or some sort of aircraft that is not a shuttle or rocket. I've always wondered if it was possible. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30w7ld/eli5_can_you_leave_earths_orbit_on_a_jet/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpwdz1r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A U2 and SR-71 both can get into space, as defined by treaty. So the question is how fine a hair do you want to split."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
e1wdrp | how do biologic mistakes in the human body happen? (mutations and stuff like that) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e1wdrp/eli5_how_do_biologic_mistakes_in_the_human_body/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8s3j3y",
"f8s3xam",
"f8uel8m"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"According to Watson and Crick's DNA model, there are 4 properties DNA posesses: \n\n1. It must be stable\n2. It must be faithfully replicated\n3. It must posess genetic information\n4. It must on rare occasion be able to change, but be stable again once the change has occured. \n\nThe DNA has 2 antiparallel strings, both having 5' and 3' ends opposite to each other. Even though there is a very structured replication process, 5' - > 3' replication on the leading strand and even a 3' - > 5' proofreading on the lagging strand, and enzymes that prevent these changes to happen, no biochemical process is free of mistakes. \n\nAnd it is actually a good thing, because it is what makes meiosis a lot more favourable in the sense that it produces diversity.",
"At some point *quality control* has a bad day and misses something on the production line?",
"DNA is like an instruction book for how to build molecules. Like with books, lots of copies of the same set of instructions are printed and distributed, so that they're available where they're needed. Sometimes, mistakes happen while the instructions are being printed; maybe the printer was damaged earlier, maybe the operator was under the influence of some drug. Other times, the instructions themselves are damaged later, after they've been printed. Sometimes a piece of the sun flies off and burns a hole in them, sometimes they get chemicals spilled on them, etc. Usually it's not important, as a lot of the book's pages are blank or redundant. But sometimes something important gets messed up. When that happens, there are workers whose job it is to proofread and repair or destroy any bad copies. But they don't always catch everything. If they don't, then when that book gets copied again later, the errors will be in all the subsequent instructions made from it. Usually this leads to bad stuff like cancer, but sometimes, by accident, the damaged instructions are actually better, and products made from them get used preferentially from then on. That's evolution."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3affxt | how does an update over the internet allow my graphics card or other computer part to perform better? | I ask because i just don't understand since they are physical parts how something over the internet can make them perform better. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3affxt/eli5_how_does_an_update_over_the_internet_allow/ | {
"a_id": [
"csc48pr",
"csc4ff1"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine your job was to do simple math problems.\n\nYou have a client that you work with who constantly gives you two 2-digit numbers and asks you to add them together. He doesn't specify how you do it, just that you do it.\n\nYour method is to line them up vertically, add the right column, carry over any extra digits to the left column and add those numbers.\n\nUsing this method, you can perform one function (problem) per 5 seconds.\n\nSomeone else at your work comes up with a new method of adding two 2-digit numbers that involves fewer steps than what you were doing before. This is a driver update. You now add the same sets of 2-digit numbers you were receiving before, but you are now able to do them faster.",
"A game will have certain things it needs to do to run properly. They don't want to deal with the super-low-level instructions, so they get a list of high-level commands that they're allowed to issue. The exact content of these commands isn't relevant, so let's pretend that a command they can issue to the hardware is \"add two numbers.\"\n\nWhen the graphics card first ships they have to make sure that they can complete every one of the commands that's in a standard (things like OpenGL or Direct3D). They'll try to program these in the most efficient way possible, but inefficiencies will exist. For the sake of illustration, perhaps they implemented \"add two numbers\" as:\n\n addTwoNumbers(numOne, numTwo)\n for(x = 1 to numTwo)\n numOne = numOne+1\n return numOne\n\n(this starts with the first number and adds 1 to it as many times as the second number). This *technically* works, so it passes to be an implementation of the \"add two numbers\" command that the card has to support, but it is woefully inefficient. They could later push out a new update that implements \"add two numbers\" by adding the numbers digit by digit, basically the difference between counting on your fingers and performing addition with pencil and paper (we're pretending here that the card doesn't natively support addition as a single operation, since that makes things less fun).\n\nNow when the program wants to add two numbers it does the same exact thing it always did: it calls up the \"add two numbers\" routine that the graphics card provides. However, now this routine gives you the correct answer *much* faster, so the end result to the user is that you get better performance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
k5rr4 | how one physically gains or loses weight | I'm not asking how to gain or lose weight. Instead, I'm wondering why (and how) the human body gets larger or smaller depending on calorie intake and calories burned.
In other words, if I lose 15lbs, where does it go and how does it leave my body? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k5rr4/eli5_how_one_physically_gains_or_loses_weight/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2hpt9d",
"c2hpt9d"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you consume more energy than you expend, your body stores the excess as fat.\n\nIf you work out/bodybuild to make your muscles bigger you will also gain weight as the mass of your muscles has increased.\n\nIf you lose 15lbs it could be because you have consumed less energy than you have expended for a while and your body took what it needed from the excess fat stores. The actual weight loss is because your body processes the stores into a variety of things it needs to function, from this process waste products are then expelled as you exhale, pee, sweat and poop.\n\n",
"If you consume more energy than you expend, your body stores the excess as fat.\n\nIf you work out/bodybuild to make your muscles bigger you will also gain weight as the mass of your muscles has increased.\n\nIf you lose 15lbs it could be because you have consumed less energy than you have expended for a while and your body took what it needed from the excess fat stores. The actual weight loss is because your body processes the stores into a variety of things it needs to function, from this process waste products are then expelled as you exhale, pee, sweat and poop.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3b5hfk | why is it called 'redhead' when the hair colour is actually orange? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b5hfk/eli5_why_is_it_called_redhead_when_the_hair/ | {
"a_id": [
"csj19xx",
"csj1de1",
"csj1ebe",
"csj2spo"
],
"score": [
7,
10,
16,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't know if this is reason but there is actually a series of how \"basic\" the colors are linguistically. \n\nSome languages only have words for white and black (light and dark might be better translations). If a language has only three color words the third one added is *always* red. Red is linguistically a more basic word than orange. \n\nInterestingly English does not have the maximum number of basic colors. Russian has a word for light blue, the same way that English does for light red (pink). If you saw blue and a mix of blue and white you would call both of them blue. A Russian person would see them as in too different categories just like you would see red and a mix of red and white as in two different categories, red and pink. ",
"Because in old english there was no word for the colour orange. So things that were orange were called red. You can see this in animal names as well with things like the \"red\"-breasted robin etc.\n\nThe colour orange is named after the fruit, not the other way around.",
"The word \"orange\" was not originally used to describe colour, but instead the fruit. Anything that was what we call \"orange\" was described as a shade of red. The term just stuck.",
"well, just to confuse you even more, back in the late 1800s, and still to this day, in parts of Australia, redheaded people are referred to as 'blue'"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3bq82a | why are the oldest countries not the wealthiest? | I was wondering why the oldest countries on Earth that have existed relatively continuously such as Greece, Egypt, etc. are not some of the wealthiest countries? Would they not have had the benefit of hundreds of years of compounding interest compared to "new" countries like the USA? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bq82a/eli5_why_are_the_oldest_countries_not_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"csogsvx",
"csogymb",
"csohxnp"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"That's not how it works at all. Just because a country is \"old\" doesn't mean there's some magical bank account with billions of dollars in it. ",
"Ask yourself why older people don't have much more money than younger people. Or how's that big, old, companies or business, sometimes close due bankruptcy.\n\nIt's all about managing your assets and income, not about how many time you've been there. You can earn a billion bucks in a war, or thanks to a discovery, and spend it all in infraestructure or lose it all in a war, or in a discovery. If suddenly a new material is found in your territory (i.e. oil) that before was worthless, then your value rockets. If your natural resources are depleted (or stops being useful at all), then your value plummets, as you can't make money the same way as you did until now.\n\nFrom here, it's a matter of the government how operate to keep the \"value of the country\" high. There was a TIL about some guy in middle east saying that his grandad used a camel, that he uses a Land Rover (as they are rich), but their grandsons will use again a camel (As they will again become poor for not having oil), and how they will have to move from oil extraction to something else (i.e. luxury turism) to keep the income flowing.",
"Greece and Egypt are not very good examples as they did not exist \"continuously. Greece was not an independent country until around 200 years ago. Prior to that it was a part of the Ottoman empire for a several centuries. Egypt, too, was part of various other empires (Ottoman, British, Roman, various caliphates etc). \n\nAnyway, saving wealth on a national level and passing it from generation to generation is vastly different than personal wealth. You can't really compare them. Until recently, there weren't that many of options of what one could invest in besides land and gold. And neither of those lend themselves to compounding interest very well. \n\nAnother huge difference is population growth. Most countries today have vastly larger populations than they had, say, 200 years ago. Thus, most of wealth would be heavily diluted. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3wo9lt | if most christian denominations believe that jesus is god incarnate, why is it so common for many to create "graven" images of jesus, against the commandments? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wo9lt/eli5_if_most_christian_denominations_believe_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxxp99d",
"cxxv0m5"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Why is it against the commandments? the 2^nd commandment deals with not having any worshiped item/being besides God, since Jesus is God, I don't see the problem.",
"Because like the members of all sects of all religions, they cherry-pick the parts of their holy book they want to follow and ignore or rationalize away everything else.\n\nWhen you start quoting some of the more gruesome of \"God's laws\" (my favorite is the one about how you're supposed to put disrespectful children to death...) Christians pout and say, \"no that's the Old Testament, and Jesus tossed all that out!\" And yet they keep on quoting the Ten Commandments, the anti-gay stuff, and other OT stuff they like.\n\nAnd that's on top of the fact that what Jesus *actually* said about the older laws was this:\n\n\"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.\"\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1fttxi | where did all the materials come from during the big bang? | I'm utterly confused when it comes to the big bang. What started it, what was before it, why it happened, how it happened. I have read articles about it but they are way over my head. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fttxi/eli5_where_did_all_the_materials_come_from_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"cadpzrb",
"cadq0ov",
"cadrb84",
"caduezm",
"cadvi9j",
"cadvxpb",
"cadw0jp",
"cadxet5",
"cae9rsy"
],
"score": [
3,
16,
85,
39,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Upvoted, hope to see this again on the fp.",
"The reason why all the articles are complicated is because We Don't Know. All we have are guesses. When kids use their imaginations, you have dragons fighting dinosaurs in space. When scientists use their imaginations, they're thinking the same thing, but they're using science words and numbers and big articles all to describe what crazy fantastical idea they have come up with and how it's possible to be real.\n\nIf you had to write a story saying how Dinosaurs could be fighting Dragons in Space could be real and actually happen, it would be really long and complicated and it won't make sense to many people, but it would be fun to think about.\n\nWe just don't know.",
"This is literally the ultimate question of the universe. How did we get here? Nobody knows for sure and there is a possibility that we never will.\n\nBasically, putting it straight, nobody knows.\n\nSorry if this comes across as unhelpful.",
"Two things were created during the big bang: energy/matter (Einstein showed that these are the same thing) and space/time (Einstein again, showed that space and time are connected). Your common sense tells you that it's not possible to create something from nothing; and this is true to an extent. However, physicists say that you can have something from nothing, provided that the \"something\" is composed of two things that can cancel each other out when they are combined.\n\nThis happens in \"empty\" space all of the time, particles and their opposites, anti-particles can materialise, hang around for a bit and then cancel each other out, provided that there is no net gain or loss after the event.\n\nIf this is true of particles in the universe, then physicists say it can be true of the universe itself. If there is enough \"anti-stuff\" to cancel out the stuff we see around us, then it's possible for everything we see to have been created from nothing.\n\nSo where is all of the anti-stuff? There should be heaps of it lying around, but anti-matter itself is actually very rare. Well, as it turns out, the energy (and thus matter) contained in the universe is accounted for by space-time itself. How is this the case? Well, think about your morning commute. It takes energy for you to get from home to work, and the farther your workplace is, the more energy it takes to get there. If the universe were a bit smaller, then it would take a little less energy, and if you take that all the way to its logical conclusion, at the start of the big bang the universe was infinitesimally small, and it would have taken no energy at all to move from one point in the universe to all others.\n\nSo space-time itself is a giant defecit of energy, which should be sufficient to cancel out all of the energy and matter we see around us. That is the easy part though, and only answers the question of where all the material came from. As to how it happended, that's very complex and physicists do not agree on the answer. What started it and why is a question probably best saved for your priest or local philosopher.",
"Richard dawkins had a really good explanation in his view in his excellent book \"The Selfish Gene\". He talks about how things follow the law of stability. The universe is full things that fall into stable forms. Here is the segment from it, it is kinda long, but Dawkins has a way of explaining things well.\n\nI am sorry I am not really explaining it like you are five, but the following is word for word with the credit at the end to the site that provided the book excerpt. \n\n\"In the beginning was simplicity. It is difficult enough explaining how even a simple universe began. I take it as agreed that it would be even harder to explain the sudden springing up, fully armed, of complex order --- life, or a being capable of creating life. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is satisfying because it shows us a way in which simplicity could change into complexity, how unordered atoms could group themselves into ever more complex patterns until they ended up manufacturing people. Darwin provides a solution, the only feasible one so far suggested, to the deep problem of our existence. I will try to explain the great theory in a more general way than is customary, beginning with the time before evolution itself began.\n\nDarwin's 'survival of the fittest' is really a special case of a more general law of survival of the stable. The universe is populated by stable things. A stable thing is a collection of atoms that is permanent enough or common enough to deserve a name. It may be a unique collection of atoms, such as the Matterhorn, that lasts long enough to be worth naming. Or it may be a class of entities, such as rain drops, that come into existence at a sufficiently high rate to deserve a collective name, even if any one of them is short-lived. The things that we see around us, and which we th ink of as needing explanation --- rocks, galaxies, ocean waves --- are all, to a greater or lesser extent, stable patterns of atoms. Soap bubbles tend to be spherical because this is a stable configuration for thin films filled with gas. In a spacecraft, water is also stable in spherical globules, but on earth, where there is gravity, the stable surface for standing water is flat and horizontal. Salt crystals tend to be cubes because this is a stable way of packing sodium and chloride ions together. In the sun the simplest atoms of all, hydrogen atoms, are fusing to form helium atoms, because in the conditions that prevail there the helium configuration is more stable. Other even more complex atoms are being formed in stars all over the universe, ever since soon after the 'big bang' which, according to the prevailing theory, initiated the universe. This is originally where the elements on our world came from.\n\nSometimes when atoms meet they link up together in chemical reaction to form molecules, which may be more or less stable. Such molecules can be very large. A crystal such as a diamond can be regarded as a single molecule, a proverbially stable one in this case, but also a very simple one since its internal atomic structure is endlessly repeated. In modern living organisms there are other large molecules which are highly complex, and their complexity shows itself on several levels. The haemoglobin of our blood is a typical protein molecule. It is built up from chains of smaller molecules, amino acids, each containing a few dozen atoms arranged in a precise pattern. In the haemoglobin molecule there are 574 amino acid molecules. These are arranged in four chains, which twist around each other to form a globular three-dimensional structure of bewildering complexity. A model of a haemoglobin molecule looks rather like a dense thornbush. But unlike a real thornbush it is not a haphhazard approximate pattern but a definite invariant structure, identically repeated, with not a twig nor a twist out of place, over six thousand million million million times in an average human body. The precise thornbush shape of a protein molecule such as haemoglobin is stable in the sense that two chains consisting of the same sequences of amino acids will tend, like two springs, to come to rest in exactly the same three-dimensional coiled pattern. Haemoglobin thornbushes are springing into their 'preferred' shape in your body at a rate of about four hundred million million per second, and others are being destroyed at the same rate.\n\nHaemoglobin is a modern molecule, used to illustrate the principle that atoms tend to fall into stable patterns. The point that is relevant here is that, before the coming of life on earth, some rudimentary evolution of molecules could have occurred by ordinary processes of physics and chemistry. There is no need to think of design or purpose or directedness. If a group of atoms in the presence of energy falls into a stable pattern it will tend to stay that way. The earliest form of natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones. There is no mystery about this. It had to happen by definition.\n\nFrom this, of course, it does not follow that you can explain the existence of entities as complex as man by exactly the same principles on their own. It is no good taking the right number of atoms and shaking them together with some external energy till they happen to fall into the right pattern, and out drops Adam! You may make a molecule consisting of a few doZen atoms like that, but a man consists of over a thousand million million million million atoms. To try to make a man, you would have to work at your biochemical cocktail-shaker for a period so long that the entire age of the universe would seem like an eye-blink, and even then you would not succeed. This is where Darwin's theory, in its most general form, comes to the rescue. Darwin's theory takes over from where the story of the slow building up of molecules leaves off.\n\nThe account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened. There are a number of rival theories, but they all have certain features in common. The simplified account I shall give is probably not too far from the truth.\"\n\n[credit and if you desire to continue reading](_URL_0_)",
"The answer is: Nobody has any fucking clue.",
"Something I'm not seeing in the answers:\n\nIsn't it that matter can randomly just appear out of thin air and then disappear into thin air? I recall being told by various teachers and profs that this is the reason a true vacuum can't exists, even in space\n\nOr do I have false info?\n\nBecause if this is true... Then couldn't that eventually form the tiny ball of material that was before the big bang?",
"Although, as many people have pointed out, we don't know what was before the Big Bang or why it started (aside from speculation), we do understand the physics behind the Big Bang up to 1 one trillionth of a second after it occurred, and this can help explain how the materials in our universe formed after the Big Bang.\n\nFirst of all, the Big Bang can be considered an \"explosion\" that caused the expansion of the universe. As the Universe expanded, its energy became more spread out, and so it cooled. About 1 millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the universe cooled enough where electrons could form from the energy. Similarly, about 1 second after the Big Bang, the universe cooled enough where protons and neutrons could form. \n\nAt this point, we have the parts that make up atoms, but the temperature is still too high for atomic nuclei to form (for protons and neutrons to connect and remain stable). This \"nucleosynthesis\" (creation of the nucleus) does not occur until about 3 minutes after the Big Bang. At this point, the temperature is low enough where protons and neutrons can interact for long enough times, but still high enough so that protons and neutrons can collide with high enough energy to stick to each other (fusion). This process stops when the energy is no longer high enough to allow the protons and neutrons to stick together, or about 20 minutes later.\n\nNow we have nuclei and electrons -- the two components of atoms -- but the temperature is too high for the two to combine. It was a long time until the temperature lowered enough for this to happen; in fact, it occurred about 377,000 years after the Big Bang. Finally, after hundreds of thousands of years, the simplest atoms -- Hydrogen and Helium -- coild form. \n\nSo that is where the basic elements of matter that we see today come from. Heavier elements (such as oxygen, neon, carbon, and iron) were formed as early as 500 million years after the Big Bang in stars. The same fusion that occurred earlier in the universe to form atomic nuclei happens in stars -- with bigger stars forming heavier elements. The heaviest element that can be formed this way is iron. \n\nSo know we know where the elements from hydrogen through iron came from. But what about the 90ish elements heavier then iron? Well, when a star is especially giant, its death will cause a massive explosion known as a supernova. These supernovae have high enough energy to form the heavier nuclei, and every element heavier than iron that we observe comes from the death of giant stars (with the exception of man-made elements). \n\nThis is a pretty complicated topic, and I made a lot of simplifications, but I hope this comment helps you understand how the Big Bang led to all of the materials in the Universe. I know it wasn't exactly your question, but hopefully it answers the question of where all the materials came from. ",
"Time and space are connected - one cannot exist without the other.\n\nAs such, there is no such thing as \"before\" the Big Bang. Time literally did not exist.\n\nAs for why it happened and where the stuff came from - whoever answers that question is getting a Nobel Prize."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Dawkins,Richard/selfish_gene.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
dr4s2a | how does children's tv capture their attention more than say the simpsons, which is more colourful etc | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dr4s2a/eli5_how_does_childrens_tv_capture_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"f6erxbl",
"f6eup39"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"My 12 month old was half watching Simpsons the Futurama but as soon as I put In The Night Garden on or Teletubbies, he was transfixed until it ended.",
"Because those movies, series and so on create a sphere a child can indentify with\n\nThis happens via easier language used or some fantasy as in Frozen for example. \n\nSimpsons is just too realistic.\n\nBtw in germany the teletubbies were banned :D"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
cfqpka | how come when we float, is easier to float face down, then face up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cfqpka/eli5_how_come_when_we_float_is_easier_to_float/ | {
"a_id": [
"eubssjt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The biggest areas of low mass, the lungs, are closer to your front. With front down they displace more water and seem to push you up more."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
20tr7t | if i alternate closing each eye, why do i still feel like i need to blink? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20tr7t/eli5_if_i_alternate_closing_each_eye_why_do_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg6vfqq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's entirely psychological, you feel the need to blink because you're consciously holding out beyond the naturally occurring blink-trigger to see if you actually do need to blink. \n\nIn this time your eyes begin to dry and you blink due to irritation. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1lry4d | why are there two adblock programs of the same name with one being "plus" | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lry4d/eli5_why_are_there_two_adblock_programs_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc25apm"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Adblock Plus came first, opensource and made with contributions from a wide community, and was solely for the Firefox browser. Another gent, unrelated to the people who made Adblock Plus, wanted to use it on the Chrome and Safari browsers instead, so he made his own plugin inspired by Adblock Plus, and simply named it Adblock. Since then, Adblock Plus became available on other browsers too.\n\nFunctionally they're near identical, despite being programmed by different folks, as they both still use the same list of filtered advertisements to decide what to block.\n\nThere *is* some extra difference in recent revelations that Google and some other companies are paying the company that owns Adblock Plus to whitelist some of their advertisements. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
552794 | why do we get max phone reception on the subway and h+ data but the internet connection is extremely slow? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/552794/eli5_why_do_we_get_max_phone_reception_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d86vrgg"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Strong signal means you are close to the cell tower - so there's one/some in the subway. \nSlow data means either lots of people are all trying to use the data at once or the cell tower(s) have a slow connection to the providers Internet. \n\nIt's likely that lots of people are using the data as most smart phones keep data connections open for push communications/notifications. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
p3vuo | how can a fruit drink contain 0% juice? | I was at a restaurant and when I went to the soda machine to fill up, I saw the lemonade with a label that read "contains 0% juice". What exactly am I drinking if it's not juice? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/p3vuo/eli5_how_can_a_fruit_drink_contain_0_juice/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3mabp4",
"c3mfkgu"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Lemon-flavored sugar water.",
"Juice has a rather specific meaning. It doesn't mean \"Any fruity drink\", but rather \"That liquid that comes out when you press a fruit\".\n\nIf you press an orange and put that liquid in a glass, you have 100% orange juice.\n\nIf you take that juice, remove all water from it for easier shipping and add more at your destination, you have 100% made from concentrate orange juice.\n\nIf instead, you mix a number of chemicals to create a flavouring that tastes like oranges and add that to water, you get something that tastes like orange juice. Since no actual oranges were involved, you can't call that juice. That's when you get an orange drink that contains 0% real juice.\n\nReplace oranges with lemons (and add water and sugar to make lemonade)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1t6bwj | why do rotting bodies smell (slightly) sweet? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t6bwj/eli5why_do_rotting_bodies_smell_slightly_sweet/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce4rc93"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"OP, how about a short explanation about how you know this?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3qpfj3 | what does bill clinton balancing the budget mean? | Hello!
My question is very short but probably difficult to explain. Often times people reiterate that Bill Clinton managed to balance the budget but what does that really mean? It looks like U.S. foreign debt still increased during that time. What am I missing?
Kind regards,
Alexandra | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qpfj3/eli5_what_does_bill_clinton_balancing_the_budget/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwh6r2f"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Balancing the budget means the government spent less than they took in. Clinton raised taxes, cut spending, and had huge revenue from the dot com boom.\n\nThe US still had a deficit, which is why foreign debt could increase.\n\nIf you make $50K a year and spend $60K, then you have $10K debt. That $10K is the deficit. The next year, you make $50K and spend $48K. Your budget for that year is balanced since you took in more than you spent, but you still have the $10K deficit from the previous year. \n\nForeign debt is just 'how much of the deficit do I owe to foreigners\", so that portion can increase or decrease while keeping the total deficit the same.\n\nYear 1 you borrowed $10K from your neighbor. No foreign debt. You then borrow $5K from a foreigner and pay your neighbor. Now you owe $5K to your neighbor and $5K to the foreigner. Foreign debt increased but you still owe a total of $10K the same as when you started."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7xmar4 | two-factor authentication | How do apps and websites generate their codes and have so many systems to send text messages and such? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7xmar4/eli5_twofactor_authentication/ | {
"a_id": [
"du9em2g",
"du9oumj",
"dua1u5e",
"dua4pic",
"duaaidj"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I can't speak on the text message side of things but I can talk about the codes and how they work.\n\nFirst I need to talk a little bit about random number generators (RNG's). The important thing to know is that despite their name RNGs aren't actually random. What they are instead is what is called \"pseudorandom\", basically it's just a super long pattern that is so complex that even computers can't predict it just from seeing the numbers that get spit out. (Some really tough RNGs actually have several smaller RNGs inside of them all running at the same time, then use another RNG to decide which one gets to be the next number they actually put out). This is why in some games if you force quit the game and restart from a save the next few number rolls will be the exact same as they were before you quit, because it just reset to that spot in the pattern.\n\nNow each pattern is generated from a special starting number called a \"seed\", and since we already know that the patterns aren't actually random, this means that if you take the two copies of the *same* RNG and give them the *same* starting seed then they will both spit out the *same* sequence of numbers (you can see this with the \"world seed\" in games like minecraft; having the same seed in the same version of minecraft makes the game's RNG spit out the same numbers and thus generates the same world even on different computers).\n\nThese synced RNGs are really what all two-factor authentication code generators are, they're just two copies of the same RNG that were both given the same seed and told \"go to the next number every X seconds\", with one copy on your phone and another one running on the game/program server. Then the game just needs to check if the number you put in matches the number they have and they know if it's you or not.\n\nAs a side note for periods where you close the app and then restart it (or the server goes down) your phone (or the server) just says \"Y amount of time has passed, generate Y/X numbers to catch up\" and really quickly generates a bunch of numbers to catch up to the other copy. (After super long periods sometimes they just say \"okay, here is a new seed, lets start over\" instead).",
"In a basic explanation, two-factor authentication is something you know (username and password) and something you have. The something you have is the ‘token’. \n\nA lot of the tokens have moved recently to text messages because they assume you have your phone or mobile device. Some use email with the assumption that if you have access to the account, you can prove (enough) who you are.\n\nOther tokens include a pseudo-random number generator “keyfob” that display a series of digits. These use a quartz clock circuit to generate a display number based off a seed. On the other end, the token ID is combined with the seed and time to verify whether the numbers match. The validation system can be adjusted to allow for clock gains or losses on the token. ",
"What exactly is your question?\n\nDo you want to know how those tokens and code generating apps work like the blizzard authenticator?",
"The codes are based on the current time (usually) as a seed plus some kinda of a randomizer to take the time value and make it some other value. The randomizer is a fixed process that will return the same value for the same input. You can add a third value to further randomize the value is a controlled way. This third level of randomizing can be something simple like your username or your computer/phone's IP Address. Something that is unique but not entirely random.\n\n\nThats pretty much it. \n\n\nAs for sending messages, they usually have a dedicated server to send out messages. One machine that takes message requests and then executes those requests.",
"Basically, it's a second level of authentication to show that _you_ are really _you_.\n\nAnyone with your password can log into a system as you if 2FA is not enabled, meaning if someone can exploit your password out of you, they can pretend to be you.\n\nTherefore the second level is to check you have an 'object' (a token) that only you would have in your possession, and someone pretending to be you wouldn't have. \n\nThis is a code sent via either SMS (as it's assumed that only _you_ have the phone capable of receiving it), or via a deliberately-not-random number generator (/u/OtherPlayers gives a good explanation in this thread)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2mj918 | what exactly happens when you hydroplane in your vehicle? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mj918/eli5_what_exactly_happens_when_you_hydroplane_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm4rmk1",
"cm4rogn",
"cm4rt0m"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your tires lose traction and you start to drift uncontrollably ",
"it's when water on the surface of the road prevents your wheels from making full contact with the ground, and so you have less-than optimal grip. without grip on the road you can lose control of your car pretty easily and start sliding around.",
"It's essentially the same principle that makes water skiing or skipping rocks possible.\n\nThe tires are moving fast enough that they can't displace all the water in their way to the sides of their path. Because of their shape, some of the water is forced down under the tires instead, causing the tires to lift. When they lift high enough, they lose contact with the road and you lose all control. The drag you feel on the car is a combination of this loss of traction and the force of the water against the front of the tires. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3k6oi3 | why do sodas need so much sugar? | I know sodas happen to have an insane amount of sugar, but why? I can make iced tea which is just as sweet as soda, with far less sugar, using no artificial sweeteners, so why do sodas need so much sugar when I can make iced tea just as sweet with a fraction of what is in the same amount of soda? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k6oi3/eli5_why_do_sodas_need_so_much_sugar/ | {
"a_id": [
"cuv7xmo",
"cuv81yo"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Soda is also very acidic, so all the aditional sugar is basically to overcome the sour/acrid acid taste and THEN be sweet on top of that. Yeah... delicious.\n",
"The carbon dioxide in the drink which makes it fizzy is bitter. The sugar balances this out. This is also why a flat soda tastes overly sweet. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
416vsd | how is canada's universal free healthcare system affordable and sustainable when the united states is going into enormous debt just trying to fund medicare, medicaid, and obamacare (not even free healthcare for all citizens) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/416vsd/eli5_how_is_canadas_universal_free_healthcare/ | {
"a_id": [
"cz03n3o",
"cz045qz",
"cz048xs",
"cz04ido",
"cz0al0v",
"cz0dlc2",
"cz0eaml",
"cz0ejes",
"cz0famf",
"cz0fh6l",
"cz0fq3p",
"cz0fu84",
"cz0fyx6",
"cz0gfmt",
"cz0ivby"
],
"score": [
47,
139,
17,
75,
6,
9,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"America's healthcare system is a massive quagmire of waste, overlapping agencies, and corporate welfare. At this point it would likely be less expensive to simply scrap it all and go single-payer.",
"To put it as simply as possible, America's health system is for-profit in a way that Canada's (and that of many European nations) is not. Insurers make a profit off their customers, and attempt to maximize their profit by competing with one another for more profitable customers. That profit, as well as the advertisement and market research and other expenses associated with maximizing profit, may account for part of the additional expense incurred as a result of public health funding in the US which you're referring to.",
"There are examples of healthcare systems which work. Great Britain's National Health Service is an example, as is Canada's, or even Cuba.\n\nAll US programs are compromises with the US system which is not a system at all but almost complete anarchy.\n\nWhen good examples are brought up the insurance and medical industry bring up rationed care and waiting lists.",
"My American uncle who lives in Rochester, NY, likes to laugh at the Canadian side of the family about how high our taxes are. Our taxes are more than the States but nothing astronomical..the trade off is (pretty) good healthcare. It's not 100% free. If you don't have insurance like Blue Cross and such you don't get dental and you may not have your prescription refunded, etc.\n\nI'll give you a personal example though. I had chest pains a few years ago and they did an ultrasound/x-ray (free) and they said it was gallstones and since it wasn't life threatening they said I could have a surgery in a month if I wanted. They gave me painkillers. I went to the hospital a month later, showed them my Alberta Healthcare card, I was given a gown, had the surgery and was home by lunch. I didn't pay a thing. I wasn't working at the time too so it's not a matter of income and such. Man, I'm pretty lucky to live in this country. A quick Google search said that the surgery would cost 10k if I didn't have insurance while living in the states. :(",
"Yes we have 'free' medicare and that amounts to as much as the USA being a 'free' country. It's not really free. \n\nThing is our government hates it. They bitch about costs and constantly charge premiums and user fees and yet it is such an ingrained 'Canadian' thing that they don't dare even consider getting rid of it.\n\nWhat they are doing is making the funding troublesome and squeezing the system tight so the offer of '3rd' party paid for medical providers becomes attractive. And people who are sick and desperate and have extra money are willing to go for it because the hospitals and clinics are overcrowded from being underfunded. \n\nIt's a basic human right that I grew up with. Being part of the modern age means access to modern medicine. Regardless of differences, be it income, color or religious beliefs. Yet most Americans disagree. \n\nIts inhumane to have one of the most advanced modern health care providers and suppliers in the world but not have basic universal country wide health care services.",
"I heard that in England everyone gets some level of care, but that it can take forever to get treated for some things - guy's mom had a 18(?) month wait for a knee replacement - but the family paid for her to have it done sooner at a private practice. I think that Canada's system is similar, that some treatments require getting approval first and that can mean waiting for a provider that is on the government list to have an appointment.\n\nThe U.S. system is not setup to be financially accountable or transparent, though sometimes the insurance company does require pre-approval and use of an in-network provider (for the least cost to the patient) - so the insurance company makes some of the same rules/decisions that a government-run health program must. But there are different insurances and people without insurance, which makes it harder for the provider to tell the patient what the cost will be ahead of time. In the U.S. you go in, get whatever treatment and the provider bills it to your insurance (if you are one of the lucky ones) without talking about the cost, and then the insurance company tells you later how much it cost and how much you have to pay. This means there is no incentive for the patient to reduce costs by using less treatment, while doctors get paid by the procedure, so actually have a motive to do more than is needed* - it may be difficult to say what the minimal or optimal is. Doctors also fear malpractice suits so every possible test must be ordered. So, there are 4 profit organizations putting cost into U.S. healthcare: insurance companies, doctors, lawyers / malpractice insurance and medical schools.\n\nPeople are uncomfortable with the idea that the government agency running healthcare will limit the treatment, but the insurance companies already impose limits on treatment (or at least the amount one can spend).",
"As everyone here says profit is the issue. The doctors and nurses make good money the service in my experince is great and there is no conflict or question about can or should such a procedure be done or can the patient afford it we just do what is right. I've been offered more money to move to the states but once you do the math on health coverage for the family the \"more money\" becomes the same with the added risk of crime and general economic disparity which frankly is disconcerting and it just is not worth it. ",
"One of the biggest expenses of America's system is the overhead. In America, an urban hospital might have a department of 700 employees dedicated to ensuring the hospital gets paid by insurance companies. You've got employees who deal directly with patients. You've got different subdepartments that are dedicated to specific insurance companies (because each has their own enormous set of red tape). And every dollar essentially needs to be negotiated because it's not a set fee for service.\n\nIn Canada, those 700 jobs are basically 1 guy that bills the government the set rate that was negotiated maybe once every 4 years or so.\n\nFurthermore, when private companies are competing for profit, it encourages every hospital to have the ability to serve every need and it introduces a lot of redundancy. In countries like Canada and the UK, different centers can have different focuses if you will. In simple terms, one hospital might be best suited for heart disease while another is best suited for kidney disease.\n\nAmerica assumes that capitalism and private enterprise are ALWAYS best, and while capitalism is great, nothing can ALWAYS be the best for every scenario.",
"It may have been covered here already but in the US medical supply companies artifically inflate the cost of desposable equipment leading to non-sense like $100 stainless steel tongs that can oly be used once and are then thrown away. Rather than you know, have a area to sterilize and reuse stainless steel equipment in the hospital.",
"The percentage of taxes the USA spends on military, Canada spends on health care. The US would rather buy guns than health care.",
"So here is one thing just from experience. I'm from Ontario Canada and I was looking to see if our government insurance (OHIP) plan would cover me while I was in the states and it would..... To a point. \n\nOHIP will only covers the cost of what they would pay for up here because OHIP uses its might a social interest to enforce a pricing schedule on our clinics and hospitals. \n\nRewind a bit and a friend of mine had a hospital stay in the US when he looked at his itemized bill and they charged him 15USD for 2 tylenols.\n\nIf the US at least used the 300 million person democracy behind them to establish a reasonable pricing schedule, while keeping it private but enforced it on the insurers and hospitals I can't see how that wouldn't bring down costs. \n\nYou can google the OHIP pricing schedule online. ",
"Insurance comqanies are for profit, yes. But it's also lack of regulation. Hospitals can charge whatever they want for anything. There's no reason a 3-day admission to the ICU cost anyone $50,000 but that's what they'll ask for. They ask for so much because the price of equipment is also unregulated, the price of drugs is ridiculously unregulated, and malpractice insurance for every doctor is a huge expense. Also, they'll charge more money because they know a certain percentage of patients will not be able to pay them. They have to keep the lights on with the patients who do pay. \n\nSo if we had a single-payer system like Canada, we would likely see most, if not all, of those problems go away. Hospitals would always be payed immediately. Drug companies wouldn't be able to price gouge the government because the government would go with the low bidder (this would be done in conjunction with laws that diminish the power of patents on drugs). If a hospital sent the government a $50,000 bill for a 3-day stay, you can bet someone would swing by whose job it is to figure out where the fuck they got that number. ",
"Each Canadian citizen has to pay around 800$ a year in order to funds the canadian health care system. Obviously,that is not enough to fund its entirety... That's when the governement has to fund it with a little extra money. It is not free, it's one insurance that we contribute to.\n",
"ELI5 at it's simplest terms I can think of:\n\nThe US system is *for profit*. That means charging as much money as they can for medical treatment. If they can charge an individual $100 for a single aspirin, then that's what they'll charge. If they could charge $1000 for a single aspirin, they would. Plus they have the downside of being run by companies that make their money by charging people money without paying for treatments and procedures, i.e. they make money by *not* providing healthcare. How some Americans don't realise how f***ed up this is astounds and sickens me.\n\nUniversal healthcare systems are run *at cost* so if it costs $1 for a single aspirin, then that would \"ideally\" be what they'll charge individuals. The thing is with universal healthcare systems is that they're taxpayer funded which means that those who can pay (those working and earning over a certain amount, etc) cover the costs for those people who can't pay (unemployed, children and retired) which means higher taxes and a charge of say $5 for an aspirin instead of $1.",
"For the sake of argument, let's price everything in USD\n\nCanada\n-\n\nIn Canada a procedure costs $4000: including all the costs of running a hospital, paying the staff, buying the equipment/drugs etc.\n\nThe Canadian government pays $4000.\n\nUSA\n-\n\nThe same procedure costs $4000\n\nThe hospital needs to make money, though, because it's for-profit. And because it's not government run they need more insurance etc of their own. They add $2000 overhead.\n\nThe insurance company for the patient needs to make money too, **and** needs to cover it's \"risks\" because it's selling insurance. They add $2000.\n\nThere's an agent between the hospital and insurance company. They add another $1000 for their services\n\nTotal cost to a regular customer/patient in the US: $9000\n\nSo what does the hospital do? Well, it charges $9000.\n\nResult: medical shit in the USA is way more expensive."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1e8k0v | why we 'feel' pain when we see someone get kicked in the balls or something. | The pain is always in the same area where the person was hurt. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e8k0v/eli5_why_we_feel_pain_when_we_see_someone_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9xukw1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We humans have very, very developed brains.\n\nWe have something called \"mirror neurons\", and they activate when we see something happen to someone else. They allow us to feel empathy, in both good and bad."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5arwvu | how is duterte able to remain in power over the philippines even with all the controversy about him (like drug-related killings)? do citizens of the philippines still see him as a good leader? | Edit: so a lot of you guys are saying that he is doing basically just what he said he would do before he got elected. So then my next question is why are people in the Philippines so hateful towards drug addicts? I get that being an addict is not a great thing, but do so many people really believe that they deserve to die? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5arwvu/eli5_how_is_duterte_able_to_remain_in_power_over/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9is625",
"d9iswm9",
"d9itlw0",
"d9izg6l",
"d9j0q59"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yeah, he's very popular as a \"law and order\" guy. Populism may not be pretty, but it's popular for a reason.",
"He ran on a platform of \"I will kill all the drug dealers.\"\n\nPeople elected him knowing that this is what he was going to do. He literally told them he was going to do it. ",
"He just got elected a few months ago, and he's doing exactly what he said he would do. Removing someone under those circumstances is basically a coup, because they're going directly against the will of the people.",
"Drugs are rampant in the Philippines in the past years. This also led to serious corruption (\"Tanim Bala\" - bullet planting, as an example: officers in the airport will plant a bullet in your luggage and extort travelers/returning Filipinos for money). It's different than what the West sees, because he immediately set out what he said he'd do.\n\nBut drug dealers aren't just killed, they're given a choice: go to jail for drug dealing, or die on the spot. ",
"Approval ratings are way higher than most countries politicians. Maybe when he starts killing more and more \"undesirables\" the majority of the people will figure out how batshit crazy he is.\n\n\"First they came\" comes to mind."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
475r5q | why does sleeping less contribute to obesity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/475r5q/eli5why_does_sleeping_less_contribute_to_obesity/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0aeo1t"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are studies that show sleeping too much and sleeping too little are related to obesity, but it's important to note these studies only show a correlation, not a cause. For example, sleeping too little might be a habit of someone who works a lot and has little time to take care of themselves. Or it might be someone who has difficulty sleeping because of weight related health problems, like apnea. While sleeping too much might be a sign of depression. Or of someone not having much structure in their lives. Any of those individuals might have other habits that have contributed to their weight. It's also possible the relationship is in the other direction. Someone who doesn't get enough sleep might be too tired to workout, have low energy and use food to get through the day, etc. \n\nBut, as far as I know, there's no research that sleep directly affects a person's weight, completely separate of other factors. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ob3z3 | technological advances in jet fighters from the first generation to the fifth | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ob3z3/eli5_technological_advances_in_jet_fighters_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3fuoug",
"c3fv2qx"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The Wiki's article [isn't bad.](_URL_1_)\n\nFirst generation: Initial use of turbojets, swept wings, full-flying tails.\n\nSecond generation: Supersonic speeds in level flight, first *practical* guided air-to-air missiles.\n\nThird generation: All-weather capability, analog electronics, maneuverability enhancements like swing wings.\n\nFourth generation: Digital electronics, pilot-vehicle interface improvement ([HOTAS](_URL_0_)), maintainability refinement, stealth becomes a consideration, turbofans replace turbojets.\n\nFifth: Radars with no moving parts, sensor fusion fed to glass cockpits, stealth from the ground up, planes are smart enough to tell maintainers what's wrong and what's about to fail.",
"**[First generation:](_URL_4_)** The first jet fighters appeared near the end of World War II. Their main advantage over conventional planes was their maximum speed, which made them harder to counter and to hit (planes were only armed with machine guns at the time). The first generation lasted up to the Korean War.\n\n**[Second generation:](_URL_0_)** After the Korean War came a second generation of jet fighters, strong with experience from the war and new technological advances. It used new materials (aluminum alloys), new shapes (swept and delta wings), was equipped with radar, and was often able to fly faster than the speed of sound. Missiles became better and more widely used, and long distance interception was thought to become the norm, so fighter planes were designed to be fast, fly high and shoot radar-guided missiles from far away.\n\n**[Third generation:](_URL_3_)** Weapons became better but so did counter-weapons. Shooting missiles from afar wasn't reliable, so the third generation of jet fighters focused back on close range combat: better close range missiles (infrared), very manoeuvrable, versatile planes.\n\n**[Fourth generation:](_URL_1_)** This is a more advanced version of the 3rd generation, still focusing on close range combat and versatility, but with better everything. For example manoeuvrability was improved by using orientable thrusters. These planes are also heavily computerized: counter measures to make it less detectable, better radars, better instruments, etc. The controls are also electronic rather than hydraulic.\n\n**[Fifth generation:](_URL_2_)** With improved detection technologies, both in the air and from the ground, this generation focuses on avoiding detection. It is the stealth generation. Shape, paint, avionics, all is designed to make these planes as invisible to detectors as possible.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTAS",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft#Jet-powered_fighters"
],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21PF_USAF.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/F-16_Fighting_Falcon.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Lockheed_Martin_F-22.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/F-4_Phantom_in_flight_Apr_1982.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Messerschmitt_Me_262A_at_the_National_Museum_of_the_USAF.jpg"
]
] |
||
2g370j | why did the romans steal the greek gods and rename them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g370j/eli5_why_did_the_romans_steal_the_greek_gods_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckf6zr7",
"ckf7bx0",
"ckf7dyl",
"ckf7jvu",
"ckf8n0t",
"ckf8ysn",
"ckf9icv",
"ckf9jby",
"ckfbbxu",
"ckfcp4a",
"ckfd75d",
"ckfe5hs",
"ckfgzx0",
"ckfjq8p"
],
"score": [
14,
164,
4,
3,
6,
5,
3,
17,
20,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Shouldn't quote me on this because I'm not entirely sure this is accurate... southern Italy pre-Roman was largely populated by those who had come from Greece, hence the province name Magna Graecia (Greater Greece). It is probably from this demographic that Rome acquired their taste for all things Greek including their Pantheon. This is also why the pre-Marian Roman military used Phalanx tactics.\n\nAlso pre-Christian Rome wasn't just the renamed Greek pantheon, there quite a large amount of religious cults that were quite popular amongst their own demographics, what we know as Jupiter, Juno, Vulcan, Minevra etc. is just what you can call the official religion of pre-Christian Rome.",
"I'd suggest asking in /r/AskHistorians or /r/History to get a better answer, but the short answer is that there wasn't any stealing going on, because polytheists didn't think of it that way. \n\nTake Ares and Mars (Greek and Roman gods of war).\n\nAres is seen as a manifestation of physical prowess in war. He has sons Fear and Terror, and his sister Discord follows him on the war chariot. Greeks didn't think much of Ares (favoring Athena), and in myths he is often seen with contempt, on the losing side or humiliated.\n\nMars is a god of war, but also guardian of farms. He is one of the Capitoline triad, and second in importance only to Jupiter. Where Ares is seen as a force that brings chaos and discord, Mars is seen as the manifestation of military force that secures peace and the force that drives off the hostile forces of nature and lets crops grow. He is seen as the father of the people.\n\nThe key point here is that while these gods are different in their manifestation in their respective cultures, there is no problem in polytheism in interpreting Mars and Ares to being the same god. It's a form of intercultural translation that happened all over - between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Etruscans, Romans and Gauls, Romans and Germans, etc. \n ",
"The same story told to suit its listeners. \n\nThe Norse mythology gives answers to pretty much the same questions as both the Greek and Romans got from their God set, but in a way that suits the people. \n\nMother earth and Father heaven would never have worked as a creation story up North ...the English would laugh in our faces! \n\n",
"Those weren't the Greek gods. They were Roman gods.\n\nIn the history of religions, it is extremely frequent that different pantheons/religions merged as an Empire fell to another or during comparable events, especially as they were constructed in quite a similar manner : there were gods for thunder, love, war, oceans, death (and we could go on)...in pretty much every widely spread pantheon.\n\nFor example, Taranis, the god of thunder for the Celts of Gaul and Britain, was compared and later partly assimilated to a western version of Jupiter, sky father of the Roman pantheon. We could go on with this until the apparition of Christianism and even after (Santa Claus modern appearance has much to do with the one of Odin, father of the Nordic pantheon, which helped in spreading the religion in the north of Europe).\n\nBack to Roman and Greek pantheons, they were probably different gods for each concept depicted. However, the relations between the two were so intricate (that with a few deeper reasons I won't list here for the sake of the length of this post) that every god found his equivalent in the other pantheon after a few changes here and there (mainly, Greek or Etruscan tradition influencing the myths and cult practices of Roman cults). This eventually lead to very similar pantheons and the common belief that they are in fact the same.\n\nIf you're interested, I recommend you try to find some lecture about *Interpretatio graeca* and the history of Antiquity. I can't tell you any as I'm not a native English speaker and do not know about the English literature about this specific subject.\n\nI hope it helped and that a seasoned historian will eventually correct the mistakes I may have made and/or develop further the topic if he feels so. English not being my first language, I apologize for the possible mistakes and words misused as well.",
"They considered themselves to be the descendants of Trojans (of Aeneas) who were at least partly Greek. And because Europeans God's generally did come from the mid east (as the Greeks God's did) along with civilization. It is a characteristic of religion to seek truth in the origins of things. Religion of our father and so on.",
"It wasn't just Romans stealing Greek gods. In fact, it was all peoples exchanging damn near everything back then. Writing, art, beliefs, real, physical, actual people. This happened in every direction and between every culture that came into contact with each other, whether it was through war, trade, slavery, peace, pillaging...you name it.\n\nWe just happen to equate the Roman pantheon with the Greek one in popular culture, although it really isn't that simple.",
"Romans loved everything Greek and wanted to emulate their culture as much as possible. Therefore they took their own gods and reformed them into a more Greek style, taking their own gods' names and bestowing them upon known Greek gods to get a similar heavenly structure.",
"Same reason christianity re-purposed all the pagan holidays",
"They didn't. Indo-European cultures developed their religions from a common source. Once the pre-Italic and pre-Greek people diverged the gods developed independently but along similar lines but not always exactly the same. Jupiter and Zeus both being very similar lighting wielding sky fathers who bring rain, but Venus developing from the protp-indo-european lust/dawn goddess whose equivalent to the Greeks was Aurora. The Greek Aphrodite was adopted in large part from Middle Eastern cultures based on the Ishtar/Astarte model.\n\nEarly on the Greeks developed civilization quicker and became a font of culture. The colonized southern Italy while the Romans were still primitive sheep herders. Both being polytheistic cultures they compared the other cutlures gods to their own and added the stories to those of their gods where the similarities existed. Since the Greeks were more advanced their culture influenced that of the Romans more than the other way around, but the Romans already had most the major gods in some form (Apollo probably being an exception). Look at it like American movies having a much greater influence on India than Bollywood movies do on America. Its not because one is better, one has a greater ability to create media and distribute it to the other. The Greeks had a greater ability to distribute their culture to the Romans, at least early on. The Romans adopted most the Greek stories, and combined them with their own unique stories; Romulus and Remus, Janus, Aeneas's travels to Italy. Later the Roman's became the diffusers of culture and passed on the original Italic stories, the Greek originals, the ones they melded into their own and their own Roman myths all as one lump that we read as \"mythology\" without distinction as to who it originated from.\n\nAs you do more research you will find that the Romans did not adopt the Greek gods. Roman gods were distinct. Mars != Ares. The Greeks tended to despise and look down on Ares, he represents the worst aspects of war and seems to be a sniveling coward at times. They rarely if ever built temples to him. The Romans however loved Mars. He was one of the big three (Jupiter/Mars/Minerva) state gods. They built temples to him all over the place including in Greece which we call Temples of Ares despite the fact they are Roman. when you read mythology pay attention to the original source and time period. Read more obscure myths. I suggest something like Remus, A Roman Myth by\tT.P. Wiseman to see a unique Roman approach and how it developed. The original Romulus/Remus stories were reported from Rome via the Greeks and later changed until we arrived at the Roman myth reported by Romans we are familiar with.\n\nThe Romans also had uniquely Roman gods like the Lares, Penates and Janus which had no Greek equivalent, or ones with much less significance in the Greek culture than in the Roman one.",
"Roman gods had the similarities to every group they encountered. It was a way of easing cultural assimilation of the various groups they incorporated into their control. The Roman gods had parallels to all other cultural groups because they were designed that way. They could appeal to practically any culture they encountered. ",
"From what I understand, the Romans were always about assimilation, i.e. absorbing the cultures, tactics, foods, whatever was the best of what they had just conquered. Rather than force the people of an area to assimilate to Roman culture, Roman culture morphed itself to fit the local populace. Romans already had Jupiter and Pluto and the other \"alternate\" names, and they had very similar figures in mythology compared to the Greeks' pantheon. Rather than force the Greeks to abandon their mythos, the Romans simply adopted their version of events and spread that because it was good. So Zeus was renamed Jupiter when you were Roman, but if you were Greek he was still called Zeus. Basically, plagiarism not of the gods, but their stories. ",
"Same reason Judaism, Christianity, and Islam took various \"pagan\" religions and renamed them. Religion is a method to control people, it's easier to adopt control mechanisms already in place and adapt them to your needs then it is to reinvent your own.",
"Romans also did not just \"steal\" Greek gods, they also amalgamated Egyptian gods into their myth. They incorporated Isis into their myths, along with others. The Romans also did not care what religion you practiced, you could recognize Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Egypian gods, etc. Eventually they kind of meshed together in society, and attributes of one god were connected to another god from a different culture, so the two could possibly become interchangeable.\n\n\nI'd also like to note that the discovery of Rome itself is part of Greek myth, founded by Romulus. The settlers of Rome also were Greeks as well, so they brought Greek myths and gods with them to this new land, and kept those gods, just under different names.",
"Other people have said most of what needs saying, but I'll chime in with this. Remember that before the rise of Rome, there were a number of Greek settlements and city-states in Sicily and on the Italian peninsula, specifically in the \"heel\" area of the boot (around Brindisium). So, as the Italians and Latins developed, they traded and interacted with Greeks, and as a result, were exposed to the Greek pantheon. Now, we know that the Etruscans had an independent pantheon, with dieties like Mars, who was (as mmilosh said) a god of both agriculture and war. There were enough similarities that there was kind of a \"blending\" of the two pantheons in Latium (the eventual home of the Romans). That being said, the Roman pantheon was different than the Greek one, even in the later Republic. For one thing, some older gods stayed around, like Quirinus, who is an odd fellow about whom we know very little. Sometimes he's identified as Janus, sometimes as Romulus, but is more probably an older Etruscan god who was imperfectly bended with the new Greek-inspired pantheon. \n\nTl;DR The Italians adopted some parts of the Greek pantheon over time because of trade and mutual interaction. Eventually, this produced the system of Roman myth we know today. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
23rsbj | what happens if a squirrel comes out of hibernation and can't find its nuts? | Like, is there some kind of squirrel bro-code where one of the other squirrels will let him share?
Yesterday afternoon I was walking on my college campus, and I saw a squirrel digging in a fresh new patch of topsoil, seemingly right over where its stash of nuts used to be. It was freaking out. Just kinda wondering what the next step would be for a squirrel in his/her situation. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23rsbj/eli5what_happens_if_a_squirrel_comes_out_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgzxi9q",
"cgzy8xp"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Squirrels never find their own nuts. Most of the time they just find the buried nuts of other squirrels. ",
"First, most squirrels don't hibernate. They're out all winter. So there's that.\n\nSecond, squirrels don't have any concept of property. They bury nuts. They find nuts. They eat nuts. They don't care who--or what--put the nuts there. \n\nAs with any animal, a squirrel which cannot find sufficient food with likely starve to death. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2x82sk | why in most text editors font sizes increase by 24, 36, 48, 60, 72 | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x82sk/eli5_why_in_most_text_editors_font_sizes_increase/ | {
"a_id": [
"coxpwh3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Those fonts translate to commonly used printer measures in the days before word processors. \n\nBack when manual typesetting was the process required to build newsletters, they wanted a consistent size so they could more easily structure larger headlines into a standard \"broadsheet\" format. You wanted the total vertical height to be a standard number of lines so you could squeeze in as much information as possible into a single sheet, so it made sense that larger fonted items like headlines were exact multiples of smaller fonted items like text. \n\nBy going with a standard of \"12 points per text line\" (say, 10 points per letter plus two points of white space between that and the next row, or 9 and 3, or 8 and 4) a small headline would be 24, or 2 times that, and a larger one 72, or six times that. Compose your page right using these multiples, and the whole thing would fit neatly into the frame without any funny gaps or spaces to slot in.\n\nYou wouldn't want 68 or 70 point font because that would hurt the newsletter's structure and hardly ever be used, so you could avoid wasting money by casting the metal typesetting versions of those letters.\n\nNow that we have software-adjustable fonts that are still smooth even at odd sizes, the need for this has lessened but the tradition of fitting larger lines evenly around other-sized text remains for good newspaper or other composure."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
50tymj | why is using the mouth to breathe during sleep bad? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50tymj/eli5_why_is_using_the_mouth_to_breathe_during/ | {
"a_id": [
"d76xq7w"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It dries out your mouth (specifically your gums). \n\nHealthy gums need to be hydrated most of the time. If you spend 8 hours a day with your mouth open, you lose a lot of that moisture. \n\nSource: Was told last week at the dentist that I probably sleep with my mouth open because my gums aren't as healthy as they should be. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2gwjlq | why do so many people use "literally" incorrectly? | At best it's simply not required at all ("I literally got in my car and drove to the store") or, more galling, it's used in the completely opposite manner of its intended use: "The sun was so hot, my skin was literally on fire" | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gwjlq/eli5_why_do_so_many_people_use_literally/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckn69xi",
"ckn6vn5",
"ckn96dn"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I believe most people just use it for emphasis. Even though it's not necessary, saying \"I'm so hungry I'm literally gonna die\" is more effective at conveying the message than simply saying \"Bro I'm hungry.\"",
"Literally most people in the world are stupid.\n\nThat's only half-joking, incidentally. I don't know about people who speak other languages, but many people who speak English have, at best, a vague definition of the words they use.\n\nSure, the common ones are understood, but once you step outside the few thousand 'normal', easy words, people get a little confused.\n\nTo give you a sense of what I mean, I'll give you a similar example. This one occurred in Britain, when I was teenage. It wasn't slang exactly, but people started to use the word blatant quite frequently.\n\nNow, if I said, \"Define the word blatant, or blatantly\", most people couldn't. Hell, I couldn't. So, here's the definition:\n\nBlatant: (of bad behaviour) \"done openly and unashamedly\". Or, \"Completely lacking in subtlety; very obvious\".\n\nSo, people would talk about how their friends were \"blatantly being a dick\". That is actually the correct definition of the word. \"Yeah, we was blatantly nicking stuff, but they didn't do anything\". Again, correct use.\n\nThen, the word began to be misused. People assumed, from context, that it was a synonym for \"obvious\" or \"clear\". So, they started to use it that way.\n\nFor example, you might get a comment like, \"That girl is tall\"; then, someone would respond with \"Yeah, blatantly, mate\".\n\nWell, *no*. Not blatantly. The person means obviously, but they don't want to use the word for some reason. As a result, they end up bending the definition of \"blatantly\", or worse.\n\nThe misuse of blatant isn't helped by the fact that a better word would be \"patently\". That means \"Clearly; without doubt\". So, \"That girl is tall\", \"Patently mate\" would be \"Yes, there is no doubt that that girl is tall\".\n\nIf you used blatantly, the response is more like, \"Yes, that girl is openly and unashamedly being tall\", which isn't isn't quite what the respondent means. However, patently and blatantly sound similar, so you end up with extra confusion.\n\nSo, back to your question.\n\nWhat has happened with \"literally\", is, as far as I can tell, a similar situation.\n\nPeople started off using the term correctly. \"I can't come out tonight, I am literally exhausted right now\". Or \"I missed my alarm clock. I woke up, showered, brushed my teeth, and got to work in literally ten minutes\".\n\nBoth of those are correct (Literally means \"In a literal manner or sense; exactly\").\n\nHowever, people who don't know precisely what the word means hear it used, and infer the definition from what they've heard. They don't bother to look it up, and end up assuming that it's a way of emphasizing a point.\n\nAnd then, they start to use it in that way. Slowly, more and more people are using it in the incorrect way, and eventually, it becomes a recognized slang.\n\nSo, people aren't literally stupid. However, literally most people are ignorant, and they make incorrect assumptions.\n\nAnd with words, that can lead to people using the wrong words without even knowing.\n\nDoes that help?\n\n**Edit: Holy fucking shit. I didn't realize how long this answer was until I hit enter.**\n\n**As a tl;dr - people don't read dictionaries, and guess at the meanings of the words they hear, based on context. This can lead to some people getting the wrong idea of the definition, and leads to the problem you're describing.**",
"My favourite Dinosaur Comic on the subject _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1207"
]
] |
|
2s3whm | what are my chances of getting lyme from a tick bite and how bad is lyme in most people | I go hiking a lot and camping and find ticks all the time crawling on my legs or pants, and it scares the shit out of me | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2s3whm/eli5_what_are_my_chances_of_getting_lyme_from_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnm0kcn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The CDC states there are over 300,000 cases of Lyme a year. If caught early and given enough antibiotics, 30 to 60 days depending on symptoms, it is easy to cure. Testing for Lyme is very unreliable right now and you will not pull a positive test for weeks if ever. If you do not catch a case of Lyme soon enough and treat it promptly it can cause all kinds of health issues which can be life threatening. Lyme is the fastest going infectious disease right now. It is found worldwide and in every state in the USA. Permithrin on your clothing and/or a very good tick check after being outdoors is the only way to avoid it. If you do get Lyme disease and it is left untreated then co-infections like Babesiosis, Ehrlichiosis, Bartonella as well as others can add to treatment problems. It can take years of treatment to put Lyme into remission if you do not catch it and treat it right away. Oh you can always get reinfected as the body does not make antibodies to defend against another infection."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
fsm6yw | from telephone wires to cell phone signals | ELI5: this might belong somewhere more like r/nostupidquestions, but how do landline phone signals get converted into wireless signals (in other words, how do landlines call cell phones)? Is that just another thing that cell towers do; like, do they just have landlines running into them and they convert the signals to wireless there? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fsm6yw/eli5_from_telephone_wires_to_cell_phone_signals/ | {
"a_id": [
"fm2a3s7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Voice calls from a landline seem analogue and old, but behind the scenes they're all digital now. In the phone company's Central Office their hardware is converting your call into something compatible with, say, an office desk phone that uses a LAN port for its connection. Something like 20 to 50 customers might be on a single device that has 20 to 50 phone lines going in, and a network connection going out.\n\nYour call will be delivered to the cell tower as data as well, probably using the same feed that gives it Internet access for your data plan. The digital data will make it to your phone where its CPU and speakers/microphone are responsible for its side of the call."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9r46u1 | why do knots form when you jostle long string like things (headphone wires etc.)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9r46u1/eli5_why_do_knots_form_when_you_jostle_long/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8e2c62",
"e8e44y8"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"I read a white paper on this a while ago (yes physists have studied this). I may not be remembering exactly right. Long story short, there are certain basic knots that can form from a straight cord that crosses over itself. These can all be combined in any combination to make other knots. So there are pretty much an infinite number of possible knots. When a cord is balled up, it crosses over itself. These cross overs always form the first step of some of those basic knots, which lead to others when you pull on it. ",
"When you shake a wire, it will tangle into one of many knots. There are many different ways it can be arranged, and only one of those is untangled."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
ab3zv2 | what spoken languages have in common | While listening to the Nier: Automata sound track, I noticed that the 'words' were actually giberrish belonging to no existing language. This _URL_0_ wonder what made them feel like a real language, which brought me to the question in the title. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ab3zv2/eli5_what_spoken_languages_have_in_common/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecxd529"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Languages are composed of words and words are composed of component sounds called \"phonemes\". Each language has their own group of phonemes, some of which may perceptually overlap between languages and some which do not (clicking in some African dialects for example).\n\nStringing together phonemes which belong to a particular language will make something which sounds much like that language even when they aren't arranged in a way to form existing words. This is what people do when performing \"glossolalia\" or \"speaking in tongues\", a fluid, meaningless gibberish which is often presented as a religious experience. It is however actually a learned behavior and only composed of phonemes which the performer knows, cementing the idea that it is not actually a real language as often claimed."
]
} | [] | [
"made.me"
] | [
[]
] |
|
3l5792 | why are air conditioner temperature settings so inaccurate? | If I set the thermostat to 74 degrees (F) in my room, it always goes to around 70 or colder. If I'm in my car, it's a little better but still bad. In the office, AC is usually set at 72 but feels like it's 60 degrees! Am I the one that's judging temperature inconsistently or the AC screwing up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l5792/eli5_why_are_air_conditioner_temperature_settings/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv39tu6",
"cv39uoj",
"cv39v0n"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I believe the temperature you set the A/C to is what temperature you want the environment to reach rather than displaying the actual temperature at that point in time.",
"It is a combination of the fact that there is one single sensor point for your AC located at the controller point. If that happens to be set in a warmer place in the room (such as being nears something that produces heat like a computer or fridge) it will stay on longer till it reaches that temperature, and you as a human not being capable of consistently judging temperature. ",
"You might have one of those thermostats that operates with a metal coil. The metal contracts/expands depending on temperature, triggering the AC to cool or heat the room. Now, if the coil has been over extended repeatedly the tension in the coil gets weird and it starts to contract/expand differently than what it was originally calibrated to, making the AC act inconsistently.\n\nCheck to see if there is a heat source close to the thermostat that can affect it. Sometimes people place a lamp or something too close to it.\n\nFor cars, I have no idea."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7rmj2s | how do microwaves not heat up plastic and ceramic dishes? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7rmj2s/eli5_how_do_microwaves_not_heat_up_plastic_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dsy13yb",
"dsy1ni3",
"dsy3faa"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Those substances are transparent to light at microwave frequencies. It's like how light can go through a window and warm up the cat.",
"Microwaves excite water molecules and make them vibrate, there are no water molecules in plastic or ceramic. ",
"It all has to do with polarity of the molecules. Microwaves work by emitting microwaves in alternating directions which causes the polar molecule to move slightly. Since this happens so fast the molecules look like they are vibrating and this vibration heats up the molecule. This is why a polar molecule like water will heat up. Molecules that are not polar like plastic, ceramic, oil, etc don't move or vibrate which means they won't heat up. You can test this out by putting a small cup of olive oil in the microwave. It isn't going to heat up and you will be amazed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ync92 | so...why does the skin behind our ears smell so strange even though water and shampoo regularly flow over this area? | I shower regularly. I even make it a point to wash this area moderately often. However, any time I rub the skin on my head behind my ears, it smells like a combination of peanut butter and cheese. Does anyone happen to know why?
University has taught me to ask the tough questions. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ync92/eli5_sowhy_does_the_skin_behind_our_ears_smell_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpb6nm0",
"cpb6zkr",
"cpbantu",
"cpbdksg"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Is this really a thing? I didn't know this was a thing.... My ears seem to smell fine.",
"Why the hell are you smelling it begin with? If it smelled like cotton candy and roses behind my ear I wouldn't know.",
"I just rubbed the skin behind my ear and smelled it. Come on, who else just did the same thing? Show of hands???",
"Flowing over and actual cleaning are two different things that area is like your belly button is a small enclosed area that traps a lot of dirt and grime especially oils and stuff from your head. So water flowing isn't good enough you have to give it a good scrubbing with soap and water if you want it not to smell strange. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4xb169 | ; if an insanely loud sound lasted 1 billionth of a second, would we be able to hear it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xb169/eli5_if_an_insanely_loud_sound_lasted_1_billionth/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6dz80q",
"d6dz8ih",
"d6dzuz0",
"d6e0d6u",
"d6e3e17",
"d6e55q9"
],
"score": [
37,
3,
4,
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"No, you wouldn't be able to hear it. \n\nSound is fast change in air pressure from positive to negative. Most humans can hear in a range of 20 to 20,000 Hz, or changes in air pressure per second. So if you were to hear a loud sound that lasted only 1 billionth of a second that wouldn't be long enough for the air pressure to change from positive back to negative and complete one cycle. \n\nIt's possible you may feel it as some kind of pressure change in your ears, but it wouldn't be an audible sound. \n",
"sound is a movement in the air. loud sounds are lots of air moving. if you moved lots of air but only for a billionth of a second, it is unlikely that the change would be picked up by our ears unless the change was so large that it affected more air after it was moved. we still would not notice the initial sound, but we would notice the effects of it. ",
"Wouldn't that cause some sort of explosion because it could require enough mass to move quickly enough that it would generate a lot of friction in the atmosphere? So, maybe it would cause a chain reaction that would be longer which you would be able to see/hear even if you couldn't notice the initial part.",
"No. A sound change that fast would be too high a note for people to hear. Even dogs might not hear it.\n\nIf it was \"loud\" enough, it might be felt when the pressure wave bounces off you, like standing next to the bass speakers, except it wouldn't reverberate through your whole body. At worst it might feel like a slap.",
"You would not be able to hear anything, no. But you certainly might feel it depending on how loud you mean by insanely loud.\n\nSound is just a wave moving through air, but that describes a lot of things, from wind to blast waves from a bomb.\n\nWe just happen to perceive a certain range of those vibrations as sound.\n\nAs a result a really intense, very short wave wouldn't be heard but if it was intense enough you would feel it as a concussion effect, like standing too close to a firecracker. More powerful than that and you might suffer blast damage like ruptured organs.",
"You wouldn't hear it, not because it's outside the range of human hearing but because a \"sound\" that lasts one billionth of a second (10^-9) would barely leave enough time for one molecule of air to hit an adjacent molecule of air before it has to oscillate back into position. The wave would die out so quickly (even at the absolute maximum loudness possible) that it couldn't be sensed more than a few millimeters away. The sound probably wouldn't even make it to your ear nerves if it was generated directly on your eardrum.\n\nELIknowPhysics:\n_URL_0_\n\n > The mean free path in air is 68nm, and the mean inter-atomic spacing is some tens of nms about 30, while the speed of sound in air is 300 m/s, so that the absolute maximum frequency is about 5 Ghz."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/23427"
]
] |
||
6laebx | what causes bioluminescence? also, do humans have any bioluminescence? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6laebx/eli5_what_causes_bioluminescence_also_do_humans/ | {
"a_id": [
"djsggmt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Typically, bioluminescence is a chemical reaction that creates energy in the form of light. Specifically, it is when luciferin is catalyzed by the luciferase enzyme. Some animals use this for communicating, so that they can find mates, lure prey or scare predators, but humans don't have any bioluminescence. However, we do use this reaction in biomedical research and imaging (and probably assorted other sciences). For example: genetically engineered tissue can have a gene for producing luciferase, researchers try to make blood vessels form throughout the tissue, then they flow blood with luciferin through the new vessels. Anywhere the blood can reach will light up, allowing the researchers to visualize and quantify the blood vessels. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3bj80k | why does milk turn into butter, but when you heat up butter it turns into oil? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bj80k/eli5_why_does_milk_turn_into_butter_but_when_you/ | {
"a_id": [
"csmm4qh",
"csmm9j3"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Milk doesn't really turn into butter just because you heat it up. To make butter you have to separate the butterfat from the buttermilk. Traditionally, people did this by churning milk to agitate the fat particles out of solution. The fat that would rise to the top and join together would be turned into butter and what was left behind was called buttermilk (now it's usually called traditional buttermilk since buttermilk refers to a few milk-based drinks).\n\nButter turns into oil because it's a lipid substance. When it's solid, we call it a fat and when it's liquid we call it an oil. So when you melt butter, it keeps the same chemical composition (until you brown it at least). It's the same thing when melt ice. Ice is frozen H20 and water is liquid H20. ",
"Milk is separated into cream and milk. The milk is drained off. The cream is shaken until the fat particles glob together and form butter and butter milk. \n\nWhen you melt butter, you're melting only a fraction of the original milk. Butter is milk fat, water and some milk solids, perhaps some salt. \n\nThis video on how butter is made would give you a better idea on how butter is made: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwb2uZLSLhw"
]
] |
||
3f3e3j | why do popular posts on reddit quickly get thousands of votes, but then hundreds or thousands of votes just disappear over time? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3f3e3j/eli5_why_do_popular_posts_on_reddit_quickly_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctkxlu6",
"ctky6yr",
"ctkzgm4",
"ctl4u3w"
],
"score": [
343,
122,
36,
20
],
"text": [
"The numbers you see for votes are mosly fuzzed to confuse bots. Welcome to reddit, the site where the points are made up and the people don't matter.",
"This is the system in place which makes reddit able to detect \"what's hot\". Posts lose points over time due to the assumption that \"what's hot\" does not stay hot. It is to counteract posts staying at the top because users will keep upvoting them.",
"Nobody explains it better than u/MindofMetalAndWheels \n\n_URL_0_",
"Adding on to what others said, vote fuzzing hides what a massive community reddit has become - if you saw a post with 100,000+ votes, it would feel like a YouTube video. 6k up votes still suggests a small community where your input and voice will be heard. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlI022aUWQQ"
],
[]
] |
||
29d4et | fruit juice concentrate | If fruit juice concentrate is made from evaporated juiced fruit, what exactly is the point of rehydrating it to make "juice from concentrate". Wouldn't it make more sense to just package fresh juice? I see this as a major lack of efficiency in this industry. Please explain? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29d4et/eli5fruit_juice_concentrate/ | {
"a_id": [
"cijqjz0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"natural juice is dehydrated at point of packaging. it's rehydrated at point of distribution with local water. saves on transport of water. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
47vx5z | how universal tv remote apps work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47vx5z/eli5_how_universal_tv_remote_apps_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0fvai0",
"d0fy5aq"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Many remotes work by emitting an infrared signal which the TV then picks up. A phone app simply needs to send the right IR signals to be treated just like a remote.",
"Every tv manufacturer uses a unique frequency and set of codes for their tv. There's no need to make each tv of a certain model number unique, since few people have several of the same tv sitting in the same room, so all tvs that are the same model will have the same frequencies and codes.\n\nThe universal remote and universal remote app both contain a master list of every tv make and model that they are designed to work with. For actual remotes, it's going to be the most common brands and the most common models - if you have some weird Chinese knockoff tv, it may not be able to work. For the app, the same rules apply, but you can always download more.\n\nFrom there you just select your make and model, then test to be sure you have the right one. Once you've confirmed it, you set that as the default and bam, you have a new tv remote. Devices have become more standardized, but even without knowing which tv you have, you can just guess-and-check: press the power button. Did the tv turn off? No? Press the power button again to automatically move to the next code set and try again. Yes? Press this other button to set the code set as default."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
315jw3 | why is the scroll lock key still included on modern keyboards? | Scroll Lock was used before computers used a mouse for click-based navigation. The arrow keys would act as input for the cursor, and scroll lock would prevent the cursor from moving, instead, allowing you to scroll.
It's redundant in today's world. Why is it still included? I mean I like the extra light and all but come on, we could replace it with something cool like a button that orders pizza for you automatically. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/315jw3/eli5why_is_the_scroll_lock_key_still_included_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpykee1",
"cpym1ru"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Habit mostly. They have asked the manufacturers, and they just said that it's a legacy function that doesn't cost any more to leave in, so why not",
"It takes very little effort to include, and somebody is presumably using it even if not for the ostensible purpose. A lot of really old code still runs out there, and more than likely some of it uses the scroll lock in some way. \n\nThe market standardized on the [model m](_URL_0_) a long time ago, and it's generally expected you'll have all the same features as are present on one. (Possibly minus that numerical pad to the right.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_keyboard#/media/File:1394542_Model_M_1.jpg"
]
] |
|
e29iyt | why are some medications in lower dosage available without prescription but in higher require one? for example ibuprofen. | You can buy 200mg in every drugstore in hundred packs but for the 600mg you need a prescription. Is it not the same if I take 3 x 200mg or one 600mg? What’s the reason behind this? For me I can’t make sense of it. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e29iyt/eli5_why_are_some_medications_in_lower_dosage/ | {
"a_id": [
"f8uckdn",
"f8unnw5"
],
"score": [
4,
10
],
"text": [
"Because ibuprofen exhibits greater anti-inflammatory effects at higher doses, as opposed to just pain relieving effects at OTC doses. If you need to treat inflammation, you need to take more. The downside is that you get worse side effects with higher doses. Stomach ulcers, swelling/water retention, cardiovascular and kidney issues, etc. are all worse at higher doses. NSAIDs like ibuprofen are actually one of the leading causes of prerenal acute kidney injury. Despite being OTC, certain drugs need to be monitored more closely at higher doses.",
"Ok, before this completely derails with bs answers, real talk:\n\nThere is no difference between 4 200 mg tabs and 1 800 mg tab. The only difference is the perceived benefit, and a placebo effect. There are a number of trials that prove this. There is no difference in rate of absorption or the effectiveness or length... There are studies that show that anything over 400 mg doesn't provide any additional benefit, but increases the possibility and severity of side effects. \n\nThey don't make 800 mg tabs over the counter because they can't anticipate people won't be dumb and pop 2 or 3 of them at a time, or take it as often as they would 200 mg. Same reason they don't make 1000 mg tabs of acetaminophen. They can, but they don't, because people are really irresponsible and don't read directions."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
27xy1i | if our "inner voice" sounds different to us than our "outer voice" sounds to other people, how can singers hold a pitch without being slightly off? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27xy1i/eli5_if_our_inner_voice_sounds_different_to_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci5gwps"
],
"score": [
26
],
"text": [
"Our voice sounds different in terms of *timbre*, but not in terms of *pitch*. Timbre is the \"character\" of a sound: a trumpet and a violin have a different timbre. Even if they play the same note, we can tell them apart. Pitch is what note is being played or sung.\n\nSingers don't have to match the correct timbre, they have to match the correct pitch, which is the same in our \"inner voice\" as it is in our \"outer voice.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
a7g9sz | what makes alcohol/drug addicts look older? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7g9sz/eli5_what_makes_alcoholdrug_addicts_look_older/ | {
"a_id": [
"ec2s4n2"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Mostly the constant state of dehydration. Plus your body is working overtime trying to process alcohol and flavorings while having no basic nutrition to function with."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3j2esc | why doesn't or why can't youtube normalize decibels? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3j2esc/eli5why_doesnt_or_why_cant_youtube_normalize/ | {
"a_id": [
"culoirn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A) extra processing on their end for each video, which would add up to quite a lot, for a feature they don't necessarily want.\n\nB) robs the uploader of stylistic choices ( a muted video or a loud video)\n\nC) would completely wreck some types of videos. For example, for a video that is mostly quiet then has a loud jumpscare it would have a low average volume, so a normalized would raise the volume for the whole video, making the quiet parts almost normal and then the jumpscare would be unbelievably, unacceptable loud. On the other hand, a loud video with maybe a plane in the background for a long stretch would be quieted across the board, so any parts without that background noise that were usually at normal volume would be unbearably quiet."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5b90l0 | how do we know which way is north,south,east and west in space? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5b90l0/eli5_how_do_we_know_which_way_is_northsoutheast/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9mo8wu",
"d9mo98m",
"d9molqq",
"d9mqabn",
"d9mqk0g"
],
"score": [
2,
23,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"N,W,E,S work because we have a reference, North pole on earth.You would need something else in the space as a reference.",
"There is no north, south, east and west in space. As these directions are defined by earths magnetic field, which is missing in space.",
"North and South still work in space ( the vector between our sun and Polaris roughly defines the direction of north).\n\nEast and west are relative between two positions on the planet and are meaningless in space. A point to your west is to the east of someone on the other side of the planet, and a point directly opposite you (on the other side of planet) is equally east and west.",
"They use things as reference in space. I'm not 100% sure this terminology is correct but you'll say something like \"normal or anti-normal of object\" being kind of up and down, prograde and retrograde being like forward and backward. Something like that.\n\nLast time this question was asked some smart guy came in here and made an awesome explanation. I was trying to remember it and regurgitate it here but I've failed miserably.\n\nHe'll probably answer it again\n\nEdit:. Here you go from u/SYLOH kind of what I was trying to say.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Normally by referencing our projection on the Earth's surface.\n\nThere is, however, also a galactic system of coordinates using these same terms: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xrzwz/eli5how_do_directions_work_in_space_are_north_and/d6hyplu"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_coordinate_system"
]
] |
||
1kyeks | why is sampling other peoples music allowed, but having similar jokes wrong? | And by extension, why is sampling only apparent in the music industry? Why when using similar techniques in any other media (film, video games, etc.) it is considered outright copying whereas in music it is allowed? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kyeks/eli5_why_is_sampling_other_peoples_music_allowed/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbtw03n",
"cbtw1tw",
"cbtz47x",
"cbu1wcj"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sampling - at its best anyway - results in a recognisably new creative work. \n\nIn music it's taking an *actual* part of an *actual* recording and re-using it as a component in your own work.\n\nYour analogy with comedy might be better applied to \"cover versions\". E.g. Denis Leary's covers of Bill Hicks' material which were widely derided. \n\nThere are certainly analogies for \"sampling\" in art (e.g. Warhol), classical music (e.g. Brubeck's tributes to Chopin), shit music (Lloyd-Webber's \"influence\" from Mendelson), and so on. \n\nI don't have a problem with it. Quite often I'll get into a decent piece of music because I listen thinking \"...ah, this is Cypress Hill\" and it turns out to be the original piece. ",
"Audio can be blended/mixed. Video and text don't have that property, so sampling involves just switching from original to copied. \n\nPutting a television as a prop in a movie, or adding a soundtrack is sort of like sampling, and it is accepted. And of course homage (paraphrase) and remake is dominant in movies.",
"Sampling isn't really allowed unless you pay licenses. Back in the 1980s, when hip hop was growing, there was a big court case that said you can't do it without paying the original artist.",
"Because for the most part, when comedian's steal jokes they pass it off as their own. Of they don't acknowledge where they got it from.\n\nSampling in music, is easily recognizable though. So while it rare to directly thank the original artist, people who care, can tell where it came from so it's less underhanded. Less deceptive.\n\nThis is why music that steals the beat but changes the instruments or hides it's original source is not accepted. Vanilla Ice for example got a lot of flack for trying to defend that his *Ice Ice Baby* was not a ripoff of Queen's *Under Pressure*.\n\nIt's all about the deception, or attempt at deception. If a comedian was to go on stage and quote lines from Chris Farley's *van down by the river* skit everyone would immediately recognize it and people might get a kick out of another comedian's take on it. Especially if he gives a shout out to the late Chris Farley at some point (like a lot of musicians do).\n\nIn film, there are copies/homages/remakes/etc all the time. From scenes to entire films. Again, so long as it's not deceptive (and the proper money goes to the proper places) it accepted by the public just fine."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1og9qd | if scientists have created anti-matter on earth...where do they keep it to stop it colliding with matter. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1og9qd/eli5_if_scientists_have_created_antimatter_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccro0x3",
"ccro17m",
"ccro1hb",
"ccrprfo",
"ccrugto"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"For the most part they don't really keep it anywhere--they create it in a collider like the LHC, observe it, and then it goes and impacts regular matter and is destroyed. However, some antiparticles are affected by electric fields, allowing them to be contained for longer periods of time. ",
"They use magnetic fields to keep it away from normal matter.\n\n_URL_0_",
"They don't keep it, not for long anyway. They just don't make dangerously large quantities. The proper facilities can handle the fallout of a small mass of it annihilating. \n\nWhen they are holding it, though, they suspend it in a vacuum using a magnetic field to counteract gravity.",
"They design and build special \"traps\" that use magnetic fields to suspend the anti-matter in space so it doesn't contact normal matter.\n\nThis is hard to do, and we haven't really solved long term anti-matter storage technology yet. ",
"TIL scientists have created anti-matter on earth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4723hy | why are some people afraid of a.i. if there are already any kind of machine learning algorithms? | Some people who I believe know what they are talking about (i.e. Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking) have shown to be quite afraid of A.I. "if not done right", but isn't it basically here? Of course it's not like HAL9000 or stuff like that, but, thanks to Machine Learning Algorithms, computers can already take decisions without human input; I mean, computers don't *feel* human (yet?), but in a 2001 scenario a computer will make the grand majority of decisions in on our behalf.
What is the "step" in A.I. development that should concern us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4723hy/eli5_why_are_some_people_afraid_of_ai_if_there/ | {
"a_id": [
"d09iyvu",
"d09jehn",
"d09knzq",
"d09ktq0",
"d09ospu"
],
"score": [
18,
9,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The \"step\" is called The Singularity. \n\nThe Singularity, basically, is the point where computers become so adept at learning, that they can create other computers smarter than themselves, and so on and so on. Eventually, with an effectively limitless potential for advancement, we cannot reasonably assume that Skynet (best name for this) won't decide mankind is unnecessary or degenerative to the planet or some other rationalization that we should be eradicated. \n\nYes, we have computers now that can learn, but once they can learn to make computers better than we can, it's game over. ",
"Essentially it all boils down to the point where we say \"Do we really want to construct something more powerful than ourselves in the assumption that it will help us?\". \n\nIt's a lot like the Alien problem (Where Stephan hawkings also has a valid point I share). What makes us think Aliens that mastered space travel would want to \"help us\" solve our problems any more than you want to help Pumas in the woods developing a good work out program so they become more effective hunters?\n\nThe more likely scenario why you would go to the woods where the Puma live is because you'd like to chop down their trees for ressources, and I don't think you'd ask the local insects if it's okay for you to do so and help them migrate to another tree.",
"We can barely tolerate people with different skin colors and belief systems, what makes you think we'd be okay with a completely different species (for lack of a better term) developing sentience?",
"What most people mean when they say they fear AI is that they fear artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the AI singularity. AGI is basically an AI that is capable of performing intelligent actions in the same manner and range as humans are capable of. It would be able to pass the [Turing test](_URL_0_), for instance. This level of reasoning is far beyond anything possible via current methods of machine learning.\n\nMost of today's machine learning methods are basically glorified statistical analysis. An example of this is decision tree learning. Basically, an algorithm is used to produce a flowchart-like structure that takes input and produces some kind of classification based on branching decisions made about the input. It is a very useful approach for many narrow applications, but it is easy to see how inadequate it is for something like AGI. Can you imagine how big a flowchart would need to be in order to encompass all of human intelligence?\n\nEven seemingly intelligent AI, like IBM's Watson, or advanced computer vision software, or a self-driving car, has no hope of passing the Turing test. These are highly specific solutions to highly specific problems.\n\nWhat is potentially scary about AI is the possibility that one day we might create an intelligence that surpasses our own. It will theoretically be able to improve itself in a feedback loop that, by the time it's over, could result in an AI that is beyond our ability to comprehend or - and this is the real issue - control. This is known as the AI singularity, and it is nowhere near possible via currently used methods of machine learning and AI.",
" > but isn't it basically here?\n\nNo. we are nowhere close.\n\nWhat they are worried about is the pace of AI advancement compared to biological evolution. Natural evolution is slow while AI is not limited in that respect and can evolve much faster. Eventually it will become smarter than us and conflict is bound to ensue."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test"
],
[]
] |
|
2eb5lv | what's happening when a commercial plays for a second or two before skipping to the next one? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2eb5lv/eli5_whats_happening_when_a_commercial_plays_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjxs42d",
"cjxskd8",
"cjxyqkl",
"cjxz4jb",
"cjy27er",
"cjy36v4",
"cjy4axx",
"cjy4g1g",
"cjy5rj9",
"cjy5zdl",
"cjyi6s6"
],
"score": [
322,
62,
7,
119,
14,
9,
3,
6,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The local cable companies are given windows where they can show their own advertising (Advertising specifically meant for that locality, not necessarily that the company is a local company). If the cut wasn't clean, that means the local cable company blew it. ",
"The editor has a cat that walks across his keyboard. ",
"When it happens here (Canada) it usually is on a US channel which if it is showing a show at the same time as a Canadian channel, it will then be 'overlaid' by the Canadian channel so that the advertising is all Canadian. This often happens during the start of whatever commercial precedes the show.",
" > That's most likely a mistake.\n50 years ago my Mom worked for a business that had TV commercials and one of her jobs was to go watch TV at noon each day and make sure the commercials ran when they were supposed to and did not get cut off. They would either get a partial or full refund if there was a problem.\nIn those days it was primarily human error since there was someone at the TV station popping in tapes and pressing buttons and having those actions go directly on the air. The tape operator could mess up and press the wrong button at the wrong time, not get a tape loaded in time, or even put in the wrong tape, press Play, realize it's wrong, freak out, hit Stop, etc.\nNowadays things are more automated but there is still room for error. Ads could be programmed to run at the same time, a file could be corrupted and the default could be to run another ad to prevent dead air, a labeling mistake could lead to a 60 second ad running in a 30 second space, along with every possible human error.\nI worked at one of the first fully automated TV newsrooms and the number of times the broadcast went to black with no explanation was much higher than when it was completely run by humans.\n\ncourtesy of /u/BumbiBestie when i asked just about the same question",
"The satellite feed has advertising that the local distributor (network affiliate, or cable provider) is allowed to put it's own ads on top of. This is how your local tv stations make money, and partially how your cable company makes money. If they didn't have an ad to run there the the one on the satellite feed would play instead. So the one you see for just a few moments is the sat feed ad, and the on that plays is a local one. \n\n",
"[Already asked and answered](_URL_0_)",
"If you're Canadian, its because CRTC regulations allow bell/rogers to dump their own advertising onto the US feeds. If the company advertised in the US dosen't pay up, you see a Canadian commercial. /*even on an American channel*/ The jumping is usually when the timing is off/ someone screwed up. ",
"It's my money, and I want it NOW!",
"I worked as a Master Board Controller at a local CBS affiliate. One of my responsibilities was to insert local commercials (spots) into the slots made available during network programming. There was a que sheet with timings from the network. Getting it right is a bit of an art, and some are better at it than others. I did this 20 years ago, so it might be different now. For all I know, it could all be automated these days.",
"I don't see any actual inside responses here yet, so as someone who has worked in the biz for the last 13 years I will do my best to explain this for the normal viewer. \n\nLocal affiliate stations, not cable companies are the ones responsible for this occurrence most of the time. What happens is that the national affiliate station (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) will send the local affiliate stations their programs to air for broadcasts. \n\nThe programs will have commercial breaks normally with one of three scenarios:\n\n1) the commercial break will be pre-filled with national commercial spots\n\n2) the commercial break with be a black hole where local stations are responsible for filling it with local commercials, PSAs and so on\n\n3) the commercial break will be a partial fill where there are a couple national commercials before a shorter black hole for local to fill\n\nIn situation 1, national will tell each local market whether they are allowed to cover the commercials spots and local sell time for commercials. This is the situation where you will see the problem the most. What happens is that national sends you the playlist timing for the show they will block it out as show segments and commercial segments. The person at the local affiliate will punch into the server that 7 Minutes and 17 seconds into the show the first local commercial break is supposed to start, as indicated by the rundown that was given to them by the national affiliate. At exactly that time in the show, the server will trigger the local commercial break to begin. \n\nThis is where the issues begin for the viewer. Many issues can effect what you see in the commercial break. The information given by the national affiliate could be off by one or two seconds because of timing by nationals people or by the local station adding one second or so of extra black on the beginning of their record of the show. What happens there is that the server is hard coded to roll local commercials at that 7min 17sec mark, when in reality the commercial break starts at 7 min and 16 sec in the show, causing you to see 1 second of the national commercials before the local commercials trigger and cover them. \n\nOn top of that, the standard time of a 30 second commercial is actually 30 seconds and 3 frames. Some local affiliates will trim the excess frames off that are usually just black at the beginning and end of a commercial spot. The result is that after a commercial break of 5 commercials you can literally have 1/2 to 1 1/2 seconds trimmed out of the total run time of the break. This in turn ends the local commercial break before the national commercial break is done, so you see the last half a second of the national commercial before the next segment of the program starts up. \n\nI could go on about the other types of breaks and their associated problems, but I'm actually getting ready for a newscast, so I will leave it at this. \n\nI know this is a late response but I hope it helps out! :D",
"I can answer this one! I worked master control for a local Fox affiliate for a while. \n\nThe usual answer is that we're airing a stream (Network feed from Fox themselves.) There were certain positions we're contracted with Fox to insert our local commercials which would play on top of their commercials. They almost always sent us a full feed, and we simply played ours on top. If we missed our breaks, we still had theirs playing on air. So we would run ours manually by literally hitting the enter button on a keyboard at the right time. Too early, and you see the tail of their commercials when ours end. Too late, and you see the start of theirs.\n\nWith automation, it's just a matter of the traffic department getting the timings wrong.\n\n\nThere's other situations that can cause this. Sometimes, the cable companies had the same deal with us that we had with Fox. So THEY would roll a commercial in the channel on top of OUR.\n\ntl;dr: You're dealing with multiple video feeds, and some human screwed it up, and the timing was off."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20lsu7/eli5_what_is_happening_when_a_commercial_only/cg4l4s7"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ndism | why does the word 'cool' remain cool for so long, and yet words like 'groovy' and 'rad' seem out of date in just a couple of decades? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ndism/eli5why_does_the_word_cool_remain_cool_for_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmclpbz",
"cmcmm9v",
"cmcnd96",
"cmcnjbx",
"cmcnx57",
"cmco00u",
"cmco4ce",
"cmcofw7",
"cmcpbkm",
"cmcpjqz",
"cmcptlm",
"cmcql68",
"cmcqskx",
"cmcqzlx",
"cmcr6le",
"cmcrdo1",
"cmcrosb",
"cmcrzwr",
"cmcs7bd",
"cmcshxs",
"cmcsidu",
"cmcsqf4",
"cmct5ze",
"cmctaol",
"cmctbll",
"cmctco9",
"cmcthic",
"cmctsgy",
"cmcttu1",
"cmctzx3",
"cmcuguw",
"cmcunja",
"cmcux1w",
"cmcuz2c",
"cmcv6vg",
"cmcv7ee",
"cmcv9fr",
"cmcva0n",
"cmcvbv0",
"cmcvj5a",
"cmcvpbb",
"cmcvrln",
"cmcvvvs",
"cmcw3yn",
"cmcw877",
"cmcwmiw",
"cmcwrz7",
"cmcwxx8",
"cmcwyhe",
"cmcx8t8",
"cmcxhxu",
"cmcxmyq",
"cmcxnjs",
"cmcxsai",
"cmcyd9e",
"cmcyfyw",
"cmcyhnk",
"cmcyori",
"cmcz74q",
"cmczdwo",
"cmczg5g",
"cmcznxk",
"cmd0j4n",
"cmd0lm5",
"cmd0qt4",
"cmd0wbn",
"cmd149t",
"cmd179x",
"cmd19wp",
"cmd1dgh",
"cmd1j8o",
"cmd287e",
"cmd2cpz",
"cmd31ec",
"cmd3hdi",
"cmd3k51",
"cmd3n28",
"cmd48bh",
"cmd4k04",
"cmd56hs",
"cmd5830",
"cmd59px",
"cmd68cj",
"cmd6c5y",
"cmd6id8",
"cmd6l58",
"cmd6lgg",
"cmd6t4w",
"cmd6txf",
"cmd6v7r",
"cmd6yto",
"cmd7h1n",
"cmd7kzf",
"cmd7na5",
"cmd7ow3",
"cmd7rr8",
"cmd805s",
"cmd81c8",
"cmd82r8",
"cmd88x0",
"cmd8izc",
"cmd91m0",
"cmd944u",
"cmd9wqq",
"cmdad55",
"cmdafgt",
"cmdai0v",
"cmdb0sv",
"cmdb5fh",
"cmdbt3e",
"cmdbwn0",
"cmdc346",
"cmdd2na",
"cmddr0a",
"cmddtem",
"cmdduik",
"cmdeoel",
"cmdfwdd",
"cmdfzqk",
"cmdg42e",
"cmdgnle",
"cmdhju9",
"cmdhq97",
"cmdl1mj"
],
"score": [
334,
66,
3592,
5,
44,
196,
2,
5,
3,
4,
2,
28,
17,
8,
2,
3,
2,
22,
11,
2,
75,
13,
3,
3,
2,
7,
4,
16,
464,
6,
22,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
6,
2,
12,
4,
2,
5,
2,
4,
2,
5,
13,
4,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
10,
2,
10,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because cool is *puts shades on and snaps fingers, resulting in \"double guns\"* cool. \n\nSeriously, though. It's been around for about 100 years (if I'm not mistaken). It's had time to spread itself through culture in that time. Some words catch, while others don't.",
"There's a vsauce video about it. I'd link it if I wasn't on my phone. ",
"Cool is more than just a word for something good. It does mean that, but it has other related uses.\n\nIt can refer to a \"cool head\" which is someone who doesn't get worked up about things, as opposed to a hothead.\n\nThis calm demeanor is frequently interpreted by onlookers as confidence or surity, which are generally desirable traits.\n\nAlso, \"cool\" is accepted use for more moderate levels of desirability. \"That was cool\" can express anything from relatively mild approval to outright amazement depending on inflection.\n\nOther slang terms, like radical or tubular were necessarily used to represent more dramatic emotions regarding the subject. This likely results in a sort of burnout of the words because people get sick of here how *everything* is so great, while \"cool\" is just, well, cool.",
"Maybe it has something to do with the intonation and exercise of the exclamation/word, \"ooooowh!\" in the middle of \"coooool!\" Some sounds are more universal than others, I think this may fit, possibly. \n\nEdit: Rhetorical, I suppose, but was just thinking: what sound are monkeys or primates commonly known to make? ",
"Is it just me that find all these words and phrases charming and kind of humorous? Rad, tubular, bodacious (damn that's a good one) and pretty much anything of the sorts is just plain... Attractive from a linguistic standpoint. It's kind of like British slang, you know how they can say pretty much whatever they want and it still makes sense somehow?\n\n\"Chop some gonder on the blimp before you turn purple, will ye?\" could mean anything between \"Please remember to take out the thrash before you go to bed\" to \"I fully expect you to pay back your debt within a reasonable timespan or else I'll strangle you and your family\"... Yet still it makes some kind of sense as long as you say it with a witty British accent and some confidence.",
"Those words don't all mean the same thing: they all might have been used to describe good things or popular people, but their underlying meanings are very different. \"Rad\" means \"extreme and exciting\", \"groovy\" means \"fashionable and blasé\", and \"cool\" means \"unflappable and authoritative\".\n\nThe reason \"cool\" has remained cool is because its underlying concept is more culturally persistent as a market of high status.\n\n",
"Many words like this go out of style because teenagers naturally rebel against their parents, and if something was cool when their parents were teenagers, it must not be cool to the current teenagers because rebellion. I'm not sure how \"cool\" survived this process but it seems to have.",
"Because cool is kinda cool. Whilst rad is just rad and groovy just groovy.",
"I'm 23 and I say groovy sometimes. But then again its usually while talking about drugs..",
"I've started calling things bonkers. People love it. It's cool. ",
"Where I live, and among my friends, and with my age group in general, slang words that seem dated are used regularly and nobody thinks twice about it. I've used the words groovy, rad, sic, and many more in the last couple weeks. The only words that really don't have any staying power are ones that you can't even stomach to use ironically. These are words like \"fetch\" \"swag\" and \"tubular\"",
"There was a definite period around 1980-1985 when \"cool\" was not cool. It had everything to do with Fonzie and the shark.",
"In addition, the word 'cool' has spread to other cultures and languages as well. We say \"kul\" in Slovenia, but no one would say \"Rad\". ",
"That's because those other words weren't cool enough. ",
"How long will \"dope\" last?",
"Cool also means something is at a colder temperature. Words like 'groovy' and 'rad' don't have other meanings that denote their coolness. Incidentally the same goes for 'hot' and words like 'smokin' etc.",
"This video sums it up nicely. \n\nWhat is Cool?: _URL_0_\nYou're welcome.",
"Because the most lasting linguistic metaphors are rooted in physical sensation. Humans anchor abstract concepts in physical sensations--whether it's associating physical warmth with emotional warmth or physical cold with emotional aloofness. \n\nCool has a physical sensation to it. Refreshing, crisp, not-sweaty, not-flustered, calm, relaxed. So it endures.\n\nOther words, like rad or groovy don't really have the same level of physical sensation anchoring, so they are less enduring.",
"Someone needs to go back in time and assassinate the person who popularized the word \"dank.\" Luckily that lasted only a couple years. Although it was a 100% accurate litmus test for shitty people.",
"I can still say dudical right? ",
"Cool is the Swiss army knife of words. It is a word whose meaning changes completely depending on inflection. Rad, groovy, far out, bitchin', sick, tight etc. Sort of have the inflection built into them. \n\nCool, along with the right inflection can convey entire paragraphs worth of thought. I think this has to do with its longevity.\n\n",
"I don't know man, I'm a senior in highschool and rad is one of my most commonly used words",
"I know the word Groovy and Groovin had to do with records and well they are not in style.",
"I wish \"like\" would fall out of fashion. People would exercise the speech centers of their brains a bit more if they could not lean on that word-crutch.",
"People don't say groovy or rad anymore? \n\nI don't dig that, man.",
"If you have a problem with the word \"rad\" then I want nothing to do with you",
"I tried to make \"crisp\" happen. It's catching on a bit. ",
"[Prof. Bumquist may have a relevant opinion](_URL_0_)\n\nThe Carpenter I hired to help me restore and old farmhouse had just finished a rough first day on the job. A flat tire made him lose an hour of work, his electric saw quit, and now his ancient pickup truck refused to start. While I drove him home, he sat in stony silence.\n\nOn arriving, he invited me in to meet his family. As we walked toward the front door, he paused briefly at a small tree, touching the tips of the branches with both hands. When opening the door, he underwent an amazing transformation. His tanned face wreathed in smiles and he hugged his two small children and gave his wife a kiss.\n\nAfterward he walked me to the car. We passed the tree and my curiosity got the better of me. I asked him about what I had seen him do earlier.\n\n'Oh, that's my trouble tree,' he replied. 'I know I can't help having troubles on the job, but one thing for sure, troubles don't belong in the house with my wife and the children. So I just hang them on the tree every night when I come home. Then in the morning I pick them up again.'\n\n'Funny thing is,' he smiled, 'when I come out in the morning to pick 'em up, there ain't nearly as many as I remember hanging up the night before.'\n\nContext: the bot did not like my comment when it was just a link :)",
"I use rad all the time. Broken 90s German childhood with lust for the California lifestyle.",
"Cool is a single syllable four letter word which humans hold in a special place. ",
"What's truly surprising, is how well the word \"hella\" has held up. ",
"One time this kid named Charlie who lived in my neighborhood brought over a dodgeball he swiped from his school. We were kicking it up on the roof of my house and one of the times it bounced all the way over. I yelled, \"cool!\" \n\nCharlie turned to me with a disgusted look and said, \"no one says cool anymore, they say 'sweet' now.\"\n\nHe's in prison now. ",
"I've been trying to bring back rad, and beastly for awhile now. Not going so hot.",
"Groovy- > Disco- > Everyone hates disco\n\nRad- > Radical- > Radical Terrorist",
"Wait... rad's not cool anymore? Groovy.\n",
"Interesting this should pop up today! I just had a long conversation on this very topic. I don't see anyone mentioning Marshall McLuhan's The Medium is the Message. The main theme of this seminal philosophical work is the idea of HOT vs the idea of COOL. McLuhan explains how different media are one or the other, and how that explains their strengths & weaknesses.\n",
"TIL \"rad\" isn't cool anymore?",
"When did rad go out of style? My entire high school says rad.",
"Quit you're complaining rad will always remain radd",
"I'm late to the game, but had to share my \"cool\" story: when I was an exchange student in Germany five years ago (holla at Bad Homburg!), one of my friends said that something was cool [in German], then turned to me in all seriousness and asked me, \"What's the English word for 'cool'?\"\n\nSrsly, hon? That's OUR word!!!",
"You can also shorten 'cool' to 'coo' to sound more OG. \n\ne.g. (in Snoop Dogg's voice) \"Yeah, shit was coo\".",
"Come to California. LOTS of us still use \"groovy\".",
"Cool seems to be used by all people and cultures in the US while terms like rad and groovy were used (and become associated with) certain subcultures. Use of those words would lend the listener to believe that the speaker was part of a certain group and spoke a different dialect. The word cool is understood universally by English speakers and is generally used in all dialects and subculture lingo. ",
"Because rappers and rockstars stopped using those words. ",
"It didn't. There was a period of time in the early '80s where \"cool\" was decidedly non-cool. But over time, it's been the least associated with a specific subculture. \"Groovy\" is seen as a very hippy-oriented term. \"Rad,\" an '80s stoner/surfer term. But cool's association with 50s beatnik culture (where it would often be paired with other cliche words like \"daddy-o\") was subsumed by the hippies (and paired with \"baby\") and later, the 70s stoner/rock culture (paired with \"man\").\n\nIn the end, it was so spread out over so many cultural contexts that it didn't die with any of them.\n",
"Eddie Izzard nails \"awesome\" (before Louis CK did :P): _URL_0_",
"Maybe this won't directly answer your question, but the slang usage of the word you're referring to was also popularized by Jazz musicians in the 1940s on. For example (not from 1940), one of Miles Davis' albums - Birth of the Cool. Look at this stackexchange page: _URL_0_",
"When I hear \"Groovy\" I picture a stoner doped out on weed with glassy eyes sayin \"groovy man\". When I hear \"rad\", I picture a 1980s surf or skateboard punk with neon spiked hair and vacuous eyes. But \"cool\", I picture the dude. A mellow intelligent guy that drips confidence in his ability to handle any situation. \n\nI don't want to be groovy or rad, but I love being cool.",
"Because groovy and rad tried too hard while cool was just chill about it.",
"Well groovy went away after LPs were replaced by cassettes and CDs. Groovy came from sliding smoothly between grooves on the LP record.\n\nCool comes from having a cool head, meaning you don't lose your temper. It's probably always going to have context.\n\nRad comes from radical, a term used for communists and radical socialists, which since the fall of the Soviet Union lost most of its edgy power.",
"I can't find a source for this but I thought the word \"cool\" in it's slang use was originally used to describe the feeling one has when high on heroin and rose in popularity throughout the jazz clubs of the 1930s and 40s. It's easy to picture how it evolved from there to it's current multitude of meanings. \"Are you cool?\" quickly becomes insider for \"Do you do drugs?\".",
"My mother occasionally asks me if young people still say \"cool\" and then tells the story of how the word cool wasn't cool for a while when she was young. \n\nSo, in the UK at least, it has been known for cool to stop being cool for a while. ",
"Do people still say \"sick\"? As in cool?\n\nI think cool stuck around because when people were trying to understand other slang words they would have to have some word as reference.. \"do you mean rad as in cool or sarcastically?\"\n\nCool was the original slang word that all others were born from.",
"I use \"groovy\" multiple times daily. I'm single-handedly bringing it back! ^or^so^I^tell^myself",
"Rad isn't a thing? I still use it. Guess I'm not cool. ",
"Groovy and rad are still totally rad and groovy to use. ",
"I thought \"cool\" was relatively new, like 2-3 decades old and it would be going out of style soon. Is it actually older that that?",
"Cool is on its way out\n\nMake room for swag and swagger.",
"As founder of _URL_0_ and a regular lurker here, this thread makes me feel all giddy for some reason.\n",
"Oddly enough, I heard 2 people under age 25 use 'rad' today! It kind of threw me off.",
"For what it is worth, \"cool\", wasn't always cool. As a 55 year old I can tell you that it dropped out of fashion in the 1970s, but it came back later. I remember noticing that people were using the word \"cool\" again, and it seemed odd to me until I just got used to it again.",
"It's because of the people who use it. I started who pissed in your cornflakes. I also told people to stop using bro and they did. I say cool, so it's cool. ",
"Cool wasn't cool to say in the 80s. It kind of became cool again in the 90s.",
"I still say groovy. Because well things can still be pretty freaking groovy okay? ",
"I still use rad all the time. Mostly because I don't give a shit if people don't like it. ",
"I've always liked \"gnarly\". \n\nSo I try to keep it alive.\n",
"You can make anything sound good depending on who you are, and how you say it. My brother has the word \"gnarly\" in his active vocabulary, and nobody bats and eye. ",
"I'm a non-native English speaker, but I highly enjoy the semi-sarcastic use of 'rad'. We should say rad more. ",
"Come on, Mr. Hat! We've gotta get back to our flippity floppity floo!",
"My two cents is that I don't think 'rad' ever really caught on. I'm still stuck on when and how \"hook up\" went from \"getting together\", \"meeting\", etc. to \"fucking\". I once said that to a woman whom I just met and she went off on me cuz she was using the current definition even AFTER I explained what it meant to me. In her defense, she was 20 something and I am 42. But still. I explained.",
"OP, you think groovy and rad *SEEM* out of date?\n\nAlright.\n\n\n\nBURN THIS MOTHER FUCKER DOWN!\n\nBURN THIS MOTHER FUCKER DOWN!\n\nBURN THIS MOTHER FUCKER DOWN!\n\nBURN THIS MOTHER FUCKER DOWN!\n\n",
"The Spongebob episode \"Mid-life Crustacean\" might explain this somewhat.",
"\"Cool\" isn't used today as much as it was in the 70's. It's still around, but there are always trendier words that come along like \"sweet\" and \"phat\". \"Cool\" is sort of a fall-back word when trendy words lose their luster.",
"When did [groovy] (_URL_0_) stop being cool??",
"Has anyone mentioned \"dope\" or \"word\" yet? ",
"v-sauce did a good video on this question\n_URL_0_",
"What? No one told me 'Rad' went out of style. ",
"Offhand recalling my old cultural anthropology classes...\napparently synonyms/variations of the word (idea/symbol) cool have existed across different cultures and languages for a very long time. Before many of those cultures had the written word, even. ",
"Because those words are posers. They will never be cool. ",
"So I recently started teaching at a high school. 9th graders don't appreciate it when I say ballin'. I am no longer ballin'.",
"This should clear things up :D\n\nWhat is Cool?: _URL_0_",
"Let's concede that SOME people say groovy and rad, but that they aren't as popular as cool. It seems people of all age groups have adopted cool. This isn't surprising because 'cool' has been around since WW2. In my mind cool has been inducted in the hall of fame while other fad words come and go. Why? Because it's so successful at meaning what it's supposed to. Nothing has eclipsed it.",
"Man, I looked at this post and thought, \"Far out.\"",
"Rad is making a comeback. Put ya ear to the streets, son. \n\n",
"Because cool is the definition. Rad, groovy, and tubular all mean cool in some way or another. Cool is the definition of all these words, so of course cool would stay around yo.",
"It's now frowned about to be chuckin ' and jivin' in modern day society.",
"Probably somewhere in the dark recesses of our minds we are juxtaposing the concept of cool against the ever ubiquitous idea of a living Hell. ",
"I wonder the same about \"Fuck\" and where it originated. ",
"Rad, gnarly, and neat are in my verbal rotation.",
"I suspect it might also be due to the communities in which the words got popular. \"Rad\" was surfer slang, \"groovy\" was jazz (at least originally), but \"cool\" transcended boundaries (I think it was also jazz/black English at first, but way earlier than the others, and it started crossing over into other subcultures). So maybe as the communities died out, the words lost popularity, but \"cool\" stayed pretty level.\n\nDang. Now I'm sad about words.\n\nSource: Uh, linguistics degree? Not really, though, mostly etymonline.",
"Dude, I say rad all the time bro. Get with it, ya hip?",
"Cool was used at least since 1930s. Of course, it came from jazz circles, and was used pretty much the same way we use it today. In fact, it probably has much older origins. I just looked it up on wikipedia, and the idea of cool probably comes from African culture (\"Itutu\" in Yoruba language (Nigeria) means the same thing) and was preserved in African-American circles.\n\nFunny thing is, what you said about 'cool' can also be said about 'hot'. Afro-Americans, and especially jazz folks used to call everything cool or hot. Those are one of those main motives that were always there in all eras of jazz. I believe the answer to your question is simply that 'hot' and 'cool' can be used to express lots of different ideas unlike groovy or rad, but still don't sound too funky, as they're actual standard words. Cool is used all around the world.",
"\"Why does the word 'cool' remain cool\" \n*Fifth grade teacher voice*\n\"You can't use a word to describe itself\"",
"Is \"rad\" out of date? Am I out of touch? \n\nNo... it's the children who are wrong. ",
"I use groovy all the time actually. I didn't care much for the evil dead remake but at the end after the credits Ash says groovy and I thought it was really... groovy. ",
"Did you just get to that SAT practice passage?",
"Extremely easy to say. Cool. Can be muttered in the slightest breath.",
"I still say groovy. (I'm old)\n\nOnly ninja turtles say rad.",
"I use groovy, quite often but I do it because it's out of style for kicks\n",
"Is \"smashing\" still common in the UK?",
"Woah. Cool your jets. \nGroovy is still used. By me. And mum says I'm cool... So logically.... \n\n\nBesides, Ash in *Evil Dead 3: Army of Darkness* says it, so it's totally cool. ",
"Because cool is so fucking rad that it's always groovy",
"Oh, wow. This guy still thinks 'cool' is dank memes. So not dank memes.",
"Cool didn't remain \"cool\". We're just getting old enough to think so, because we aren't young enough to keep up with the latest slang",
"Nobody can really answer that. Theres no real reason for it. It just happened. ",
"Well shit, I say rad all the time. At first it was ironic... Not so much anymore.",
"\"Why is everything so heavy on the future? Is there some kind of problem with the Earths gravitational pull?\"",
"I still say \"rad\" on a regular basis. I'm not that cool, apparently.",
"There's that word again. \"Heavy.\" Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?",
"Not only do I use the word \"rad\" regularly, I also use the expression \"to the max\" in lieu of other intensifiers. It started out as a goof, but those words are now part of my regular vocabulary.\n",
"As physical creatures with bodies, we learn words by relating them to direct experiences from our senses. We say things like, 'He's getting high up there in the company' or 'That was a heavy decision.' Note that though we are talking about abstract concept, we are describing them in terms of the physical experiences heavy and high, a kind of knowing that happens as a result of being inside a body.\n\nEverything we experience is perceived through our bodies. This is called embodied cognition. A psychologist named George Lakoff discovered that all of our abstract metaphors are rooted in concrete embodied ways of knowing things. The word 'cool' is a temperature sensation that we commandeer to refer to abstract concepts such as the cool-headed father or the cool highschooler.\n\n Because it is directly tied to an embodied sensory perception it is easy for us to interpret it abstractly. In contrast, words like 'rad' or 'groovy' are not as easily visualized and so a speaker would have to do more cognitive legwork to generate a visualization of the word's meaning. \n\nNot so with cool. We've all felt a cool breeze. We know people who are hot headed and cool headed. Emotionally cold. Or just simply cool to be with. It is easy to attach to, direct and visceral. Words that are catchy and easy to relate to in this way stick around while others go by the way side, a kind of survival of the fittest, like a meme. If you want to know more, read Steven Pinker's, The Stuff of Thought.",
"Aren't words like 'rad' or 'groovy' just words that derived from the word 'cool'? im not that knowledgeable about the history of words but to me it seems like 'cool' came first, and people came up with other words like 'groovy' or 'rad' just to get like famous.",
"Cool is still cool. Groovy is still groovy. Rad is still rad.",
"Easy. Because Miles Davis invented \"cool\" and that man was ridiculously far ahead of the times in so many ways ",
"I did an experiment for a HS Sociology class (this was early 90's), where I tried to bring back the word \"groovy\" in our school. After planting seeds and using the word whenever it seemed feasible for about a week, it didn't take long for other kids to pick it up again.\n\n",
"I'll bet you any money it has to do with \"cool\" being a more primitive sound.\n\nFor example, I still use \"rad\" *sometimes*. It's still popular within certain circles. But groovy? Nope. No way.\n\nSomething about the sound of the word cool harks back to our time in the caves.",
"I still drop \"far out\" if I'm not thinking straight. ",
"Wait, groovy and rad aren't cool anymore??",
"(You need to read this in Eric Cartman's voice).\nBecause it's so *cool*",
"Stop trying to make fetch happen, it's not gonna happen",
"I'm guessing that groovy and rad were associated with subcultures that fell out of fashion (hippies and surfers) while cool stuck around because it's associated subcultures evolved into others that are still around to popularize the words.\n\nAccording to a very shallow google search, both groovy and cool came from jazz music in the 1930s. It stands to reason that groovy and cool stayed with us because Rock and Roll sprang from jazz and has been popular for a good 60 years. Maybe groovy got stuck in the hippy movement and died when it did, while cool stayed more mainstream.\n\nAnother thing to consider is that, as others have mentioned, cool \"works hard\" as a word and can be applied to many situations. Versatile words, I believe, tend to survive natural selection.",
"When I think of the word 'cool' I hear a black man like Isaac Hayes saying it in my head and that's always going to be 'cooool...'",
"\"Cool\" is the original...the rest are just derivatives...",
"Groovy and rad may have to be explained to someone unfamiliar. The word \"cool\" is used in every day language. Universally known as a positive experience word. \"Wait for the hot food to COOL off.\", \"COOL down period after a fight\"., etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/Af3ZG47oT7I"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObbLapUaZd4"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rYT0YvQ3hs"
],
[
"http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/43063/where-did-the-slang-usages-of-cool-come-from"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"CoolThings.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmI3pJHIT90"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af3ZG47oT7I"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/Af3ZG47oT7I"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4kowkp | why did the paris/brussels attacks get such high exposure, but today's bombing that has left at least 78 dead in syria receive little media coverage? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kowkp/eli5_why_did_the_parisbrussels_attacks_get_such/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3gkbpi",
"d3gkdts"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"Paris - Capital City of a First World Country, also known as the City of Lights, a premier tourist destination.\n\nBrussels - Capital City of a First World Country, also HQ of the EU\n\nCompare those places to... Syria. A god forsaken hell hole in a god forsaken region that most people probably can't pinpoint on a map.",
"It's not a normal thing to happen in Paris and Brussels and they are first world countries unlike Syria.\nNo one really cares about Syria because they aren't in the greatest state right now..it's a 3rd world country and it's not abnormal, it's been happening for a while"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1p8d5l | why do some foods cause such horrible pain when going through the intestines/stomach? | What causes the pain?
Why can I eat a particular food one day with no issues, but on another day the same food can give me stomach pains/cramps?
& yes, the reason I thought of this currently is because I've been on and off the toilet the past few hours with intestinal pain. That's what I get for trusting Taco Bell. (I just wanted to win a PS4, damnit!) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p8d5l/eli5_why_do_some_foods_cause_such_horrible_pain/ | {
"a_id": [
"cczs0yl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Intestinal irritant. The peristaltic action goes on overdrive. That doesn't feel good. I'm a dood, but imagine menstrual cramps being a similar feeling."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3cti5j | why does almost every online game crash and burn during launch week? does no one learn to properly prepare after all the high profile blunders? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cti5j/eli5_why_does_almost_every_online_game_crash_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"csythwy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Even well-established games with millions of players like WoW have times where their servers can't handle the traffic when it spikes (like release of an expansion). At release you might have 100,000+ concurrent users, but that's a short peak before it drops back to \"normal\" levels. Planning your hardware based on that peak means the other 99% of the time you have more hardware than you need."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
70psin | why can you starve yourself of oxygen for several minutes under water, but starving yourself of oxygen via a choke hold makes you pass out after a few seconds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70psin/eli5_why_can_you_starve_yourself_of_oxygen_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dn4zm0t"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When you take a deep breath and hold it for several minutes your blood still has oxygen floating around in it more or less, but for the other you're stopping flow completely. \n\nBy stopping the flow of blood to the brain you're preventing any oxygen that may or may not be in it from reaching the brain and as such it runs out very quickly. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
69hcee | so many people hate waking up early, why do most office jobs require an early start time? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69hcee/eli5_so_many_people_hate_waking_up_early_why_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh6koyc",
"dh6ls4h",
"dh6m8iz"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It coincides with when the majority of people are awake, so it's more efficient that way from a productivity standpoint. In general jobs don't factor in your preferences. In fact, they give you compensation so that you will do the things you don't prefer.\n\nThere are a lot of freelance jobs that allow you to make your own hours if they don't require you to interact with a lot of people and instead just finish a task by a specific date. There are also jobs out there which specifically require you to work later in the day or nights, which some find preferable, but others obviously do not.",
"Many people who have office jobs also have families and lives outside of work. If you need 8 hours of work out of a person and don't start work until 11, they aren't off until 7:30pm, don't get home until 8, and then have to cook dinner, go grocery shopping, etc. \n\nMany people have children who are out of school at 3pm. If you're off work at 5, your kid can be home for 2 hours by themselves without much trouble, but five hours a day unsupervised, things start to go wrong. ",
"Businesses work with other businesses, so they all need a time where they can work with each other. And families have kids to take to school and other morning activities to handle, so it's tough to change things on that end, and then dinner and such at the back end. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ds2mz1 | do animals get “bored” in the same way that humans do? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ds2mz1/eli5_do_animals_get_bored_in_the_same_way_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"f6mw3kc",
"f6mx6av",
"f6mzzft",
"f6n02ha",
"f6n1x4g",
"f6n3792",
"f6n4wr6",
"f6nbf58",
"f6nexto",
"f6nfibb",
"f6nfmmd",
"f6nhs8v",
"f6niiof",
"f6njssu",
"f6njtm6",
"f6nkdcn",
"f6nllma",
"f6nlt6p",
"f6nmah2",
"f6noeic",
"f6ns0s9",
"f6ns4sn",
"f6nslfv",
"f6nvl2t",
"f6o1vu5",
"f6o4j7a",
"f6oahx1",
"f6obxlt",
"f6of4ca"
],
"score": [
73,
7486,
37,
392,
1091,
36,
65,
50,
189,
10,
13,
6,
8,
45,
2,
15,
3,
25,
18,
2,
3,
6,
2,
4,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"yes, humans are a bit arrogant in thinking ourselves above and different from animals, we are still animals, so countless species, birds, dogs, monkeys, cats, dolphins, etc, can have the emotional complexity of a 3-5 year old human. so take pet birds, its good to have toys in their cages for them, but you actually wanna change em out every couple months as they get bored with the same old toys.",
"Yes. People who are bored easily and aren't given anything to do will often either get depressed or get into trouble. Animals are similar - while it may be harder to tell when an animal is depressed on the outside, we can measure their health, and measure an increase in aggressive behavior. Animals that have more things to do (read: aren't bored) are healthier, live longer, and show fewer bad behaviors. This is why modern zoos are putting a lot more focus into \"enrichment activities\" for their animals.",
"I'm not an animal behavior expert, but personal anecdotes would suggest they do.\n\nWe've had horses that start to chew or \"crib\" on fence posts or stall walls when not given enough exercise, it can turn into a really bad habit.\n\nAlmost everyone has seen a dog or a cat that doesn't have enough stimulation (especially working breeds) that basically just resort to being destructive because they need something to do, they can't just sit around all day without any type of mental and physical stimulation.\n\nEven chickens that aren't given enough space to forage, they start to get abusive towards other chickens just as something to fill time.",
"Yes they do. This can actually be an issue at zoos, with animals exhibiting loss of appetite and activity.\n\nBoredom can spiral into depression and there are antidepressants for dogs to curb such activity like scratching themselves until they bleed.\n\nHumans are not the only mammals that experience boredom.",
"Animals which aren't given adequate enrichment (toys, socialisation, environmental changes etc) often display stereotype behaviours such as over grooming, pacing, self harm and repetitive movements. \n\n [_URL_0_](_URL_1_)",
"Yes animals with a high level of intelligence get especially bored as do social animals. Many animals like to play, even the dumber ones.",
"Absolutely. Every animals needs some form of socialization or enrichment or they can get depressed. Like people, depression is not just a \"feeling\" it can physically alter you. With the shift in behavior they can become physically ill and their bodies can shut down and they will die. Have you ever heard of pets abandoned at the shelter who die from heartbreak? They also get behavioural issues like self harm (chewing or plucking), destruction (chewing or tearing things up) aggression, anxiety(barking, scratching, urinating), or they stop doing things they normally due. Their emotions are not as deep as humans but they still feel. They can't tell us when they are sad, but they can show us. So learn some signs and you might change an animals life",
"Jay Boyd Best made Planarian worms run a maze, with a simple junction with one arm smooth and one rough, the maze was kept dry until the worm choose the 'right' arm whence it would be flooded with water much increasing the comfort of the worm. The Planarians would soon learn to choose the correct path almost every time. However ,if they were subjected to the test too many times they would refuse to budge either way, even though they started to dry out and die. In other words they commited suicide out of boredom. \n\nThis can be prevented by only testing the animals a few times per day but also, IIRC, by making the test slightly harder, a light source being on or off reverses the meaning of the rough or smooth arms and with the added complexity the worms don't literally die of boredom.",
"Yes. And we have used it in our studies on how addiction works. Rats will literally overdose on drugs if bored. If they have other options, like socialization, sex or exercise, they prefer the water to the drugs. [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"Many dog breeds act out and misbehave to an extreme when they are not given something to do. Especially Collies and Shepherds.",
"Yes, stereotypic behaviour such as pacing, over grooming, repetitive movements is a sign of boredom. Zoos try to solve that with enrichment activities that are as natural to the animals environment as possible such as a hiding food in a lion's enclosure so it has to seek it out.",
"Raising a Border Collie has given me a hard yes to this question. If he doesn’t have something to do then he will find something to do and usually he finds trouble.",
"Yes, as anyone who owns a Border Collie or Aussie and has ever missed a walk can attest (often at the cost of shoes, furniture, rugs, etc).\n\nMy last Aussie ate through our front door to take herself for a walk when I was at work one day, but she was a bit neurotic even for an Aussie.",
"My cat bites me if I haven't played with him in awhile. He's not angry, just bored. If I can play with him every night I don't get bitten. If I don't have time two nights in a row I can't be surprised when I get a little bite the 3rd night.",
"Next time youre at a nature preserve or somewhere with an outdoor enclosure, see if there's a worn path along the inside of the edge of the enclosure. Depressed and bored animals will walk along the edge creating these paths because that's likely all they do, all day everyday.",
"The way my dog lets out big, long sighs while I’m watching football says yes they do get bored 😂",
"I saw a gorilla at the zoo tapping his fingers on a piece of wood. He looked kind of bored.",
"Lots of pets and zoo animals in the comments. The example that jumps to my mind are pigs though. Pigs get bored very very easily and especially when held in small spaces in big groups they start biting on each other. That's one of the reasons fattening piglets get their tails clipped and their teeth grinded. So they can't hurt each other.\n\nThankfully the EU is working really hard on regulations concerning activity material for pigs in conventional agriculture. It's mandatory for pigs to have enough things to play around with and by 2030 (or 2033?) there's gonna be a bunch of regulations concerning pig husbandry altogether.",
"Please do not get a dog breed that requires a lot of exercise and then leave them at home all day!\n\nAnimals do get bored. Especially dogs, depending on their breed need different kinds of stimulation. \n\nThe smarter the dog, easier it will get bored. So if you are thinking about a very smart dog, remember that you will need to invest considerable amount of time into training them, playing with them and engaging them. You will need to give them puzzles to solve, jobs to do, teach them games to play and get their energy out one way or the other.",
"I always ask myself if I had a dog or a cat at home, while I work: \"What would he/she do?\"\n\nI mean, they can't read, they can't surf the internet. They can't watch TV or listen to the radio.\n\nThey can't get on a train and do a trip to the mountains either.\n\nAnd they are (most likely) spayed or neutered, so that excludes a number of other activities to kill time...",
"Animals in their native habitat will rarely get bored, much like how widespread boredom in humans is a relatively new phenomena thanks to modern conveniences",
"Just wanted to plug this in here: cats are frequently stereotyped as being solitary, disliking people, skittish, and so forth. And people are more apt to leave cats alone for significant periods of time. This is a complete fallacy. My wife and I have been doing cat rescue for years. Kittens need constant human attention if they're going to become good cats. If they are raised with very little human interaction, they will become cats that do not desire human interaction. If you stimulate their attention, spend time with them, and so on, they tend to become more desirous of human affection and interaction as adults. Cats will get bored and then they will tear things up! Don't leave them alone all the time!",
"Because humans and animals are pretty much exactly the same and experience the same feelings and emotions, it's just that humans are a bit smarter.",
"This explains why I feel like shit stuck in my apartment unemployed for months. I was basically a fucking bored zoo animal. Staying busy is crucial for human lives too!",
"My macaw absolutely gets bored. Couple examples: His favorite toy is a box big enough for him to chew a hole into the side and get fully inside. Then over the next few days he alternates between playing with the box and tearing it apart. Once it is too torn up to get inside, he throws it off the cage top onto the floor and waits for another box. Sometimes it takes a few days or a week or so before we have another box for him (most come from Hello Fresh or Amazon, so depends on what we order). When it's been a week or so, he starts to get grouchy, talks less, plays less, and gets into stuff more. He will wander the house looking for trouble. Once he gets a new box, he stops all of that, and gets noticeably happier and more talkative and sociable. The only exception to this is if we give him boxes right away too many times. Then he gets bored with the boxes and won't play with any of them until we take them away for a few days. He's a weird bird. We have tried buying him other toys. He just wants a box.\n\nHe also gets bored with food. I buy him 3 or 4 different kind of pellets to mix together every couple of weeks, and a few different kinds of nuts in the shell and a mix of nuts out of the shell. If I do not change the pellet mixes often enough, he just stops eating them and eats only the nuts, throwing the pellets on the floor. He loves apples, but will only eat one or two slices, and if you give him more too soon, on the floor it goes.\n\nMacaw tax: _URL_0_",
"Oh yes, our cat lets us know when she’s bored. \n\nThey need both routine and a variety of stimulation. \n\nDuring enforced boredom (she had her toys but not us to interact with), like when we were moving, and she was kept in the new unit, she started gnawing on boxes, tearing at paper, opening containers and growling. \n\nI had a business trip where I brought my wife and after we picked up our cat after checking her in a pet hotel for the first time (they have playtime) she was excited during the pick up but depressed looking, lethargic, and at odd times aggressive at home for a week.",
"Yes, if you own a dog and you come home to your shit torn up, it probably means your dog needs more play time and exercise.\n\nIf you own a cat and you come home to your shit torn up, it probably means your cat is sort of a dick.",
"I am of the opinion that some wild animals \"play chicken\" with cars deliberately to entertain themselves.",
"Yes.\n\nMy yorkie will get bored and demand I play with him by dropping a toy on my feet. If I ignore him he finds trash because he knows I'll take it away. If I keep ignoring him he somehow finds scissors and nail clippers and drops them in the middle of the floor, posed to chew them, daring me to ignore him again.\n\nHe gets so bored in 10 minutes he threatens to kill himself I swear to god."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypy\\_(non-human)",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypy_(non-human)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/substance-use-disorder/what-does-rat-park-teach-us-about-addiction"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://imgur.com/5v6PTjf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9157cm | is there a point at which something is so small that it doesn't emit sound? (e.g. a cell, dna) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9157cm/eli5_is_there_a_point_at_which_something_is_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"e2vj5rw"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Sound is just vibration. Even something small like a cell's processes are not 100% efficient when it comes to doing its thing, and so energy is 'lost' in the form of vibrations. I suspect that if you had ears that were sensitive enough to pick up these vibrations, you'd find it quite noisy down there."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ks4mv | why does one testicle hang lower than the other? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ks4mv/eli5_why_does_one_testicle_hang_lower_than_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2mr8sl",
"c2mrd85",
"c2mrdp0",
"c2mv8sa",
"c2mvem7",
"c2mz46e",
"c2mzi7o",
"c2mr8sl",
"c2mrd85",
"c2mrdp0",
"c2mv8sa",
"c2mvem7",
"c2mz46e",
"c2mzi7o"
],
"score": [
8,
7,
11,
3,
2,
3,
2,
8,
7,
11,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"From what I heard, it's to prevent collisions between the testicles.\n\nEDIT: can we stop this habit of downvoting brand new submissions to this subreddit because they have to do with sex? ",
"It's so they will not smash into one another.",
"Take a good hard look at a Newtons Cradle. ",
"This is why.\n_URL_0_",
"So that they don't collide with each other and smash into millions of tiny little fragments of pure pain and suffering that spill all over the carpet and stain the floor. While in constant pain, you will also have to pay the owner of the carpet for repairs, which is a lot more than you can afford. You will have to ask for a loan.\n\nHaving one testicle hang lower than the other saves you from going into debt.",
"to keep them from knocking into each other, and also to allow your legs to be closer together without smooshing yourself.",
"This was a genuine question - not meant to be offensive or sexual by any means. Thank you for the answers though, they make very much logical sense ",
"From what I heard, it's to prevent collisions between the testicles.\n\nEDIT: can we stop this habit of downvoting brand new submissions to this subreddit because they have to do with sex? ",
"It's so they will not smash into one another.",
"Take a good hard look at a Newtons Cradle. ",
"This is why.\n_URL_0_",
"So that they don't collide with each other and smash into millions of tiny little fragments of pure pain and suffering that spill all over the carpet and stain the floor. While in constant pain, you will also have to pay the owner of the carpet for repairs, which is a lot more than you can afford. You will have to ask for a loan.\n\nHaving one testicle hang lower than the other saves you from going into debt.",
"to keep them from knocking into each other, and also to allow your legs to be closer together without smooshing yourself.",
"This was a genuine question - not meant to be offensive or sexual by any means. Thank you for the answers though, they make very much logical sense "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLHftISLNHE"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLHftISLNHE"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
aohauw | how are proper nouns 'coined' in sign languages? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aohauw/eli5_how_are_proper_nouns_coined_in_sign_languages/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg163yc",
"eg1hhy3"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"I had a deaf friend in grade 2, she used to just spell out names in sign language. Or, if you were close to her she would have a nickname sign for you. One I remember was the letter sign for C while brushing your hair behind your ear- for her sister who's name started with a C and who had long hair.",
"My dad is deaf. If you're talking about names for people, they literally just get made up by someone who needed a convenient way to refer to you. They tell you, you probably like it, and once both you and them are using it, it's set.\n\nFor other things, it's just like how want any word happens in language. People will use signs that are descriptive and more or less make sense, the common ones spread, and common usage has forged a new word."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2y1jpw | why is every program not multi-platform when programming languages are? | If all the major programming languages (C,C++,Java) can all be written and compiled on all major OS's, why can't every program? If a program is written in C, why can't it just be compiled to an exe for Windows, a dmg for OSX and a tarball for Linux?
Further, even Gaming Consoles use the same basic programming languages. Why is it such a difficult and time consuming process to port a game? Why can't the source just be recompiled on the target system? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y1jpw/eli5_why_is_every_program_not_multiplatform_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp5chow",
"cp5cos0",
"cp5cvbd",
"cp5cywl",
"cp5czhz",
"cp5d6qw",
"cp5qmp4",
"cp5u95c"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are some platform specific things that are done differently from OS to OS such as system calls, directory structure, etc. \n\nStill, by now we could have solved most of those problems by now if it were not in the interest of software companies to try and keep you locked into their platform. ",
"Because there are details of how the programs written for all the various OSs work. Say you're writing a windows program. You're not going to write every last bit of code for it, you're going to use various windows APIs to access the file system, draw things in the windowing system, access the graphics system using DirectX, and the sound system. Now take that exact code, and compile it for Linux. Are the windows APIs going to work? Will they even exist on that platform? Absolutely not. To make your program work there, now you have to rewrite all of the windows specific stuff to play nicely on that platform. Now do the same thing for OS X, iOS, Android, etc. This is all work that doesn't do anything to make your program work better on Windows, or any of the basic functionality. You could be \"done\" already, and selling your software on Windows, but instead, you're spending time rewriting existing code to work on the smaller fraction of computers that aren't windows computers. Some of the bigger companies out there can afford to do this, and some can't/decide it's not worth it. So really, it's not like any program can be written, and the \"Compile for [whatever OS]\" button is pressed at all. This may work for the basic \"hello world\" command line based program, but beyond that, it doesn't work at all. ",
"Because the compiler only knows how to make one.\n\nThat being said, there are some compilers that are working and being able to make all three.\n\nStencyl comes to mind\n\nMicrosoft has one upped it though with .net in that newer versions will supposedly work across different platforms since it's compiled at runtime, they just needed to work out the details of how to get it to work on osx/linux. I'm sure they could have done it years ago but for business reasons didn't.",
"Although many programming languages are cross-platform, a lot of the code/libraries/APIs you use to build an application may not be cross-platform. \n\nThis is particularly the case with regard to Graphical User Interface components. The Application Programming Interface (API) calls you make on a Mac and Windows PC for building graphical interfaces are completely different, like they're really many miles apart. You can't just directly convert a native Mac graphical software interface into a Windows one or vice versa.\n\nOn top of everything else, the graphical guidelines (for what is considered acceptable or 'best practice' when building user interfaces) is very different for Mac and Windows, so even if you did essentially just copy the user interface exactly from one platform to the next, it probably wouldn't be compliant with the user interface style guidelines for at least one of the platforms.\n\nJava is a bit different though. Java has its own graphical user interface library you can use that will look just the same on a Windows or Mac computer. There are also software libraries for other languages you can use that achieve the same effect (instead of calling the native Mac/Windows API calls, you call the functions in the custom GUI library).\n\nThe problem is, as I hinted at earlier, these programs don't look like they are designed natively for the platform you're running them on. They typically don't properly follow the style guidelines of the OS and they often have a distinct look/feel that is different from other applications.\n\nAlso, it's not just Graphical User Interface libraries that are different. Tons of the underlying APIs / system calls for Mac and Windows (and Linux) will be completely different. You're still writing the software in the same language, but now you have to re-code a lot of the stuff involving system calls for the particular platform you want the program to run on. It's kind of like the difference between speaking in a British and American accent; it's still English, just a different dialect that occasionally uses different words and phrases to mean the same thing.\n\nGame consoles have the same sort of issue, although usually to a lesser extent since most of the GUI components are custom for the game (as opposed to using native Operating System graphical components). Nevertheless, there are still a lot of things that need to be changed with there again being different types of system calls / APIs available that are platform specific.",
"Operating Systems provide much needed services for programs. They provide a means of accessing the file system, communicating over a network, drawing to the screen, reading input from the keyboard, obtaining the current date and much more.\n\nDifferent Operating Systems provide different services, expose those services in different ways and make different choices. A simple example is the path separator used in the file system. On a Linux or a Mac, directories are separated by a forward slash. e.g. `/usr/bin` but On Windows, directories are separated by a backwards slash. e.g. `C:\\Users`.\n\nIn order to make a program *portable*, a compatibility layer or *library* is usually written. This provides a uniform interface to some Operating System service or functionality, but hides all of the platform differences inside.\n\nSometimes a programmer will make use of libraries that don't work across many platforms, however. For example, you may know that many games use something called DirectX. DirectX is a set of Microsoft game programming libraries, and they're specific to the Windows platform. They don't run on Linux or Mac or mobile phones natively (a compatibility layer can be inserted between the OS and DirectX, but that's a lot of work).",
"Think of a program as giving somebody directions to a restaurant in your city. Say, Chipotle.\n\nYou tell them that if they're starting from your house, they go down the road, take a left, get on the highway, take exit 42, turn right off the ramp, drive down the road, and they'll see it on the left.\n\nThese instructions *only* work for the city you live in. You can adapt them, because you know your way around town pretty well.\n\nUsing a program that's written for your \"city\" on a different platform is like trying to use those same directions to Chipotle in a different city. Different operating systems store files in different locations, under different structures. If your program is written with the expectation that the files will be there, and they're not, the whole thing collapses.",
"Because the language does not include all of the libraries the program uses.\n\nThe C++ code to show a window on Linux is different from the C++ code to show a window on OSX is different from the C++ code to show a window on Windows.",
"Ignoring hardware, you still have runtime libraries and the kernel. The OS/kernel restricts how directly a program can control the hardware, thus the program must use special runtime libraries to access the kernel APIs, which will then interact with hardware directly. These libraries are largely unique to the OS, this programs must change to work with the OS they will run on.\n\nJava abstracts this out. The Java Virtual Machine is a standard program recompiled for the OS it is running on. The JVM then provides its only level of abstraction that is consistent across platforms."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5ntg2g | if we as humans exhale co2, why do some fires like campfires burn more after we blow on them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ntg2g/eli5_if_we_as_humans_exhale_co2_why_do_some_fires/ | {
"a_id": [
"dce67qn",
"dce6as6",
"dce6kh6"
],
"score": [
5,
9,
6
],
"text": [
"Because we inhale about 20% oxygen and exhale about 15% oxygen. Meaning we aren't using all the oxygen in the air we breath. So we dont exhale pure CO2... edit: not unless we were breathing very stale air.",
"Two things. First, we don't only exxhale CO2. Each breath is about 4-5% CO2. So blowing on the fire does send some oxygen than way directly. Blowing also clears out the dead air in the fire (CO2 being heavier) allowing normal air to replace it.",
"The difference in CO2 between inhaled and exhaled breath is surprisingly small. \n\nNatural air is about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and less than 1% everything else, including carbon dioxide, argon and other substances. \n\nThe air you exhale is about 5% carbon dioxide and about 15% oxygen. So it's still a lot of oxygen. \n\nMoreover, when you blow on a flame, the air you exhale is also pushing a lot more ambient air along with it (sort of like how you can make a huge splash of water in the pool using just your hand, because the patch of water you hit makes a little wave that captures more water.) So the air that hits the flame is likely to be very close to the same amount of oxygen as regular air.\n\nCompared to this, if there is no significant air current, the flame from the fire may be depleting the oxygen immediately nearby almost completely (i.e., the air next to the flame may quickly go down to far less than 15% oxygen). This is similar to the reason why if you blow on your hands to dry them off, the air traveling over your hands will indeed dry them faster, even though the air is coming from inside your wet lungs and mouth. There's just so much more of it that it's more efficient. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
665q1e | if according to the big bang, everything started at a single point, how is it that some parts of our universe aren't visible to us? | How could a point in space that started beside us not have had enough time to transmit light to us?
I get that some of the things we observe today are seen as they were 13.8 billion years ago, but what about the objects that we just can't see at all? Shouldn't we at least see them as they were 13.8 billion years ago as well? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/665q1e/eli5_if_according_to_the_big_bang_everything/ | {
"a_id": [
"dgfvjtd"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Space itself is expanding. Imagine you're on a train, and you're walking through it. While you do so, cars are being added to the train in front of you.\n\nLet's take the analogy further. Between any car, a new train car is added. So between two cars, you add one. Now you have 3 cars, and two links between them where you can add a new car. The next time you add cars, you'll add two, now you have 5 cars and four gaps links them. The next time you add cars to the train, you'll have 9 cars and eight links between them...\n\nThis means your train is expanding *exponentially faster* given the distance. At first, you could see through your car and into the next one, but if you didn't cross over to the next car before one was added between you, you'll never be able to cross the gap to that original adjacent car.\n\nLikewise, space is expanding in all directions. The further two objects are, the more space there is between them, the more space that is expanding in between them. If the distance is far enough, light can't cross the gap fast enough to overcome that expansion. Light is the fastest you can go *through* space, but space itself need not obey that speed limit. And indeed, as the space the photon presently occupies expands, it stretches the photon out, and this has the effect of shifting the frequency. Objects moving away from us are getting \"redder\".\n\nThis also means that the space you occupy is expanding through you, but the forces of nature at close distances are strong enough to overcome this force and keep you together. Even at the scale of galaxies and local clusters of galaxies, we are able to stay together. It's at the extreme distances of spaces between the webs of galaxy clusters that we can see the effect of expansion increase the distance between us and distant objects. It's not so much that expanding space is hauling galaxies away, but that the space between us is growing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4ch27e | difference between solar panel and solar cell | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ch27e/eli5difference_between_solar_panel_and_solar_cell/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1i2vzi",
"d1i2zj9"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"A panel may consist of more than one cell. A cell is the smallest unit, and a panel is an assembly of cells.",
"A solar cell is a single unit that converts sunlight into electricity. A solar panel is a sheet of one or more solar cells laid out and attached together in order to be installed on a roof or other structure."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
35ze9n | our eyes are basically little water balloons, so how come eye injuries and missing eyeballs aren't more common? | For instance, 90% of my friends landed on their chins and had to get stitches as a child. How come I don't know anyone who stabbed their eye out? Do we have some sort of reflex? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35ze9n/eli5_our_eyes_are_basically_little_water_balloons/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr99xbh",
"cr9a8in",
"cr9bdot",
"cr9e5tu"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Go smack your eye on a flat surface, then report back to me. Not the corner of a desk, or anything else. Go try to smack your eye on the sidewalk.",
"eyes arent exactly \"waterballons\" they're filled with stuff that doesnt \"pop\" i dissected a sheep eye once (hated every minute of it) and one of the things in an eye is a fairly large and hard-round lens thing",
"Eyes are tougher than you think. The outside of the eye is pretty tough, more like cartilage, and the inside is a thick jelly with anchors and structures of collagen. If an eye is cut it does not immediately leak out like water.",
"When I was getting eye contacts, I was really worried about hurting my eye.\n\nThe doctor took his thumb, and pressed on the table as hard as he could. He said he could put all his weight on my eye and it wouldn't hurt it.\n\nNow scratching or poking it with a needle... that's a different story."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8emf3b | why is it that we study better when we write as opposed to typing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8emf3b/eli5why_is_it_that_we_study_better_when_we_write/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxwak6y",
"dxwalvl"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Anything that slows you down and makes you spend more time focusing your mind on the material may help you remember it later.",
"You answered it yourself. Typing is a lot quicker, you dont have to think as much about the words you are putting onto the paper when you type as opposed to when you handwrite it down"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
4dk7um | why is there often such a drastic difference between book and film? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dk7um/eli5_why_is_there_often_such_a_drastic_difference/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1rqnh8",
"d1rqp6h",
"d1rqw78",
"d1rqyo8",
"d1rr0j0",
"d1rr2lf",
"d1rrx2b"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Simple reason:\n\nUsually the author gets so wrapped up in the offers that they take little to no control over how their property is handed by the other industries.\n\nHarry Potter was so successful because JK rowling refused to do that.\n\nLord of the rings got similar treatment because of Peter JAcksons respect and adoration of the books",
"Lots of reasons, one of the major ones being time limits. Another is that much of a book goes into describing what is going on so that you can form a substantial mental image. When an image is presented to you, it is easy to look over details and stick with more prominent ones. Many scenes in books are interesting on paper but actually watching them take place is rather boring and unecessary. \n\nAnother reason is that for most book-films, the book authors don't have full power over what makes it on screen meaning that you are really being told a different version of the same story from a similar but different narrator.",
"Films are generally collaborative efforts while books are typically the work of one person. Once you have a handful of people who think they \"know what the film really needs\" it transforms into something completely different. As well, many screenwriters and directors want to give \"their\" artistic take on a work instead of doing a direct translation. This is in addition to what's already been said.",
"Think about a 20 second movie. Scene opens in a vast desert, blah blah,blah......A picture is worth 1000 words.\n\nWhen a book is written, the author must present the scene, the characters, describe what the characters are doing, etc, etc............you can do in the first few frames of a film what could take several pages, sometimes, several chapters in a book\n\nSo, now, you have only some pages of that book left for the meat of your movie........And not everything written in a book can be done on screen......\n\nConversely, if I showed you a 10 minute short film and you had to write it out to be understood, you would likely have several hundred pages before you were done\n\n",
"The main reason is there are just different forms of story telling...movies show and books tell.\n\nIn books, you have access to the characters inner monologue, so it is possible to know exact how they feel and why they are doing something. This is harder to pull off in movies, you have to set up character motivation with action and dialog to make the audience understand.\n\nOn the other hand, it can be tedious for a book to describe a fist fight or a spaceship, where as a movie just has to show you something awesome for a few seconds.\n\nAnother issue is creative translation. A director might not get the book, or they make have a different take on it. Or they might not like it, and want to put a complete different spin on it. Or they might be be a jerk and feels the need to lift they leg on it to make it theirs.\n\nFinally, at the end of the day, the studios only really care about making money. The buy the rights to a book, and might get rewritten a dozen times before it comes a movie. At that point, the book might as well be dead, all the producers care about is getting something out the door that will make them money.",
"It's because they're meant for entirely different audiences. The goal of turning a book into a film isn't to get fans to watch+read, it's to get all the people who weren't fans because they didn't read. The goal is to broaden the demographic, not double-down on fans.\n\nAnd that's before you get into obvious differences in the medium already described by others here, because often those are core to why people gravitate one way or another.",
"Generally speaking, aside from an author pretty much losing all/most creative controls, you lose portions of story through a screenplay adaptation, which are usually much shorter. And while it's true it can take 1 minute of a movie to maybe SHOW what a reader imagines in maybe 20 pages of a book (rough estimates), I think the Directors or producers change the story as they see fit, or because the actor/actress they want for the role will only do it if, say, they didn't die as it's written in the book. Also, when we read a book it's all in our head what we see, our personal interpretation of words creates this image in our minds. In a movie, we're seeing what the Director/Producer sees. \n\nI'm not sure about you, but when a character is described in a book I tend to think about what actor/actress would play that role. So where if I thought the description led me towards a certain type like Emily Blunt/Zoey Deschanel, the casting might end up calling for a Kiera Knightly/Natalie Portman. Now sure, that's just one perspective choosing that actress, but that could happen for location setting, for fight scene choreography, for the color on someones wall (though unless the color of a wall was referred to more than once in a good sized novel it probably wouldn't matter to the average person). It's all about perspective.\n\nRomeo and Juliet is a good example. That story has been on film in how many ways? and not just under the title of \"Romeo and Juliet\". Names can be different, settings, etc. Baz Luhrmann's R & J was amazing to me because everything was modern and relatable. I barely paid attention to any of the earlier versions. But it's something as simple as making a dagger into a pistol that can make or break or film. For me it made it, and while the setting is different the story is still the same.\n\nYou could even compare movies to movies. Remakes/Reboots. What did the new and maybe better version do differently. The story of Batman is older than myself, yet, Nolan's Trilogy destroyed the old 80s Burton ones with it's tone and acting. Don't agree? Well it's my opinion based on perspective."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3i68i0 | what is happening to the asian stock market right now? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i68i0/eli5_what_is_happening_to_the_asian_stock_market/ | {
"a_id": [
"cudod7n"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"In the last year, China's main stock market rose about 150%. This was from many ordinary citizens were investing for the first time. To the tune of over 40 million new accounts from June 2014, to July 2015.\n\n Many of those people were taking out loans to buy stocks. This used to be restricted, but recently regulations were slowly removed.\n\nEarly this year, China started to fear a bigger problem, and started to again limit this practice of debt financed investing, and the markets briefly corrected, before falling sharply in June. In early July, they [made aggressive efforts](_URL_0_\") to push stock prices back up.\n\nThose efforts seemed to work for a few weeks, as the market rose and then stabilized. But now it seems that even July's extraordinary actions — which included ordering companies to buy their own stock and banning some executives from selling — weren't enough to prevent further declines.\n\nOverall the Chinese economy is slowing down, and that is causing concern for investors, causing even further pressure. Much of their economy is based on exports and obviously there is a point you simply run out of people and places to sell to, causing this slow down, but China has not transitioned the economy to domestic consumption.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.vox.com/2015/7/11/8933341/china-is-destroying-its-stock-market-in-order-to-save-it"
]
] |
||
5crovw | whats the difference between the energy we get from carbohydrates, caffeine and having a great cardio? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5crovw/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_the_energy_we/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9yyk5b"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You don't get energy from caffeine. Caffeine makes you feel more alert because it competes with adenosine for its receptors in your brain. Adenosine is one of the chemicals which make you feel sleepy. In short, caffeine doesn't replace energy, it just numbs you to the sensation of not having any.\n\nI'm not sure what you mean by 'having a great cardio', but whatever it is, it is unlikely to produce energy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2lp8sp | how is playing roulette and having a 50% of doubling your money is not the best odds at a casino? | I was arguing with a friend and he was saying if he was given a free 1000 to gamble with he'd use it all on slots and "win eventually" . I told him why not just either lose it all or double it with one spin. Either you walk away with double or you don't have anything but I feel like the 50/50 chance is higher than the 1 in a million that you'd have playing slots. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lp8sp/eli5_how_is_playing_roulette_and_having_a_50_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"clwuwe6",
"clwv13o",
"clwv2nf"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Roulette isn't 50/50, there is also a green '0' and sometimes '00' on the wheel, which are always 'house wins'. Your odds aren't far off 50/50, but stats say that the house will always win in prolonged play",
"The odds are 18/38, about 47/53. 0 and 00 throw the game into the houses favour. If you played indefinitely, the most likely outcome is you loosing money, not breaking even, because the odds are slightly off. If it was truly 50/50, casinos would not have roulette as on average they'd break even. ",
"First, the odds are not 50:50 in roulette even when you make an even/odd or red/black bet. The reason for this is the 0 and 00 slots on the wheel, which give the house an advantage.\n\nSecond, there are games in which the house edge is much smaller than in roulette. Blackjack, when played perfectly, has close to zero house edge, and if you count cards (which casinos don't like and will eject you if they catch you at it), you can even tip the edge the other way. Craps, again when played well, also has a very low house edge. Baccarat has the lowest house edge of any game, though.\n\nSlots, probably not so much, unless you seek out the high-return slots. Some (most?) casinos have a carousel of high-return slots somewhere on the floor. Even there, though, you won't necessarily \"win eventually.\" \n\nTL;DR - there's no game in the casino where the house does not have an edge, and you should gamble as entertainment rather than investment. In that way, your friend is right - if you stretch your gambling dollar, you get more entertainment from it than just a single throw on the roulette wheel. More chance to soak up free drinks, etc."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6hz9yq | how does 100mg of drugs stay in me for 14 straight days? | Hello all.
So, my doctor recently confirmed I had parasites which needed treatment, as such she prescribed three pills, each with 100mg of drugs in them and told me "Take one now, one two weeks from now and one four weeks for now."
Now, I'm not a biologist, doctor, physician, or anything of that kind, but I know our bodies are bloody amazing when it comes to removing foreign drugs from our systems so we can pee it out. Something about a biological 'half life' of days, if not hours inside our bodies.
That on top, 100mg seems like such a miniscule amount, especially for a guy like myself who literally weighs more than a million times that.
So how can 100mg of anything make my body toxic to parasites for fourteen straight days? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hz9yq/eli5_how_does_100mg_of_drugs_stay_in_me_for_14/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj29eir",
"dj29f4f",
"dj29fsi"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"It may have to do with the life-cycle of that particular parasite. But you are right, it is not going to stay in your body for 14 days - it's just that the drug maybe only targets that parasite in a given point of its life-cycle (hard to say not knowing the parasite). It may also be the case that the drug is very effective and all the doses after the first one is just to make sure that everything was eliminated. ",
"Two things.\n\nFirst, in your particular case the drug isn't staying in your system the whole time. The first pill kills the hatched parasites. The second pill kills any that are currently protected as eggs but will hatch in a few days. The third pill is just in case something hatched late and kills anything left.\n\nSecond, medications do have a half life in your system. It ranges from minutes to days depending on how long it takes your body to clear or destroy it.",
"It doesn't work like that.\n\nThe drug kills the live, adult parasite, and then within a day or so the drug is gone from your system (along with the parasites).\n\nHowever the parasite eggs (if any are present) aren't killed by the drug, and they will hatch in about 10 days time, so after 14 days you take another dose to kill whatever hatched out of those eggs.\n\nAnd that should be that, but just in case any slipped through the net you take a final dose after a further 14 days. And then you've definitely got all of them."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5h6n2o | why do we so often feel the need to lean back our chairs onto two legs? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h6n2o/eli5_why_do_we_so_often_feel_the_need_to_lean/ | {
"a_id": [
"daxs2yz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We came from primates who lived in trees. We like to balance. We are a bipedal who must balance to move at all because we are on one foot a lot of the time.\n\nBy the way, many newly blinded people were injured in the back of the skull injuring the visual center of the brain. Falling backward into blindness is a terrible result to leaning a chair back."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
cpxeg4 | how do seabracher watercraft keep the engine running without getting flooded with water, even when submerged for short periods of time? | My best guess is a large airbox with a diapraghm and a water trap with a bilge pump? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cpxeg4/eli5how_do_seabracher_watercraft_keep_the_engine/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewsasyj",
"ewse17v"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"From their [website](_URL_0_):\n > The Seabreacher is only meant to dive just beneath the surface for brief durations. You typically do not go lower than 5-6 feet, and it will also depend on your level of experience as a pilot. Most people are under for about 5-10 seconds at a time, and almost always have a portion of the snorkel above the waterline. ... You also need to consider the snorkel/dorsal fin, which is your air intake for the engine. Diving below snorkel depth will only cause the engine to stall, and then the boat will always pop back to the surface.",
"From the first video I found after a quick Google... They have a snorkel. The air intake for the engine is at the top of a tube that extends upwards from the vessel and I never saw one of them dive deep enough to completely submerge the snorkel."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://seabreacher.com/about-the-seabreacher/"
],
[]
] |
|
21wgxp | why do people get those three dots tattooed on the space between their thumb and forefinger? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21wgxp/eli5_why_do_people_get_those_three_dots_tattooed/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgh5hl2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It literally means so many things. It has been used to distinguish different ethnic groups in the early 90's in Eastern Europe during the genocides and all that good stuff /s. It has been used to distinguish certain sailors. The three dots can symbolize three words, what those three words can be anything."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2jwmtq | how are pranksters like vitalyzdtv making so brutal 'pranks' without getting sued or arrested? | Lately I've seen quite a few pranks like this brutal chainsaw massacre prank(_URL_0_).
While watching the video I found myself asking, how is this guy not locked up? I know he has been.
Also, why aren't people suing him?
HOW IS THIS GUY NOT GETTING SHOT? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jwmtq/eli5_how_are_pranksters_like_vitalyzdtv_making_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm7adry",
"clfqz50",
"clfs7ew",
"clft9l6",
"clfxg3e",
"clgcnmp",
"clgdxl5"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
5,
16,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I can assure you that most of them are fake, it's all actors, where the chainsaw is ... harmless ones might not be ... ",
"It takes time, money and energy to sue someone. It'd be too much of a hassle to try to make something up to sue them for a prank. I can see it now \"lawyer, i wanna sue this guy because he pretended he was killing someone and it scared me\" granted stupid lawsuits happen but its not super common. ",
"Well Youtube prankster Remi doesn't do anything brutal, all hilarious, but he gets arrested almost every time. His sponsors bail him out.\n\nSo I've read. I could be wrong",
"Probrably fake. \n\nThey would absolutely be arrested if they did those things. \n\nAnd I agree. If someone came at me with a chainsaw looking thing. They would find themselves at gunpoint immediately. ",
" > HOW IS THIS GUY NOT GETTING SHOT?\n\nSheer luck? Check this one out:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI'm under the impression that the smarter \"pranksters\" are actually faking a lot of these videos. In fact, even the video I linked is probably fake.",
"Half the pranks are fake, The other half are in areas where people do not carry firearms.",
"Vitaly is fake. He has two different videos with the same guy being pranked. Google it for the proof"
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMsqrG9RWg"
] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW7YSWGeFQg&feature=youtu.be"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
5ox11k | why are fire animations, fogs and shadows in video games so demanding for graphic cards? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ox11k/eli5_why_are_fire_animations_fogs_and_shadows_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcmp5iv",
"dcmqb04",
"dcmrkqw",
"dcmrpty",
"dcmu70i",
"dcmxmk6",
"dcmzazj",
"dcn1bnz",
"dcn31lj",
"dcn71o3",
"dcn7h97",
"dcnbetc",
"dcndewm",
"dcnigcq",
"dcniutj",
"dcniwla",
"dcnmr5l"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
3406,
34,
220,
6,
2,
3,
5890,
2,
7,
15,
2,
2,
8,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Short explanation.\n\nTurbulence is hard to model. That's why we can only predict weather a few days out.\n\nFire and other \"random\" patterns take a lot of computation to look realistic",
"Basically, they need a lot of details to not look really bad. more so than say, a tree. They're also constantly moving, which puts extra stress on it. ",
"It's really hard to ELI5 graphics algorithms, but I'll do my best to keep it simple.\n\n**TL;DR:** All those effects make the GPU do a bunch of work twice (or more) instead of once.\n\nOf the three special effects you list (fire, fog, and shadows), two of them are actually the same thing as far as a GPU is concerned: fire and fog are both examples of partially transparent objects, so I will group them together.\n\nThe work a graphics card has to do to draw a scene can be broken roughly into two parts. The first part is the work it has to do for each 3D polygon (triangle) in the scene to determine which pixels that triangle covers. The second part is the work it has to do for each pixel to calculate the color and brightness of that pixel.\n\n**Transparent objects are demanding because they make the GPU process each pixel multiple times, multiplying the amount of work done in the per-pixel phase of rendering.**\n\n**Shadows are demanding because they make the GPU process each triangle multiple times, multiplying the amount of work done in the per-triangle phase of rendering.**\n\nWithout transparent objects, there is exactly one surface visible at each point on the screen (disregarding anti-aliasing). Therefore the GPU only has to calculate light and color for each pixel once. With transparent objects like fire and fog you can see multiple layers at each point on the screen, so the GPU has to calculate light and color for each layer at each pixel, then blend them together.\n\nTo draw shadows, the GPU has to draw the scene from the perspective of each light that casts shadows, just as if that light were actually another camera. It usually doesn't have to calculate any color from the light's perspective, but it still has to go through the process of drawing each triangle in the scene for every light.\n\nIt turns out that many \"demanding\" effects in video games are slow because they multiply some part of the work of drawing a scene:\n\n\nTransparency: Multiplies per-pixel work in the areas covered by transparent things.\n\nShadow Mapping: Multiplies per-triangle work (plus some extra work at each pixel).\n\nAnti-Aliasing: Multiplies per-pixel work at the edges of each triangle on screen.\n\nGlobal Illumination: Multiplies everything by everything else until your GPU catches on fire...\n\nIf that all sounds confusing, that's because it is. I can try to clarify if anything about my wall of text is particularly unclear.\n\nEdit: I should mention that the problem of drawing pixels multiple times is called \"overdraw.\"\n\nEdit2: I should also mention that \"duplicate\" work was probably a poor choice of words. It's not redundant, it just has to process the same point multiple times instead of just once.",
"A lot depends on how all these elements are handled in a game. \nBest case scenario:\n\n - The fire is a simple object, animated in a 3d program and let loose in the game. The animation loops and it's quite noticable but you can get away with it.\n\n- The fog is just things in the distance getting blurrier. Looks quite bad but it's cheap.\n\n- Only static (non-moving) objects cast shadows, no dynamic lights.\n\nThis might sound like a lot of assumptions but it's not entirely unrealistic and there certainly are games which can use this simple model. It's very, very cheap.\n\nWorst case:\n\n- Fire is made using multiple particle systems including multiple types of flame, randomized smoke, lights, dust and small elements flying around wildly.\n\n- The fog is also a large particle system with added blur effects\n\n- Multiple lights with multiple dynamic objects casting dynamic shadows\n\nThis model is used in games with better graphics and there are multiple performance concerns. I won't go into the details but the main issue is that many of the effects require multiple passes which basically means the image you finally get on the screen needs to be drawn multiple times by the GPU. First object geometry, then lighting, then shadows, then particles, then special effects like antialiasing, bloom, ambient occlusion etc. and if you have a lot of those they can easily become a GPU bottleneck.\n\nSource: Make games.\nTried to be ELI5 I know this is an oversimplification.",
"**TL;DR**: Accurately simulating any 3D scene is impossible in a computer game. About 10^19 photons hit every square metre of earth during a single 1/60th of a second frame, so obviously simulating even a tiny fraction of the photons in a normal video game scene is just intractable. But a lot of simple stuff can be simulated in a way that looks good enough without doing it accurately. Fire, fog, shadows, refractive glass, mirrors and all kinds of other effects are stuff that *don't* work in this simple way of rendering things, so require a more complicated simulation to make them look any good. More complicated means more work for your graphics card. So the question might rather be: *why are things like rendering a chair in a room with two small lamps and no windows easy for graphics cards?* Below I will try to answer both questions.\n\n**More info:** Traditional 3D rendering works backwards: you start at the virtual camera and, for each pixel you want to render, trace out a line until you hit an object - each line goes out at a slightly different angle for each pixel. You then look at the angle and distance from that object to every single light source in your scene and calculate how much light the object is receiving. Then, examine the material the artist gave that object and see how it reacts to light to determine what colour it is at that spot. You then draw that pixel that colour. (This is backwards because in reality, obviously, light travels *into* the camera, not out of it.)\n\nThis requires you to trace lines to see what they hit exactly the same number of times as there are pixels in your image. For each pixel you also have to calculate distances and angles to exactly the number of lights in your scene, though games tend to use tricks to reduce this number (by making lights outside a certain distance not count, or by pre-calculating a lot of this information so some more can be skipped.) This is all quite doable and is represented in [this diagram](_URL_2_).\n\nNow none of this allows you to render shadows: suppose you're calculating a certain pixel and calculating the distance and angle from the object in front of that pixel to the single light illuminating the scene. At no point do you check whether there's anything in the way which would prevent light from getting to that point. To do that you'd have to not just calculate the distance and angle, but trace another line to every light (the shadow ray in the diagram above) - that takes more calculations and makes it slower. Again there are tricks: you could say that only stationary objects and light sources can cast shadows, pre-calculate all that information and then you don't need to do it every frame in the game. But this of course doesn't look as good.\n\nBasically for the other things the answer comes down to the same thing: forcing the engine to trace more lines. Sometimes you're forced to trace lines from the light sources instead of from the camera - this is very wasteful as you have no idea which will end up hitting the camera (perhaps after bouncing off some objects); any that don't have no effect on the scene at all. You're forced to trace far too few to actually look good and hope you can smooth out the resulting mess to look decent. Other times, like with reflective surfaces, you have to trace the bounces off the objects. If you have two mirrors facing each other, you have to cut off the trace at some point, which will prevent the render taking an infinite length of time but result in a black spot in the mirror.\n\nHow about fog? Basic fog is actually easy and used to be a way to make games run *faster* - when you worked out what colour a pixel should be by tracing out a line to the object in front of it, you'd also mix that colour with the fog colour according to how far the object is away from the viewer. Then at some far-away distance, all objects would be exactly the same colour, and you wouldn't have to do any further calculations. It could sometimes produce [weird effects](_URL_1_) if the fog doesn't match up with the rest of the background. But real fog isn't like this - as light passes through it, it scatters, making things in fog look blurry. It's partially transparent, meaning you can see things on the other side, but also the fog at the same time. So suppose you run the above algorithm for fog: you trace out a line for a single pixel and discover the first thing it hits is a region of fog. You can't just colour that pixel according to the properties of fog, because then the fog would be opaque, so you have to first do the calculations for what is illuminating that little area of fog, and then continue calculating. A naïve approach would be to continue the line through the fog until it hits an opaque object, and mix the colour of the opaque object with the colour of the fog according to the distance of the line segment that passed through the fog, [like this](_URL_3_). Already this is more complicated, but this is not a perfect simulation. As I said, fog scatters light: each photon that passes through can be randomly disturbed so that it goes off at another angle. Also, the single line you trace through the fog might pass through a region which is shadowed - [like in this photograph](_URL_0_) and those patches should be darker than if you just treated every path through the fog of the same length the same. So what you really need to do is calculate the illumination at every single point through the fog, randomly make the line you're tracing bounce off somewhere else. Except you can't do it randomly because then each frame, and for each adjacent pixel, the angle would be different - you'd get a flickering mess of noise. Instead you want to simulate the fact that each pixel is the aggregate of billions of rays of light, and simulate that they're all bouncing at once! Of course, it's not possible to trace billions of lines for each pixel that hits fog, nor to calculate illumination at every point within it, so games use tricks, but to get the look correct, you still need to do a lot of extra calculation.\n\nIf I may digress a little, the problem is that you can't treat things like fog as being *homogeneous.* For 3D that means you can't treat light going through it as having only two interactions: one at the beginning and one at the end. (In fact it would be better to just have one interaction!) The traditional approach to cheaply modelling transparent objects is to pretend that a ray of light passes into, say, a glass paperweight, changes angle once due to refraction, passes through the paperweight being continuously attenuated as it does so, exits out the other side and is refracted again. The ray of light does not change path inside the glass, it never encounters a bubble, trapped piece of dust or anything else. If you want to simulate this things that occur in a *heterogenous* transparent object, where interesting things may happen inside, you have to chop the object up into thousands of pieces small enough that you can't see them, and perform complex calculations as your ray of light passes through each tiny volume. This is a general problem in simulation: whenever you can't deal with something as being defined by a simple process inside it, a start and an end, things get hard.\n\n**Digression over:**\n\nFire is like glowing fog, so it has a lot of the same problems, but it also represents something very hard: a light source with size. When you calculate the illumination of an object, it's much easier if you can pretend all the light from each source is coming from a single infinitely small point, rather than being spread over, say, the element of a lightbulb, or a fluorescent tube, or a whole fire. This is because to accurately simulate the illumination you'd need to act as if there were millions of tiny lights all over the surface of the object, and calculate how far and at what angle they were to the thing being lit up. Millions of lights means millions of calculations - which again is not possible, and again the tricks that can be used to fake it are still computationally expensive. But also if you want to simulate the way fire moves rather than just recording a video of it, that is a very difficult process. Again you are reduced to trying to simulate the fire as lots of tiny particles - but nowhere near as many particles as makes up a real fire. So you try to apply physical laws to the particles but they can't actually behave physically because they're too big or because information like the air currents in the environment is lacking. Usually people just use a recording with some tricks to make it look less like a recording.",
"When the camera is looking at a solid object the computer only needs to calculate the color based on the most basic info- desired texture, ambient light, angle, etc. \n\nWhen the camera is looking at a translucent or transparent object (such as fire and fog) it needs to calculate this information for both the object you are looking through and the object behind it, as well as calculating how looking through one effects the other (opacity, refraction index, etc. ) each layer making it more complicated. Reflections have this effect too, as the computer effectively sends a line from the camera, calculates the effects of the object it hits (reflection, finish, color, opacity, angle of reflection) and adds to it the information for the object it lands on (when I was learning 3D modeling this was called Ray-Tracing). Again, the more objects the GPU has to consider, the more information it has to calculate, the slower it goes. \n\nShadows use the ray-trace effect as well but the rays come from the light source and trace around objects. ",
"Any shadow casting light is essentially a camera with a little less overhead than the one you are playing with. So if there are 6 shadow casting lights in the scene, you are almost rendering the scene 6 times. You can increase performance by lowering the resolution of those light sources or by lowering the distance that they see the world with. \n \nFog is expensive, because it involves transparency which is ridiculously expensive. It essentially renders the affected area twice and then makes the texture transparent. If you have more than two overlapping transparent textures, the complexity increases exponentially. \n \nFire is difficult, because it is a very complicated phenomenon that moves and usually has portions that are transparent AND they cast light.",
"Fire and certain types of fog require transparency. In order to draw something that is transparent you need to draw the pixels behind it first. In order to make fire and fog look realistic you need to use multiple images which means the GPU has to redraw the same pixel multiple times. This is called overdraw.",
"Imagine your graphics card is a famed renaissance painter named Giancarlo Pasquali Uberti sitting in a room. In this room is a canvas, paint, and a pneumatic messaging tube like they have at bank drive-thrus. Giancarlo also has a brother named Cirino Pasquali Uberti that he works with. Cirino can't paint, but he's great with customers and runs their shop. Cirino's job is to take orders for paintings, then send messages to Giancarlo that tell him what to paint. He can't fit big messages in the tube, though, it's real small, so each message tells Giancarlo how to paint a single object. A message might be like \"Paint an apple 50cm from the left edge of the canvas, 20cm from the top\". Giancarlo is very fast, but it takes him longer to finish a painting if he has to paint lots of individual things (it wastes time writing a message, sending the message through the tube, opening it up, reading it), or if he has to paint a really big canvas.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nNow, Cirino and Giancarlo are pretty smart, and they've figured out some tricks to make paintings go faster. Cirino takes great notes while talking to customers, and knows how far away each object in the painting is supposed to be. This is known as its depth. While Cirino isn't a good painter, he's very organized, so he sorts the messages by depth, closest object to furthest, and throws away any objects that are hidden behind something else. The only messages he sends to Giancarlo are just those objects that will be seen in the painting. This is way faster! Giancaralo knows that it's in order, so he doesn't have to waste time painting things that overlap. Since it takes time to paint an area of the canvas (the bigger the area, the more time), this is very efficient. Giancarlo doesn't have to paint over the same spots on the canvas at all, he just paints every spot once.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nThen comes a job to paint a still life with a frosted glass vase in it. Cirino sorts everything, and realizes there's a problem. The glass vase is translucent, you can see through it, so it changes how stuff behind it looks since it isn't totally clear. No amount of sorting can fix this, and he eventually realizes that Giancarlo is going to have to paint over the same spot twice to get the right look (remember, he can only tell Giancarlo to paint one object at a time in his messages). The clever brothers think about this for a while, and come up with an idea.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nTheir new plan is to work on the same painting twice. First, they do what they usually do, sort all the solid objects front-to-back, and only paint the ones that can be seen. Second, they sort all the see-through objects back-to-front and Giancarlo paints each one in order, still careful not to paint any that would be hidden behind a solid object. Sorting the see-through objects back-to-front makes sure they look right if two see-through objects overlap, like if you're looking at that frosted vase through a stained glass window. It wouldn't look right if they painted the vase in front of the window! The results look great, but it's a lot more work than just painting solid objects.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nNow, for just a single vase it's not so bad, but once you have a scene with lots of smoke, fog, shadows, etc, Giancarlo spends a lot of time going over and over and over spots he's already painted to build up these translucent layers. This slows things down, and it's a big reason why your GPU struggles with these sorts of effects.",
"These are nice answers but missing a factor. The limitation with those things is fill rate which is \"how fast can it put pixels into memory\". Fill rate is why a game runs slower if you increase resolution. Higher resolution means more pixels, which take longer to fill.\n\nWhen a program draws into some pixels that already have graphics in, that's called overdraw. If you overdraw the whole screen, you are filling every pixel twice, which means you need twice the fill rate it takes to draw every pixel once. The static geometry of a level generally doesn't over draw very much, two or three times is typical.\n\nBecause fog and fire are partly transparent, they are drawn on top of the existing pixels. Fire is composed of lots of small images, drawn on top of each other. Fog is usually done with bigger images that take even more fill rate. To make matter worse, to \"draw on top\" the graphic card had to read the existing colour of the pixel and mix it with the colour of the fog/fire. So it has to both read and write the pixel which takes longer again.\n\nShadows are generally done with a method that requires you to render the whole scene from the perspective of the light. That almost doubles the required fill rate for every light that casts shadows.\n\nEfficient rendering systems are designed to minimise the use of fill rate as much as possible. Modern GPU have many sets of pixel filling hardware and keep them all working as much as possible. But things like fire, fog and shadows require some pixel filling tasks to complete before they can start.",
"I feel like a lot of the answers on here are missing the \"like I'm 5\" part.\n\nAs far as the animation of fog and fire they are represented by particles. Each particle makes a shape based on some behind the scenes math, but only one particle doesn't make for a convincing fire or fog. So the game has to create many particles with even more complex behind the scenes math to tell the particles which way to go, how long to live, the size and shape at birth and death, if it's colliding with other objects, how it can spread or if it can spread, is it making light or is it interacting with other light sources... So the computer has to keep track of all of that information for each one of the particles. The more realistic the fog or fire, the more particles, the more the computer has to keep track of.\n\nThis leads to the shadows. One shadow is pretty easy. There is one source that sends light in a direction from it. When that light interacts with, say a character, it has to take in all of the shapes it hits on the character. The light draws a gradient from light to dark on each of the shapes it hits and then it also draws cast shadows. Those cast shadows on everything on the other side from the source.\n (source) < < Light < < {character} ~~cast shadow~~ [ground]\nNow that's relatively straight forward and doesn't take much power from the computer. That's why in a lot of fast paced games there is one global light that casts a fairly simple shadow under the characters. But, when you start adding more light sources in more cinematic games, with more objects interacting with it, with fog interacting with it, and fire with light making particles it compounds how much math the computer has to figure out to make everything look correct.\n\nHope this was ELI5 enough.\n\nSauce: Am animation director.",
"The shortest and simplest ELI5 I think is that, as in real life:\n\n- Fire generates light.\n- Fog blocks and alters light.\n- Shadows are cast by light from different sources.\n\nAll these things either generate or alter light and dynamic light calculations are complex and grow exponentially with the amount of light sources and alteration sources present.\n\nthe addition of 1 light source does not just add one light source or one more shadow to a scene, an additional light source interacts with the other light sources and every new light source or alteration in the available light alters the effects of every other light source or alteration in the available light.\n\nA really simplistic analogy on the scope of adding just one light source or alteration to light is this:\n\nImagine counting to 9.\n\nYou can do that in 9 counts and it'll take you under 10 seconds.\n\nNow add 1 more digit.\n\nNow you have to count to 99, which takes a lot longer, around 1 and a half minute.\n\nNow add another digit.\n\nNow you have to count to 999, which will take you around 17 minutes.\n\nNow another one.\n\nNow you have to count to 9999, which will take you over 2 and a half hours.\n\nAnd so on.\n\nSimilar complexity exists in calculating the effects of light sources in 3D.\n\n\nIn 3D Processing there are a ton of shortcuts and tricks to limit how large an impact a single light source has, but the effect will still be great with every one you add.",
"Here is an actual ELI 5 for fires:\n\nTake one of your translucent gift wrap sheet with patterns on it, similar as [this one](_URL_1_). Cut them into multiple of sizes of squares(usually GPU render sprite to make fire with most with most, cause it's only 2 triangles).\n\nNow, prepare a big grid paper [like this](_URL_0_) on your table, then throw that piles of square gift warp sheets on to the grid.\n\nThen for each grid space, these represent your on monitor pixels. You have to count how many of those sheets overlap on each of them, and then count how many patterns on top of the grid space.\nAfter you are done with one grid space, you can move onto next one.\n\nAs you can see, if you switch from translucent to opaque colored paper, it's going to be much easier because of 2 things:\n\n* you know when you need to start counting color for pixel and you don't have to throw pixels away when there are no pattern on top.\n\n* because it's opaque, so anything underneath doesn't matter you just count once and note the color.\n\nThat's where the demanding calculation come from, the more translucent cards you throw in your game, the more wasted computing power cause there are a lot of unused space on the cards.\n\n\nfor fog it's similar to fire, just that it's a volume filled with different opacity value, instead of cards in space.\n\nFor shadow, it's not always demanding depending on rendering technique or style. But in region where your pixel color is illuminated by multiple light sources, obviously you need to calculate result color for each light. And since you need to check if possible lights are blocked by nearby geos, you ended up having to do the opaque color query in 3D space. That's also why games still needs to bake light maps(even UE4 still uses light maps) to reduce run time cost for shadows that doesn't change.\n",
"Objects have well defined surfaces which can be made from polygons where as fire and fog are volume fillers which is much harder to draw.",
"Just logic here but shit man compared to just still images there's alot going on image wise in fire and fog. It's more complicated so therefore it's harder to make",
"It is about the number of things you see. The smog itself PLUS the things behind it. The shadow itself PLUS the ground, that is a mix between draw the ground, determine the direction of the shadow and the ground shadowing itself.\n\nEdit: this is a reason for Minecraft to be so heavy processing, lots of blocks and dropped items are visible at the same time, and each one has its own set of proprierties ready to be triggered. Walk by will make them emit walk noises, break them will take specific times. Er... oh, I think I lost myself a bit.",
"Everything a graphics card renders is a geometric shape. \n\nEach geometric shape, no matter how big or small, takes basically the same amount of power to render.\n\nThe less like a geometric shape the thing is you're trying to render is, the more shapes you'll need to combine to make it. Organic-looking objects are the least geometric things. \n\nOn top of that, if the items are not 100% solid, you'll need to render items behind it as well. \n\nNow let's say that the object generates its own light (like fire) or modifies the existing light as it passes through (like fog) and you're complicating things even more. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Fog_shadow_of_a_tree-crepuscular_rays.JPG",
"http://treditor.hu/7/gmac/nglemanual/weather09.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Ray_trace_diagram.svg",
"http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20011003/boyd_01.gif"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://inspirationhut.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/0.62.jpg",
"http://g03.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB16a.5NVXXXXbPaFXXq6xXFXXXv/New-High-Grade-Mist-Side-Of-font-b-Wrapping-b-font-Paper-Translucent-Fog-Light-Scrapbooking.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
og10d | why does anyone think capitalism is a good thing? | I mean, yeah, I get that prior to Capitalism governments tended to be monarchies, oligarchies, or dictatorships, and obviously those suck. And I get that the societies that have tried to establish socialism or communism have kinda been big flops. But how is Capitalism way better than any of these? It seems to me that capitalism is basically just a way to cover up an oligarchy, and the elites in charge of our society want people to think capitalism is great so they can continue to govern in such a way that protects their interests. Meanwhile, it seems like everyone not tied to those elites are struggling or suffering just as much as they would be in a monarchy. Am I missing something? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/og10d/eli5_why_does_anyone_think_capitalism_is_a_good/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3gxmie",
"c3gxnux"
],
"score": [
13,
5
],
"text": [
"Generally speaking, capitalism does a good job of allocating resources where they are deemed by society to be valuable. This is particularly true of relatively low-cost, high-volume goods - to the best of my knowledge, nobody ever said they thought the government should use taxes to provide toilet roll holders, for example, because the market does a good job of efficiently providing them for us. \n \nAt its core, capitalism is merely a system that says you take out what you've put in. I won't go into great length but basically you can see money as a way of keeping score of who has contributed the most to the collective bounty, with that value being determined by society at large. In that respect, there is nothing inherently oligarchic about capitalism, and it can actually be seen as a widely inclusive social endeavour.",
"You are missing all the massive amounts of data that constitute \"quality of living\". Capitalistic societies generally far outperform those other systems you mentioned in terms of this quality of living.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
380ew7 | why can we move the ring finger up while placing hand palm down, with the middle finger rolled inside? | image - > [Imgur](_URL_0_) | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/380ew7/elif_why_can_we_move_the_ring_finger_up_while/ | {
"a_id": [
"crr9fn8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The ring and middle finger share a tendon, so placing the middle finger down forces the ring finger to be held in place."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/sL9TMRp.jpg"
] | [
[]
] |
|
62fhor | digging straight through earth. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62fhor/eli5_digging_straight_through_earth/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfm3uv6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Here's an askscience thread on exactly the same topic:\n\n > _URL_0_\n\nAs the top comment says, you'd either simply fall out of the hole on the other side, or you'd come to a rest at the center of the planet, depending on air resistance. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/460fp2/so_if_i_dug_a_hole_straight_through_the_earth/"
]
] |
||
3m0sz8 | how does a free app like "lucky day" afford to give out free money with no adds? does anyone actually win? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m0sz8/eli5_how_does_a_free_app_like_lucky_day_afford_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvb0fg5"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"They have deals with the owners of the apps they represent. That means when someone downloads an app through their service they will get paid. This way all parties have an advantage. You get a nice app. The free app developer gets someone to use their app. And the Free Apps app gets money from the developer they represent. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
auiei8 | why is it longer for human to adapt from light to night than night to light? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/auiei8/eli5_why_is_it_longer_for_human_to_adapt_from/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh8cwey"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your eyes work by constantly producing chemicals that is broken down by light. By measuring how much chemicals is in your vision cells you can find out how much light they receive. When it is light there is very little chemicals present and when it is dark there is lots of chemicals. However it takes your cells about half an hour to fill up. So when you go from dark to light it only takes a few seconds for the light to break down the chemicals but when you go from light to dark it takes several minutes for your cells to fill up with chemicals again and become sensitive to the small amount of light present."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.