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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3wyl3f | how can i get calls from numbers that, if i try to call back, apparently don't exist? | Every once in a while I get a call from some unknown number, likely some sort of scam. But occasionally I try calling back to see who's on the other end, to get a message saying "this number is not allocated". How do they do this? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3wyl3f/eli5_how_can_i_get_calls_from_numbers_that_if_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxzwruh",
"cy01m2b",
"cy01q67"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Many places of business have their own telephone switch which has a limited number of outgoing lines. The outgoing lines are expensive, so to save money they will oversubscribe the lines as a pool. When someone in the building makes a call to the outside, the buildings switch will assign that user one of the outgoing line numbers to use while on the call. When that user is done with the call, that outgoing number is returned to the pool to await the next caller. If you try to call one of the numbers in the pool, it will seem like it doesn't exist.",
"It is called spoofing. Basically they use software that tricks the caller ID system into thinking it came from a different number. What is really funny is some trick it into believing the call came from the number it is going to ei. Your number.",
"Telemarketers use call-ID spoofing for their robocalls. They basically contract companies that [lease out thousands of phone numbers to anonymous voice-mail providers who, in combination with dubious companies like “Phone Broadcast Club” (who do the actual spoofing), allow phone spam to become an increasingly widespread and pervasive problem.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing"
]
] |
|
5c6gyg | why do drive throughs make you wait out front for your food even though no one is behind you? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5c6gyg/eli5_why_do_drive_throughs_make_you_wait_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9u123r",
"d9u12sj",
"d9u1hxo"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you sitting at the drive through for several minutes would imply that the drive through is not efficient",
"DQ employee here. \nGet orders done quicker if another customer comes up before we're done with yours. This way, we don't have a sudden line build up. Because that happens even without having customers pull off the line for certain items. I remember once we didn't do it, and in about 10 minutes of trying to repair the ice cream machine we had a line out to the road (about 6 cars) that ordered almost entirely non-ice cream stuff. ",
"I worked at McDonald's during teens, this may be at McDonald's only but we have a time limit on cars getting them in and out of the drive in less than 3 minutes and 30 seconds or we essentially \"lose the car\" which means that we lose score for our restaurant we vs other stores and try to keep the bosses happy because they check at the end of each month how many cars we lose with the time and how the store can improve with fastness and being organised. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
11003o | why is marriage under control of the state, in america? | Here I am in Utah, a HUGE republican state, and everyone is all butt hurt about same sex marriage, and I'm wondering why is this even the government's business? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11003o/eli5_why_is_marriage_under_control_of_the_state/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6i39sm",
"c6i5izs",
"c6i6dfk",
"c6i6y6j",
"c6i7ar4",
"c6i8uih",
"c6i99q4",
"c6iaki1",
"c6idd22",
"c6ifb9k"
],
"score": [
24,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The government (whether Federal or State) has to be involved at least in some degree because there are various legal implications to being married (taxes, probate, etc.). Someone has to decide what is a marriage or you would everyone marrying each other for the legal benefits. I mean if you don't care about it being recognized legally, then sure it isn't really anyone's business and you can say you are married to a rock.\n\nThe reason why the States are in charge and not the Federal government is because of the Constitution. The Federal government is one of limited power and only can do what is outlined by the Constitution. The reason why our Founding Fathers set it up this way is because they didn't want an all powerful central government like the monarchy they overthrew. Nowadays, the motivations behind it aren't really there anymore because the Federal government can generally do what it wants. But it still leaves a lot of things up to the states, such as marriage, general police power, etc.",
"not how I would tell a five year old but it expresses my view best\n\n_URL_0_",
"One of the purposes of the government is to incentivize and disincentivize things that are negative or beneficial for society as a whole. Someone who steals a car may be benefiting himself, but is reducing the value of society as a whole, and so, if caught, they are sent to jail. Someone who donates to cancer research is hurt financially on a personal level, but helps the country as a whole, so the government encourages them by giving them a tax break. Under our current system, there are many things about marriage that the government deems desirable to the country as a whole, such as raising children, forming stable partnerships, emotionally supporting each other, and limiting disease spread. To encourage monogamous pair-bonding, the government provides a number of incentives, and needs a codified way of determining who gets them. None of this has anything to do with the genders of the people pair-bonding, but historical culture makes people reticent to change.\n\nAnother important reason is the importance of being able to codify what is a family member. If you get in a car accident and are put in a coma, your mother can make medical decisions for you, but your plumber can't, even if you're good friends with them. As a society we've determined that only a set number of close relatives can be considered to make medical decisions for you or have hospital visitation rights. There should be an easy system to add people you care about to that list, and marriage is one easy way to do it.\n\nBelow is a list of all the benefits married couples get federal protection for:\n\n_URL_0_",
"In what part of the world is it not?",
"In short, 9th amendment.\n\nPowers not given to the national government are given to the states.\n\nIt just isn't a national law yet.",
"I'm with you. I'm not pro-gay marriage because I'm anti-marriage! (to be clear I'm pro-gay rights and if straights get to marry, so should gays, but ultimately I just don't get why there is even a legal state of being married).",
"The big reason here is that our society has decided there is a social benefit to reliable, legally enforced marriages. Child support exists because we don't like deadbat dads running out on their kids. Preferential tax codes exist because we want to support parents choosing to be home makers. This is why the government gets involved in the first place. ",
"I read somewhere that marriage licences were first issued by the state to control interracial marriages. ",
"So we should let churches make the laws? WFT?",
"The central purpose of marraige (the legal institution) is to provide the state with a way to do two things.\n\n1. Allow citizens to create new family's (Legally speaking Marraige is the creation of a family as a civil unit recognizing the merging of two families)\n\n2.Promoting people to have children. (kids cost money and the state wants people to have kids) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmpf5-tuDEo"
],
[
"http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6ofdhn | why do british criminals typically not use firearms in their criminal activity like their american counterparts. is there not a black market for firearms? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6ofdhn/eli5_why_do_british_criminals_typically_not_use/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkgx6u4",
"dkgxrae",
"dkgy9ko",
"dkgyt6r",
"dkh4wlu"
],
"score": [
11,
8,
8,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Much harder to obtain firearms, very rare to have them in the criminal side of things as well. \n\nThere's far more guns in the countryside due to farmers ... And farmers mum's.",
"A lot of speculation and assumption even from brits. \nI won't self incriminate but I use to be quite deep down the rabbit hole a time ago in regards to crime and a bad crowd. Guns are rife, the majority of crimes are impulse driven and most people don't carry firearms typically but a huge amount of people possess guns \"just in case\" and some do carry them. Gun use is glamorised in more mainstream rap / grime within the UK however the people Ive known that would kill /killed have always favored using their hands instead, the largest single reason for not using firearms in the UK is not how hard it is to acquire them, but rather most things can be settled with a knife here, so why use one? ",
"There are a bunch of reasons for it.\n\nFirst, guns aren't readily available. You could certainly find them if you wanted to, but it takes some amount of effort. In the US, it's relatively trivial to get your hands on a gun, so many shady characters just pick one up at some point and have it if they ever want one. Most criminals aren't making elaborate plans for intricate criminal enterprises, they're just people who are trying to make a quick buck, and if they don't already have a gun, they're not going to spend much effort trying to get one.\n\nSecond, they're not really necessary. If you're a common thief, you're unlikely to encounter a gun in the course of your criminal activity, whether in the hands of a civilian, another criminal, or a police officer, so you're in fine shape if you don't have one.\n\nThird, guns are highly, obviously illegal. This sounds like a dumb consideration if you're already committing a crime, but not all criminal activity is equally risky, and criminals know it. If a cop stops you and finds some drugs or stolen goods, you can try to explain it away and maybe you end up doing some jail time or maybe you end up with some community service or even get off. If a cop stops you and finds a gun, you've got no reasonable defense and you're going to be going to jail for a long time. Even if you have a gun, carrying it around in public increases your risk of negative consequences a lot.\n\nSo, carrying a gun takes some extra effort, carries a lot of risk, and brings with it a comparatively low benefit.",
"Firearms are much harder to get some of my family own firearms. To own one you need a safe for the fire arm a safe for the ammunition, then the local constabulary give you a license and then you can buy the fire arm and a moderate amount of ammunition for it. You are limited to how many fire arms you can own and you need to be in touch with the police to get one. Therefore it is very difficult to get a gun into the illegal world from the legal world. \n \nBecause most crims don't have guns if you are to a criminal you don't need a gun to counter it, acid or a knife does the job, or the acid knifes which are horrid. No point spending a fuck tonne on a pistol when you can buy a knife for a few pound and acid appears fairly cheap. \n \nIn Northern Ireland there are more guns, because the Germans smuggled them in in throughout the 1900s and the IRAs and other such groups raided British Bases. \n \nThat's not to say there aren't guns in Great Britain just knifes are easier to get and can do the job well enough. ",
"We don't need them. Honestly, its not worth the risk of being caught with one or getting shot by armed police. Besides, our robbers are gentleman thieves who admit to their crimes:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatton_Garden_safe_deposit_burglary"
]
] |
||
5mfzp9 | why are the odds of a coin toss 51/49% in favor of the face-up side? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5mfzp9/eli5_why_are_the_odds_of_a_coin_toss_5149_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dc3afxj",
"dc3b0ha"
],
"score": [
4,
7
],
"text": [
"One side of the coin is heavier than the other.\n\nIf you were to hold the coin up perfectly at 90 degrees and cut it in half exactly on the balance point touching the surface it is on, so that each half had one face of the coin, and compare the two resulting halves, one half would be slightly heavier.\n\nWhat this means is that in order for the coin to be properly balanced, with its center of weight (center of mass) directly over the balance point, it would have to lean slightly away from the heavier side, otherwise it would fall to the heavier side.\n\nSince there's a slight bias to fall towards the heavier side, the side will tend to be the down face just ever so slightly more often than it will be the up face. The reason that the coin doesn't fall to that side more often is because, since the coin is so thin, the times when that difference in weight will be the deciding factor is very small, so it's still close to 1:2, just not quite 1:2\n\nFor the same reason, dice with traditional pips on the sides drill different depths of pip so that the center of balance of the die is as close to the center as possible (otherwise, trick dice may have small weights in them off center to increase the odds that the die will fall to a certain face- this is why Vegas dice are see-through and have the pips painted on instead of drilled in- to prevent someone using a rigged die)",
"It actually has to do with math, and the amount of time each side of the coin spends face up.\n\nLets do a thought experiment:\n\nYou flip a coin. Right then, the side that was up is going up and turning. Lets say we started with tails ('cause I'm an ass man). So, Tails is the first state.\n\nIt flips and flips and flips and we end up with an arbitrarily long number of THTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTH.\n\nNow, we have one of two outcomes:\n\n* 1. We end up with an equal amount of T and H (starting T, ending H). This is 50/50.\n* 2. We end up with one more T (starting T, ending T). This is not 50/50, and benefits T.\n\nBut since we start with T, we can never have a situation where we start with H *and* end with H for this toss, which would benefit H. When we average out over a bunch of trials, we end up with slightly more T overall than H. For example, we count the amount of times each side of the coin was face up during the toss:\n\n > Trial 1: 50 tails, 50 heads (result, heads)\n\n > Trial 2: 51 tails, 50 heads (result, heads)\n\n > Trial 3: 50 tails, 50 heads (result, tails)\n\n > Trial 4: 50 tails, 50 heads (result, heads)\n\n > Trial 5: 51 tails, 50 heads (result, tails)\n\n > Trial 6: 51 tails, 50 heads (result, tails)\n\nNow, if you paid attention you'd notice we got 3 tails, 3 heads. 50/50 right?\n\nWell, lets sum and average: 6\\*50/6 = 50 | (6\\*50+3)/6 = 50.5\n\nTails spends slightly more time face up than heads does. If we average this out over infinite number of trials, we tend towards 51 for Tails, or whichever side of the coin was face up for our tests.\n\n[Here's a lot of math.](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://statweb.stanford.edu/~susan/papers/headswithJ.pdf"
]
] |
||
b6ucbi | do our bodies really have pressure points that can paralyse certain parts like our arms for example, only if for a couple of minutes? | I’ve been watching a couple of Kung-Fu movies and I’ve been wondering if this is actually true in reality. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b6ucbi/eli5_do_our_bodies_really_have_pressure_points/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejn5j3f"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"they're called nerves, have you ever sat on you leg till it goes numb and then you feel like what can only be described as \"TV static\". This happens because you nerves send electricals signals to and from the brain but when pressure is applied it disrutps this procces untill they can relax.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nbut getting paralized from getting hit in a certain area it's not realistically portrayed in movies/popular culture, but sure you can hit someone in the right spot/nerve and cause serious nerve damage but that's not gonna go away in a couple of minutes."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4h7b0f | why do extremist groups hate the western world so much, namely usa? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4h7b0f/eli5_why_do_extremist_groups_hate_the_western/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2nzul6",
"d2o0lc6",
"d2o1utx",
"d2o2p2n",
"d2o2qn2",
"d2o2zlx",
"d2o364q",
"d2o7fbg",
"d2onb1l"
],
"score": [
53,
272,
8,
4,
63,
5,
15,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Because our government has meddled in foreign affairs so many times, causing military coups and even assassinating heads of state, most countries affected ended up worse off because of it.\n\nThe rest of the world has every right to hate America, and yet we as Americans do nothing about it. ",
"Imagine another country invaded your country or countries in your general area, bombed the fuck out of it, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people(imagine your brother or sister or mother or father or wife dying). They kill all these people all under the pretense of some made up political bullshit and the real reason they are there is to secure your countries highly valuable natural resource. This is how people become susceptible to radicalization, where religious groups (with a common enemy) say they are going to kill the invaders. \n\nEdit: before anyone gets super serious guys, all I'm doing is empathizing with the common person in a war torn country. These views don't necessarily reflect my view rather how I'm sure the average person in war torn countries feel about the US and its allies. ",
"Cuz we've been meddling in their affairs for a hundred years, mainly since world war 1. Not being political, just being a student of history. Before then we minded our own business pretty well but since we started supporting certain rulers, overthrowing others, arming various rebel groups to purposefully destabilize regimes we didn't like, there's a lot of people who got sick of it.\n\nI mean if Russia had been constantly using money and weapons to depose rulers and decide things for you here in America, you'd be pretty pissed too right? It's just logical.",
"Might not be ELI5 but [this article] (_URL_0_) goes into some of the potential reasons why.",
"Don't forget the legacy of colonization, wherein Western powers -- mainly Europeans-- occupied territories all around the world, imposing puppet governments on diverse ethnic groups who never should have been forced to live together under a common authority. That's why numerous people suggest a solution for the Middle East today would be to split up Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan into ethnically and religiously homogeneous regions.",
"It represents the status quo, the current apex of world power. Extremists, by definition, fight against the status quo. There are many other reasons specific groups hate it, as given by others in the thread, but that is why *all* extremist groups dislike it.",
"Extremists by definition hold unpopular beliefs. They always have many groups and nations they hate. \n\nNationalism or politically driven groups (pretty much all of them) have reasons to hate the USA because the USA is the greatest military power and political influence in the world. The USA is of course interested in maintaining it's power and influence and this involves meddling with other sovereign nations; during the cold war this was primarily attempting to curb the spread of Communism, now of course, the constant attempts to achieve political stability in the ME and therefore a more stable oil price worldwide. Oil is the literal fuel of industrial, developed, westernized society and this makes ME meddling unavoidable and inevitable. \n\nThe ME was left reeling politically after the Ottoman empire fell and they fell under European control until the aftermath of WW2 where the ME (amongst other parts of the world) was split by these European countries into many countries whose borders have little to no consideration for all the many-thousands year old hatreds and rivalries between ancient tribes. To add to the reasons for widespread hatred of the West in ME, there are many nations and states in the ME who are very wary of the West and the USA which has used questionable tactics to perform great misdeeds to the citizens of these nations. \n\nI can speak to the ME theist extremists and their hatred for the USA and the western world as a whole and will do so now. \n\nTheist, or more specifically Jihadist as well as Islamist ME groups hate the West most primarily due to irreconcilable cultural differences. \n\nBut they also so actively conduct war on the West in order to make themselves to be, in the eyes of the ME citizens, the only hope for freedom from Western influence; the main strategy for accomplishing this is to conquer the West and make it Muslim land. \nIslam's tenants rotate a lot around land, the Prophet Mohammed was real and was a warlord who conquered Mecca and other lands in his lifetime. The Muslim faith, like so many others, was spread quickly and effectively through conquest and violence. The Islam holy kingdom called the Caliphate was established and has since fallen, but returning this Caliphate is the current promise the Jihadists and Islamists make; to restore stability to the ME through bringing back the Caliphate. \n\nThe west, unsurprisingly, really does not want this. The current governments of the ME (perhaps minus Saudi Arabia) do not want this because it means the end of their power, but for now, they are happy to fund these Jihadist groups to fight a nation they don't like and dodge around a US intervention.",
"probably the same reason youd hate Iran or saudi arabia if their drones where blowing up your city looking to bomb donald rumsfeld and george bush. oh and the president of united states was an iranian/saudi puppet selling all of your nations resources and the money was being pocketed by iranian business men while you're scrounging for bread and milk thru the rumble that used to be your neighbourhood and finding body parts of your loved ones. other than that, i think everything is cool between the west and the middle east. oh and plasma tvs. i think your views on saudi arabia and iran would be extreme too. buts thats still no excuse.",
"Extremist groups come in all shapes, sizes, and identities. Not all of them are Muslim and not all of them hate the west. \n\nYou have some that are fighting to turn back the clock in the west and put things as they were. These are silly people, they don't see that their world has long since faded away. \n\nStill there are more that are afraid of change and fight to preserve their small world. They are afraid of the world itself. They feel as though they will lose the most important parts of themselves. \n\nIt's kind of like when a little boy or girl starts to potty train or their first day of school. At first they resist it, but in the end they embrace the changes. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://historybuff.com/hate-us-7-pretty-good-reasons/?utm_content=inf_10_3107_2&utm_source=se_fb&utm_medium=social_fb_cpc&utm_campaign=social_e_fb&tse_id=INF_dbf12ff5cea046a2a29e1bb3d902175e&ts_pid=343"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ag8c6f | how do multiple programmers work on a game/project together? do they each work on completely different parts or do they have to communicate on what they've been doing and what needs to be done? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ag8c6f/eli5_how_do_multiple_programmers_work_on_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ee48auw",
"ee48lxm",
"ee4aaqh",
"ee4j1js",
"ee4pwih"
],
"score": [
70,
56,
29,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Planning, documenting code, and compartmentalizing tasks.\n\nOr, in lots of cases, it's just total chaos.",
"There is a lot of communication. It's fairly common to have daily updates about what everyone is doing.\n\nOn a big project there's no way for everyone to know exactly what everyone else is doing, but you might know broadly what each sub-team is working on. \n\nDevelopers use \"source control\" software. What that means is there is a server with a \"master\" or \"main\" version of the code, and each individual submits their work to that, and it tells you if someone else has made changes to the same file so you can merge the changes. \n\nThis also allows \"branching\" where you can make a copy of the code for a specific group of people to work on without interfering with what anyone else is doing. Then they can merge that back into the main version when they have finished the work they are doing.\n\n",
"I’m actually in this situation! \n\n1. A project manager controls what we do (what issues we should work on, who works on what, time to spend on any issue, etc.). He makes sure we don’t waste time chasing weird stuff and we don’t both do the same thing. \n\n2. We have a workflow system that tracks issues and who is working on what. Basically, each to-do is listed separately and we can assign it to someone. When that person makes changes in response, others can comment on them, and there’s a do work - > peer review - > project manager review flow. \n\n3. We also have a version control system. There’s a master base of high-quality, stable code. When we want to change stuff, we make a branch, which is like a working copy. We then do work on the branch and when done, submit the changes for the review process mentioned above. If everything is okay, it gets merged (combined) into that master base. \n\n4. We have regular meetings that set the direction until the next meeting. This helps to keep our development process focused. ",
"In a corporate environment, we have a few different systems involved such as:\n\n\\- Agile/SCRUM, basically how the team is organised, including stuff like updates on work done/to do etc. This also includes all the individuals in a team since naturally authority over development goes to the Team Lead (or Scrum Master, usually these two do the same thing) whilst ownership of features and determination of priority is the domain of the Product Owner. Which depending on the company could either be an external person paying your company for the work, or a senior (CTO etc) designated that role based on having gathered the requirements in the first place.\n\n\\- VCS (Version Control Systems), these track code from the beginning commit (i.e. creation of the repository. With repository being essentially just a specific location for a project)) all the way through any commits that have reached the remote repository (i.e. the web hosted one that a company pays for, as opposed to a local repository which exists just on your computer). These allow you to see what branches exist, when they were made, what changes were made, who they were made by etc.\n\n\\- Issue Tracking. Usually take the form of some ticketing system that allows you to specify: which project, what the issue is, current status, who is to work on it, priority level, story points etc. The priority of a ticket essentially determines when it gets done. If there's a lot of coding to do for a low priority issue, you can pretty much guarantee it's going to the backlog for a long time.\n\n\\- CI (Continuous Integration). This means that code can quickly become part of the whole system and therefore available to other developers with little effort. In essence it is essentially a pipeline between your code and the finished product. This is relatively newer, so a lot of companies are behind on this aspect.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nJust because these systems are in place doesn't mean it always works. For example you can \"break the build\" and become the laughing stock until the next person who does it. There are also merge conflicts, which occur like so:\n\n\\- A branch called \"master\" exists for some code\n\n\\- You make a branch from this code, called \"Branch1\" here\n\n\\- Another developer branches from the same code, called \"Branch2\" here\n\n\\- You make changes to Branch1\n\n\\- You Pull Request your code to the master branch, and it gets merged\n\n\\- The other developer makes changes in Branch2 that were in the same areas as your code in Branch 1 (not the same code, although it doesn't matter either way)\n\n\\- They pull request their code into the master branch, now they have a merge conflict to resolve.",
"Code is best built like lego blocks you can reuse and share. So you and me are gonna build a lego fort right. You will be responsible for building the other wall and trench and I will build the inner courtyard. You start by building a single wall design you can reuse and copy. You show me the wall to get my input and suggestions. I might approve your design and you put it in place. When im done with the inner courtyard you look at it aswell before we put it in place. \n\nIf we need to work on a tower or something at the same time we might divide our tasks between setting bricks, designing the staircase or painting the walls. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fuv2jt | why is it received badly when billionaires “only” donate millions? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fuv2jt/eli5_why_is_it_received_badly_when_billionaires/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmesqw2",
"fmet1k0",
"fmet51n"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's generally regarded as not particularly generous to give a fraction of your net worth so small that you probably won't even notice it, particularly if people see your vast wealth as having been obtained unethically or in an exploitative fashion. This isn't new; there's a biblical parable where Jesus tells his followers that a poor woman who gave two small copper coins gave more than any of the \"rich people who gave large amounts\".\n\nThink about it like this; would you be more grateful if a man with only a loaf of bread to his name broke it in half and gave you half to sate your hunger? Or if a billionaire gave you a whole loaf?",
"I will tell you one thing, billionaires don't have billions in cash, most of their wealth is things they own, stock, companies, etc. If you have a billion dollars with of Amazon stock, you couldn't convert to a billion dollars in cash. Why not? Because every time you sell some, the price drops. If you flood the market with stock you are selling, then the price plummets, because someone is always desperate to sell and will underbid (or technically under-offer) you. \nSo most billionaires just keep enough cash on hand to live their lives, they buy a lot of their stuff (yachts, houses, cars) on credit, at very attractive rates of course, and if they want to raise a bunch of cash, they have to sell off some of this property, which is annoying and time consuming. So thinking they are all Scrooge McDuck sitting on giant vaults of cash is ludicrous. \nSam Walton, the founder of Walmart, used to drive around in a 20 year old pickup truck because he didn't want to sell of any of his stock. So the perception of billionaires is not the same as reality.",
"First, on why. Its because its seen as more of a publicity stunt than anything at that point. Like, if I donate 10$ to charity and then strut around like I'm the greatest human being to live, I'm going to get called out too. \n\nPartially its because not everyone understands that liquid wealth and net worth are different. Many \"on paper\" millionaires are actually sorta broke. \n\nAs for obligation of those who do have huge liquid wealth reserves (Like Bill gates), I believe they have a responsibility. Not necessarily to donate to a charity, but to do something with their money to benefit society (such as selling water purification tools to poor countries at a loss). \n\n\"With Great power comes great responsibility\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
cvemti | what is the difference between a compound and a mixed substance? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cvemti/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_compound/ | {
"a_id": [
"ey3pkv0",
"ey42vee"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Imagine you have a bucket of lego bricks. Half of them are red and half are white.\n\nIf you just gently stir the bucket, you have a mixture of separate pieces.\n\nIf you go through and stick a red piece on every white piece, so they're all in pairs, you have a compound.",
"Compounds are different materials chemically bound to one another. Mixtures are just shuffled together"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1f8ztw | what are free radicals and antioxidants? | What do they do that makes them bad/good? Why do some foods have more of the antioxidants? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1f8ztw/eli5_what_are_free_radicals_and_antioxidants/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca7y8k9",
"ca7zctb",
"ca7zle5",
"ca817jq",
"ca81zh3",
"ca83qvq",
"ca85fuz",
"ca85obl",
"ca86ggx"
],
"score": [
174,
15,
30,
417,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Let's start by talking about oxygen. As I'm sure you're aware, oxygen is essential for us to carry out all sorts of biological processes. Unfortunately though, oxygen is extremely reactive and forms a bunch of different things - one of which is commonly referred to as a \"free radical.\" What this means is that the oxygen atom has one unpaired electron. Electrons love to be in pairs, and this oxygen atom will do whatever it takes to get another one. This is often at the expense of other essential components of cells (proteins, DNA, carbohydrates). A free radical doesn't have to involve oxygen; it refers to any element with that unpaired valence electron. The oxygen free radicals are commonly referred to as \"reactive oxygen species (ROS).\" \n\nAntioxidants are compounds that essentially neutralize the ROS. They are able to give up one extra electron to the oxygen safely without allowing the ROS to cause any damage elsewhere. Vitamins A, C, and E are the antioxidant vitamins. Different foods have a different make-up, so they have different antioxidant properties. ",
"Alton Brown did an amazing ELI5 explanation on \"Good Eats\" here: _URL_0_",
"**1. What are antioxidants?**\n\n\nIm sure someone will describe the chemistry of free radicals/antioxidants so Ill leave that to them. Im a dietitian who is doing my PhD in nutrition sciences so Ill describe it from that viewpoint. \n\n*Essentially,*\n\nFree radicals are things that are created through both completely normal processes (exercise, breathing) and abnormal processes (smoking, chemotherapy). They can damage your cells through a number of chemical reactions which have been implicated in many chronic diseases (heart disease, cancer etc). Antioxidants, either obtained through your diet or the antioxidants produced by our body (glutathione, SOD etc) are a vast array of different compounds that essentially interrupt these processes from continuing. The theory goes, less free radicals = less cells being damaged = less chronic diseases. The end (?). \n\n*However*\n\nLike I mentioned before, they can be generated through completely normal processes and are even beneficial to the body as they can act as signaling molecules for a number of vital pathways. Where it becomes a concern is when there is an imbalance between your free radicals and antioxidants. And that is that! ...right?\n\n*Maybe...*\n\nThe actual relevance this system has to chronic diseases is pretty contentious these days. In fact, most compounds that have been shown to be high in antioxidants actually have many other beneficial properties, in particular, anti-inflammatory properties and therefore, many people now suspect these other properties to be why these compounds are beneficial, not because of their antioxidant powers. Additionally, when you see foods/juices advertised for their antioxidant capacity (Mangosteen, pomegranaite, goji etc) this is usually based on a test tube analysis which says nothing about how they actually act in the body. \n\n**2. Why do some foods have more antioxidants?**\n\n\nThe reason why plants/fruits/nuts have the most antioxidants when compared to meat/animal products is because they cant run/fight/fly from their predators. Antioxidants act as a toxin to insects, a fungicide to fungus/bacteria as well as a way of protecting themselves from the elements (UV rays, cold). ",
"All day, you breathe air in and out. This is to get yourself oxygen, a type of atom which is very important to have. \n\nYour body needs oxygen because of one thing oxygen has, that not many other atoms have. Oxygen is very sticky. It's one of the stickiest atoms there are. Oxygen likes to stick to stuff because of it's \"electronegativity\", and it will try to stick to whatever it can.\n\nWhen you breathe in oxygen from the air, it comes in pairs. These are two oxygen atoms stuck together, making their stickyness cancel out. Your body knows how to unstick them and use them to glue other atoms together to form molecules that can be used throughout the body to make things, from bones to skin. But when a single lonely oxygen atom gets free, we call it a \"free radical\"\n\nA free radical is just a single oxygen atom, but remember how we said oxygen is very sticky? It will try to stick itself onto other molecules, even when it shouldn't! This can easily break things, because the molecules in your body have to be very carefully made. If an oxygen molecule just walks up and sticks to it, this is very bad.\n\nLucky for us, there's other types of molecules called \"antioxidants\". Antioxidants are molecules too, but they have a special slot just for sticky oxygen atoms. Antioxidant molecules are sticky too, but they have a shape that only fits with a sticky oxygen atom. If you eat antioxidants, they will go around your body gobbling up all the sticky oxygen atoms, before they stick to something they shouldn't.\n\nThey only work on sticky oxygen, they don't work on the paired oxygen you breath in, so don't worry about them using all the oxygen in your body.\n\nSome foods just happen to have a lot of antioxidants. It's because food is made up of molecules too, and some of those have more antioxidants than others. They make them on their own as they grow so they don't get broken by sticky lone oxygen molecules either. \n\nYour body makes it's own antioxidants too! But sometimes it can't make enough on it's own, so you need to eat them to get more. The healthier you eat, the more antioxidants you can get, and the less likely your body will get hurt by those sticky lone oxygen molecules.",
"Hi there! I'm a food scientist. I posted something similar to this a while back in response a question relating to antioxidants and cancer, you may find it relevant.\n\nThere as been a lot of talk about free radicals and anti-oxidants. The generalization is that anti-oxidants are the 'good guys' and free radicals are the 'bad guys'. The first thing I would say to you is be careful with that information. A lot of it is made up or has no scientific literature to back it up.\n\nThe critical point to note is this; most of the health campaigns telling you in eat more antioxidants are rubbish, and the evidence to support drinking things like 'antioxidant rich green tea' is practically negligible. While taking more antioxidants is theoretically beneficial, when you eat them they just don't get to where they make a difference. This is because it's *extraordinarily* difficult for an antioxidant to pass through your body, into the intestines, into the blood and into a cell without being reacted with.. In the end they're usually excreted out. Many don't realize, but some vitamins are anti-oxidants, and you should make sure you're getting your requirement of those every day, as they'll make a **much** greater impact on your health.\n\nAntioxidants are found in food because they protect the **food**, not us. ",
"Free Radicals are simply a more reactive form of a compound, because it has an odd number of electrons allowing it to be attracted to compounds that lend an electron, evening out its own electron count.\n\nFree Radicals tend to be bad for you because they incorporate themselves into your DNA ladders, causing nicks or chinks in the chain. When DNA is damaged, depending on where its damaged, it can make cells divide uncontrollably (cancer) or kill the cells normal functioning.\n\nAntioxidants are good (in moderation) since, as the name implies, they may counteract the \"oxidation\" process that commonly forms these reactive free radical compounds. ",
"Some kind of hardcore libertarian. I think. \n\nI don't know about the other thing",
"Question: would it be possible to get enough antioxidants to counteract the negative effects of say, cigarette smoking?",
"Your body has a bunch of dominoes in it. Free radicals knock over a domino, causing a chain reaction that knocks over other dominoes. Anti-oxidants terminate the chain -- they get knocked over but don't knock anything else over."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Xo5AaTH8U"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8v8wrq | why is it that transplanted organs only have a short life span once transplanted? | Two people in my life have had organ transplants in the past 8 weeks. We've been talking about the different 'life spans' of the different organs and want to know why they have a shorter life span (eg. 10 years post-transplant) than if they were just in the one body. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8v8wrq/eli5_why_is_it_that_transplanted_organs_only_have/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1lgiwq",
"e1lgmc4",
"e1ln1lv"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I know it’s impacted by the quality of the organ being transplanted, plus all the anti rejection drugs does have a pretty severe impact on the transplant itself. Sorry to hear you’ve had to go through that stress twice in such a short amount of time - I’ve had close family have transplants, it’s a difficult time. Glad they’ve gone well.",
"The transplantation process itself isn't exactly easy on the donor organ, and transportation less so. Even with a really good match there's some level of rejection which means the recipient's immune system is always attacking the new organ to some extent or another. Anti-rejection drugs can slow that, but they can't stop it completely and the drugs themselves can be rather harsh. ",
"Primary reason is the person's immune system attacking everything that is foreign in the body, including the cells of organs that don't have the exact genetic markers that the immune system recognizes. \n\nSo in a transplant situation, they have to match the blood type between the donor and the recipient, and it helps if the donor and recipient have even better matches (by being related - more similar DNA), but ultimately, for all transplants, the person has to take immunosuppressant anti-rejection drugs to disable their immune system somewhat, so it no longer attacks the new organs so fiercely.\n\nSo they can't completely disable the immune system because the person would then get sick and die from even a common cold. Which means they can't stop the attacks on the organ, they can just slow them down."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8v420l | elevator logic | Eli5: I've always thought the programmed logic in buildings with multiple elevators seems inefficient. Recently the thought crossed my mind that the logic dictating how the elevators correlate to each other might be based more on power conservation than speed/efficiency. Or maybe it's just dumb programming ( for example, a building with three elevators could space one out towards the upper half of the building instead of always making the trip from the bottom, or one evatpr could automatically go wait at the parking garage during peak hours).
Any elevator programmers on Reddit that can eli5? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8v420l/eli5_elevator_logic/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1kjyda",
"e1kr3to"
],
"score": [
4,
7
],
"text": [
"Never worked on an elevator but had to program one as a project in university, so the reality may vary slightly.\n\nElevators are programmed with energy efficiency in mind first. Only then comes time. On high enough buildings (30+ levels) elevators are indeed allocated only one specific range of levels. Also not all may go to the garage levels.",
"The amount of energy used by an elevator isn't really enough to bother with optimizing around. What you need to be concerned about is making sure that *people actually get where they're going* without feeling fucked over (or trapped). Generally, this means that an elevator going up will keep going up until it's serviced all calls to go up & an elevator going down will keep going down. Stopping on every floor on the way to the lobby is annoying but moving back up a floor when you're already going down is *infuriating*.\n\nThat generally works well enough for mid-sized buildings. Larger buildings will have more complex rules that may vary depending on time of day. An elevator car might be limited to a certain range of floors while other elevators will be an \"express\" from the ground floor to a mid-floor \"lobby\" where you transfer to other elevators.\n\nIf you wanted to make a set of really complex rules, you *might* be more power efficient but you run the risk of trapping somebody in the middle for long periods of time if you're trying to optimize around any sort of average measurement."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2mvrqt | do most presidents issue executive orders? have any been impeached for them? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mvrqt/eli5_do_most_presidents_issue_executive_orders/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm804og",
"cm804yo",
"cm80d6y"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"The only president not to issue an executive order is William Henry Harrison, who was only president for a month.\n\nFDR issued the most (3,522), then again he was also president for the longest. Following him are Woodrow Wilson (1,803), Calvin Coolidge (1,203), and Theodore Roosevelt (1,081). Obama has issued 193.\n\nOnly two presidents have ever been impeached, Andrew Johnson, for violating the Tenure of Office Act (acquitted), and Bill Clinton, for perjury and obstruction of justice (acquitted). Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.",
"FDR issues 3,500 executive orders, we haven't had a president issue less than 100 orders since 1880. None have been impeached for executive orders; Clinton and Andrew Johnson are the only impeached presidents. Apparently some in Congress feel one of Obama's recent executive orders oversteps the bounds of Presidential power, but other presidents have issued similar orders, so they can't impeach him IMO. ",
"Every President issues executive orders. FDR issued the most, and had the highest average per year. Reagan and Clinton top the charts for recent Presidents.\n\nThe big issue with this EO that some people have is that it could, in effect, change a law or serve to nullify a law in place. Taken in that regard, it dramatically changed the role of the Executive branch. The Executive branch should enforce laws, the legislative branch should be writing them. Or at least that's the closest to a coherent argument that I've heard...I can't argue the validity of the argument (well, I could...but I'm not versed enough on EO's to know if this is new)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
630a4x | if uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years, does that mean all uranium 238 has experienced a half life by now? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/630a4x/eli5_if_uranium_238_has_a_half_life_of_45_billion/ | {
"a_id": [
"dfqcphh"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"This assumes all uranium 238 was created 9 billion years. Remember that heavier atoms like uranium are created when a star dies so new uranium is created all the time"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2xlqdb | why does my sense of humor change from when i'm a child to when i'm an adult? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xlqdb/eli5_why_does_my_sense_of_humor_change_from_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp17rns"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because you are smarter. Your child self probably wouldn't understand the kinds of humor you find funny now."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1pawpv | why do soldiers bother taking pows? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pawpv/eli5_why_do_soldiers_bother_taking_pows/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd0ij43",
"cd0illh",
"cd0imit",
"cd0iorz",
"cd0m5dj",
"cd0nh65"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
4,
19,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Rules of engagement. By law you can not kill a man that surrenders. ",
"It's the rules, they can be a source of information if you can get them to talk, they can be used for labor or as bargaining chips to get things you want, treating them well helps to insure your soldiers are also going to be well treated in the event of capture. ",
"Various conventions disallow the killing of surrendered soldiers.\n\nPlus, if your side takes prisoners then hopefully the other side will too.",
"In addition to laws and conventions, it's also a tactical decision.\n\nIf you're a soldier, and you know the enemy are about to overwhelm you, you have two options. Surrender, or go down fighting and take a few more of the enemy with you. \n\nIf you know the enemy is likely to accept your surrender and take you prisoner, you're probably a bit more likely to go with that option. By taking prisoners, armies save the lives of their *own* soldiers, too.\n\nThere's a story that during WWII, German parents would tell their children to surrender to Americans, because they take prisoners and treat them well. Much safer than actual fighting. ",
"**1) Because of Convention/Law. Geneva Convention, Article 3:** \n\n1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, **including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms** and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.\n\nTo this end the **following acts are and shall remain prohibited** at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:\n\n(a) **Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;**\n\n(b) Taking of hostages;\n\n(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;\n\n(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n**2) Because of practicality**\n\nPOW's usually have a lot of valuable information. My understanding is that if you treat prisoners with respect they typically will spill the beans(I think their may have been studies to confirm this, can anyone confirm/deny this?).\n\n\n**3) Most people would rather not kill.**\n\n\"...He’s a former West Point psychology professor, Professor of Military Science, and an Army Ranger who was asked by the Army to increase the “kill ratio” of infantry soldiers. **He found that in past wars, soldiers would intentionally miss their target, fire wildly into the air, or refuse to shoot at all, even in the “kill or be killed” situation of heavy combat...**\"\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"...**When most people talk about killing, they are like virgins talking about sex.** You can talk about it all day, you can fully understand the mechanics involved but when the time comes there is so much more involved than the person thought...A look at history might help illustrate what I am talking about. **In World War Two, it is a fact that only 15-20 percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one.**\"\n\n\n_URL_2_\n\n\nSource: I was an Airman(Private) in the US Air Force and this topic is part of (or should be part of) any \"Basic Military Training\".",
"you are in combat and you see the same faces down your sights that you see among your ranks. the same looks of fear and desperation when those bullets start Geting too close and you can hear them crack over your position, that last one pelting the wall where you were just a half of a second ago. the same screams of pain and outrage when some of those round hit there mark. and the same elated Crys when the tide of battle turns.\n\nyou return to base and you think to yourself deep down that the survivors on the other side are doing the same thing you are. telling jokes, morning the dead, having a smoke, curseing the enemy, wishing they were anywhere but here. and the next battle happens, you see faces down range that might start looking familiar. you think to yourself *its them or me them or me. what if we lose we can't lose. what would they do to me if I surender we can not surrender we must not lose.* and they are thinking the same thing.\n\n\nthen one day you see a face poke up over a fallen tree, a greyish rag in his hand. you don't know if it used to be a towel or a washcloth or perhaps a shirt? but they are coming out with that off colored rag and their faces look so scared, but also so hopefull. you see written in their face * please I can't I can't don't hurt me please I can't keep going I don't want to die* **I TRUST YOU** *don't hurt me for the love of mercy please just make it quick or don't hurt me I just want this to stop* and you stop, rifle aimed at them. \n\n\nand your mind draws a blank. standing in front of you is a man that you know has killed your countrymen. and here he stands in front of you, scared , crying and alone and you know he's thinking this is the end. and you look at his face and you see yourself and you take him prisoner. you don't shoot. why? becuse you think to yourself \n\n**one of these days that might be me.**\n\nand you think one of these times your going to be on the losing side, one of these times you won't have any ammo left, one of these times you can't retreat. and as you watch him walk with some of your buddies to the back of the line to be processed, you see him....relax somewhat. the fear is still there but he's still alive, smelling like piss, but alive wand not some cold dead body in the bottom of a fox hole. \n\nand...he should be able to go home intact when this horrid mess is all over. should. you don't know what happens with him but that look of **I'm sorry give me mercy** catches you off guard and secretly you hope that they would show you just as much mercy.\n\n\n\n\n-I asked my grandpa about it quite a while ago before he passed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://tomdwyer.com/2012/uncategorized/book-spotlight-on-killing-by-david-grossman/",
"http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm",
"http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm"
],
[]
] |
||
axqqv4 | what stops an amputee’s bones from trying to regrow through the skin at the site of amputation? | Probably a dumb question, but how does the body know to stop continuing growth at the site of an amputation? Does the process of bone growth stop at a point, compared to how broken bones tend to reheal? Would it be different if a developing body (a child) had an amputation while the body is still growing? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axqqv4/eli5_what_stops_an_amputees_bones_from_trying_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehvf8ba",
"ehvo8d9",
"ehvup27",
"ehw0zpu"
],
"score": [
23,
3,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Bone doesn't grow by itself. Broken bones 'knit' together only when the broken surfaces are essentially in contact with each other.",
"At some point in fetal development you can divide the cells and make two, or take some away and it will grow back. Basically when it is a ball of cells. \nCells get their cues on how to grow from the type, position and quantity of carbohydrate based structures floating in the cell membrane. \nThe bone will knit to bone, if it is there.",
"Bone regrowth in amputees is actually quite common (and painful), so to glibly answer your question: nothing. Seriously though:\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThere are 2 types of stem cells (cells that are programmed to become body parts), adult, which adults have, and embryonic, which unborn babies have in the womb. Embryonic stem cells don't get made in adult humans. Scientists just figured out which stem cells make bones just last year. So maybe in the distant future we could force our bodies to regrow bone, but even so, it would never form into a whole leg or arm because those types of stem cells and the conditions needed to grow entire layers of flesh, bone, veins, skin, etc. are impossible to recreate in the post-natal world.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIn amputees, the muscles of the limb are sewn to the bone, so usually the body won't send stem cells there to grow bone because the growth plate (knitting) foundation isn't open.",
"Google epiphyseal plate. This is a thin band of cartilage where long bones grow longer. When you become an adult this cartilage turns into bone and you stop growing. So, as an adult your bones don't get longer. They sometimes get wider or thicker though. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nHumans have osteoblast cells and osteoclast cells. These don't make your bones longer but they keep your bones healthy by growing new bone or dissolving old or injured bone. These two heal broken bones.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nI'm not in medical school, just nursing school so don't know what kind of weird or unusual things can happen with amputations but normally bones don't grow back that have been amputated. You would need to manipulate stem cells like mesenchymal cells probably in a way science hasn't figured out yet to regrow limbs like a starfish can."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5qcsi6 | why is it so difficult to achieve and maintain an erection while standing? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qcsi6/eli5_why_is_it_so_difficult_to_achieve_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcy6mjh",
"dcy7hkz",
"dcy8518",
"dcy9gal",
"dcy9kaz"
],
"score": [
5,
17,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I have never experienced this before. But I can only imagine that it's because when standing, you're pooling blood in you're legs. This would be stealing blood from the corpus cavernosum in the penis. ",
"Ummmm are you sure that is a thing? Never been an issue for me but IDK.",
"Erections come from blood flooding into your dick. \n\nMuscles work when your body floods them with blood. If you use muscles other than your dick, your body has to pull the blood from somewhere. Therefore, when you stand, your body has chosen to use your dick blood instead of from anywhere else. \n\nAssuming the erection is very much desired, it is strange that your body has chosen to un-seat it from the top of the priority list. You may want to see about doing some more cardio or getting your blood pressure checked out. \n\nProtip: If you ever need to get rid of an undesired erection, start flexing muscles. Your body will need blood to power the flexing, and will power down your dick to get it. ",
"Wait, so you can only get a boner sitting down? Have you ever had sex standing up?",
"Never been an issue for me. Never even heard of it. Maybe see your Dr?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6g2uqi | why are usb, hdmi, etc. connections not designed so there is no 'right way up' | I have a hard time believing it would be that cost prohibitive. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6g2uqi/eli5why_are_usb_hdmi_etc_connections_not_designed/ | {
"a_id": [
"din0kq2",
"din0qd0",
"din16ce",
"din1dba",
"din27pk",
"din2jat",
"din4ofb"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
11,
2,
10,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"The newest iteration of the USB standard, [USB-C](_URL_0_), *is* reversible as far as having no “upside-down.” I can't speak on the others, but the new USB plug is designed to be durable and robust.",
" > I have a hard time believing it would be that cost prohibitive.\n\nProbably not, but business is about the bottom line. Unless you have swathes of people lining up and protesting about it and affecting sales, why change?",
"It's easier to fit the wires in there with loose tolerances for placement if they only go in one-way. However, due to improved manufacturing techniques, current generation plugs (USB-C, Lightning, etc.) ARE designed to go either way up.\n\nThe older-generation plugs were even worse: they had a live-line pin using the old DIN connectors -- but different hardware used the same connector for different purposes, with a different pin being live.",
"Because traditionally computer connectors have always been one sided. AT power, PS2, RS 232 serial, DB25 parallel, VGA, SCSI, etc.\n\nComputers have been since inception be directed at technical staff, not average Joe and below average Joe consumers. Grandma's didn't operate computers ( unless your grandma is Grace Hopper )\n\nA singly indexed connector only needs to have wires. It doesn't need to have a circuit controller to decide directionality. That makes simpler and cheaper.",
"It *used* to be cost-prohibitive. \n\nNot so much anymore.\n\nThe original USB was standardized in 1996, back when manufacturing techniques were not nearly as advanced as they are now. The desire to keep the standard strong and ubiquitous throughout the market is what kept the connector the same for years upon years. \n\nThat was one of the biggest benefits, you could plug any USB standard into any USB port and it would work. \n\nAs time went by, and as devices got smaller, the need for a new connector came about which is what prompted Mini-USB and Micro-USB. While this addressed the size concern, it was still limited by the manufacturing techniques.\n\nNow that \"we have the technology\" we are seeing more and more connectors moving towards the reversible connection standard. But it is a slow progress because so many devices out there only support the older standard that companies are hesitant to adopt the new standard.\n\n",
"As far as the USB goes there is a little crease on the bottom I always look for. That has saved countless seconds of frustration. ",
"Complexity. For nearly all standards. Every single pin is defined for a single purpose. Even reversible connectors have pins labeled in a certain order. So when you plug in a non reversible cable into a non reversible socket. Pin 1 on plug always matched pin 1 on socket. \n\nNow imagine you have 6 pins. Three on top three on bottom. 1-3 on top 4-6 on bottom. Now sometimes you get pin 1 connecting to pin 4 so you need to be able to detect that inversion and then reroute the internals to accommodate. \n\nThis increases cost and design complexity. And frankly until now it hasn't been a big issue. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3qn2bx | how is it that the media (often quoting law enforcement) seem to know all of the big players in the mafia but can't arrest them even after years and years and years? | Edit: Ok, I get it. You need proof. But if they know who the people are, enough that they can say their names in the news, why is it so hard to get proof? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qn2bx/eli5_how_is_it_that_the_media_often_quoting_law/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwglyjp",
"cwgm2rr"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because there's a difference between knowing who the big players are and having evidence against them.\n\nIn a country like North Korea, that won't matter much. But in countries with the rule of law, you need to have adequate evidence to convict someone of a crime.\n\nAnd if can't convict them, there's no point in arresting them.",
"In order to convict someone, you have to be able to prove they committed the crime. Being in the mafia or even begin the head of the mafia isn't necessarily a crime by default. The big guys keep their hands clean by having underlings do the incriminating stuff, and information about them is kept to a minimum. No emails, no letters, etc. This way the Don can just shrug his shoulders in court and he can have one of his many subordinates take the fall for him. If you go to prison for the mob they historically make your family want for nothing, and give you a hefty stipend, so guys are more than willing to be the martyr and take the blame. Mafia guys also bribe a lot of police and government officials to continue operating. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
36b6eg | is islam truly not a religion of peace, or is that just a radical interpretation? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36b6eg/eli5_is_islam_truly_not_a_religion_of_peace_or_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"crce7nn",
"crcf5cb",
"crclm99",
"crcpm3x"
],
"score": [
30,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You can make an argument for Islam being peaceful, and you can make an argument for Islam being violent. You can also similarly make the case that Christianity is peaceful or violent based on similar evidence from scripture.\n\nThere is no \"correct\" answer to this question. There are verses to support either position, so just pick which side you want to prove and then point out the verse and say \"see here, look, it says ___\". That's how everyone's done it for thousands of years.",
"Islam literally means a peace through submission.\n\nIt is meant that Muslims are peaceful with themselves and once everyone submits to islam it would be a religion of peace. It doesn't mean world domination of all other religions. You can be other religions but you become what is effectively a slave in society. \n\nLets be realistic though. Muslims are not peaceful with themselves.",
"What the hell does \"religion of peace\" mean?\n\nI'm Jewish. In the Bible, peace is described as a good thing. How were the Israelites supposed to *get* peace? By killing everyone else in their land. Peace -- through annihilating your enemies!\n\nHey, it's still peace.\n\nWhat is actually clear, though, is that peace is up to individuals. I interpret my religion as being for *actual* peace. Many people interpret my religion as being for war against certain people (to achieve peace by eliminating enemies). You can go back to the Bible and see what it says, but the truth is that *individuals* accept or reject parts of the Bible (and other doctrine) and make their own decisions.",
"All religions, including Buddhism, but except probably Jainism, have sanctioned acts of violence.\n\nSpecifically abrahamic religions have \"historic\" divine sanctioned acts of genocide, torture, and all sorts of nasty things. So in essence they are all extremely violent religions.\n\nBut what people forget is that in a religion what's more important than the scripture is the people in the religion. If you look at Islam even 50 years ago, there was very little religiously motivated violence.\n\nIf you look at Christianity there are historic periods where ideologically sanctioned violence was commonplace. The inquisition, burning witches at the stake, all of this was practiced in the name of a god (and institutionalised, accepted as a fundamental part of it and viewed as merciful even) and religion that today, mostly peaceful people identify with. And even these peaceful people still read from a book that sanctioned infanticide, and remain peaceful.\n\nSo yes, Islam is a violent religion (nothing wrong with saying it) currently in relation to other ones, just as Christianity was extremely violent even as recently as 250 years ago. And yes, you can be an extremely peaceful person that devotes yourself to a belief system that sanctions stoning of non virgins to death, and continue to believe it. Religion itself is violent. But it all comes down to the justifications of the people who practice it and what time period they live in. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1rurs8 | pros and cons of private/for-profit prisons. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rurs8/eli5_pros_and_cons_of_privateforprofit_prisons/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdr4blk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is obviously a controversial issue and I'll try to keep these as unbiased as possible. \n\nPros:\n\n* Fixed costs for governments. The prison contractor and a government typically have contracts for a set number of years at an agreed upon cost to hold an inmate on a monthly or daily basis (E.G. government will pay 3,000 a month per inmate to the contractor). This shields a government from any unexpected increases in costs and allows for easier budgeting.\n* Removes some liability from the government. If something terrible happens to an inmate in a public prison, there's a significant possibility the state/municipality may face some litigation from the inmate or his/her family. Provided the initial contracts state certain requirements, this liability may be transferred to the contractor and the local government is shielded from paying damages.\n* Government carries less overhead and possible lower costs. Private prisons allow states to have less asset exposure and prevent risk of prisons going at low capacity (some costs are fixed in running a prison--utilities, perimeter security, and guards to an extent) which would increase the price per inmate. \n\nCons:\n\n* Ethics. Should a group be able to profit of incarceration?\n* Less government oversight on conditions for prisoners. \n* Private prisons often won't take extremely high risk or high cost prisoners and this is often listed in contracts. A murderer with severe mental problems costs a lot of money to hold. Compare this to someone who got caught with a few ounces of cocaine or stealing a car. These types of people are often normal just a bit misguided and these prisoners are much easier to have as inmates. The state may be left with a higher proportion of psychos, gang members, or those who are just extremely unfit for society. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
40wmj1 | when muscles grow, how does the skin expand to keep up? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40wmj1/eli5_when_muscles_grow_how_does_the_skin_expand/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyxp9ff"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not sure why I have to point this out, but skin *also* grows, in addition to being somewhat elastic.\n\nNow, sometimes you get big faster than the body can compensate, and you get stretch marks- I've never heard of this happening due to muscle growth (most common reason is pregnancy)- but I suppose it's possible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
5uf3se | how does port forwarding help improve ping in online games? | If the games need port forwarding, wouldn't they just have no connection at all? I turned it on for my computer's IP address and my ping went from ~400 to around 30, but before then I could still establish a connection. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5uf3se/eli5_how_does_port_forwarding_help_improve_ping/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddthg7j",
"ddthhby",
"ddtk5cz"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"When a port is forwarded it is open to all connections. Without the port being forwarded the incoming connections are screened as a safety check for malicious content. Without that screening process the data can flow through faster and thus lowering communication time from user to server",
"Since you didn't say the exact game it's hard to say, but I would guess that the game has some sort of intermediary to help with that.\n\nSo, without port forwarding you have:\n\n You < = > intermediary < = > other player\n\nWhile with it you have:\n\n You < = > other player\n\nIf the intermediary happens to be on another continent or overloaded, that would have a very significant impact.\n",
"Others were right about port forwarding meaning you can have a direct connection to an opponent instead of going through an intermediary, but I thought I'd give some details as to why it works that way.\n\nIt sounds like you've got NAT (Network Address Translation) for multiple devices inside your network to share one public IP address on the Internet.\n\nWhen that's the case, the NAT router will keep track of outgoing connections, such as a request for a Reddit web page, and make sure the response coming back to your public IP address goes to the right device inside your network, by keeping track of each connection and their port numbers (from 0 to 65536). If someone outside tries to start a connection with your device inside, the NAT router normally won't know which one of your devices it is for and drop that attempted connection. That means you and your opponent have to connect to the game-maker's servers, which may be a long way away.\n\nIf you've got port forwarding on, anyone outside attempting a connection to your public IP address on port number X goes to a certain device inside. Then your opponent can connect to you directly, without going through the intermediary server. Note that this could work with one side using port forwarding and the other without."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1o1m18 | if bacteria thrives in warmer conditions, why are you more likely to get ill in colder months? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o1m18/eli5_if_bacteria_thrives_in_warmer_conditions_why/ | {
"a_id": [
"cco12ga",
"cco13k1"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Most of the seasonal illnesses you get are viral, not bacterial -- colds and the flu are both viruses, which is why you should never pressure your doctor for antibiotics when you're plain-old sick. They don't work.\n\nThe \"flu season\" takes place in colder weather because there's some evidence that the dryness allows the viruses to survive longer outside a host. So even for viruses it's not the heat, it's the humidity.",
"Like others have said, it has a lot to do with our tendancy to crowd in closed places during the colder months. Furthermore, while the bacteria and virus' which make us sick thrive at body temperature, they will still remain alive in the cold. When the sun isn't out much, surfaces such as doorknobs and railings can stay humid for longer, meaning pathogenic microorganisms can lay 'dormant' much longer on these surfaces. The decrease in sunlight exposure also hurts your skins ability to make vitamin D, which can hurt your immune system. Dry air also has a role to play, as it can dry out the mucus membranes in your throat and nose, making the tissue underneath more vulnerable to virus infection. Illnesses like the common cold and flu, which are typically associated with the colder months, is caused by virus', not bacteria,however.\nIt's crazy to think about, but flu season usually starts because the flu virus in some person, somewhere, mutates in a way that doesn't stop it working, but alters it enough to be different from previous flu virsus'. This single virus then spreads from person to person, rapidly infecting them because their immune system hasn't encountered this specific, slightly altered virus before. This single strain of virus spreads all over the world, untill everyone who encounters it either beats it, or dies, and then flu season is over untill another virus suddenly mutates, and it all starts over again!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
8fwcu7 | what makes a tire rotation necessary? do they switch sides when rotated? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8fwcu7/eli5_what_makes_a_tire_rotation_necessary_do_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"dy6zypb",
"dy701l1",
"dy7027g",
"dy78rt9"
],
"score": [
20,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"front and rear tires wear differently because different loads are placed on them. front wheel drive cars wear the front tires quicker. rear wheel drive cars wear the rear tires quicker. \n\nleft and right tires wear differently because you turn right alot more aggressively than you turn left. and if you're driving solo, there's an extra 150-200 pounds on the left side of the car. ",
"It promotes wven wear of the rubber.\n\nSome rotations cross sides in an X pattern. Directional tires (designed to rotate primarily in one direction - for water dispersion as an example) just move front to back on the same side.",
"The tires don't get used evenly and sometimes the tires in a specific location might wear faster depending on a number of factors.\n\nWhen rising the tires normally you expect the rear tires to be moved up front and vice versa plus one of the pairs of tires gets swapped left-right. This endures all tires get used in all positions.",
"Something I haven't seen yet is the importance of the tire weights in this process. Tires have little weights in varying increments of heaviness that are attached to the rim, and they are used to balance the tire while it's spinning and offset any wobbles or other issues that would arise from unbalanced tires.\n\nSo when you get a tire rotation, in any reputable dealership they will take off the tires and put them on the balancer. A balancer just spins the tire at high speeds and tells the technician how much weight to use and where to put it to offset the balance issues of the worn tire. The technician them hammers the weight onto the rim where the machine tells them, and the tire is back to a damn near balanced rotation at speed.\n\nIn my time in garages I've heard a couple of different preferred rotations for the tires, and it depends on how they were rotated the previous time. Our shop kept records of what tire was rotated where to help the techs keep track of what tires were headed where. For example the first rotation would be swapping the tires from left to right and vice versa, the rear tires stay on the rear, and the front stay on the front. The next rotation would be back right to front right, and back left to front left. At that point if the tires still have life in them you would start the process over, but usually that's the most you're going to get out of them.\n\nEdit:. I forgot to mention that this is only the preferred technique for non-directional tires. Directional tires (which are becoming more common) need to be dismounted and remounted to move from left to right, and because of this most people prefer to just swap the fronts to the back and vice versa.\n\nThanks for that tidbit goes to u/tumadretambien\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bnjqvf | how does noise cancelling work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bnjqvf/eli5_how_does_noise_cancelling_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"en6b32m",
"en6mxbc",
"en6odq3",
"en74smf",
"en74t74",
"en773gp",
"en7anm0",
"en7aoxg",
"en7bbxn"
],
"score": [
528,
40,
10,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Active noise cancelling works by the headphones having a microphone on the outside that detects environmental noise, and then speakers on the inside that play the opposite soundwave to cancel it out. Sound travels in waves with peaks and valleys, so if it hits another wave with directly opposite peaks and valleys they cancel eachother out.",
"Here's a [picture](_URL_0_) for combining two sound waves. When the highs meet the lows, they cancel each other out; that flat line means silence. So, by combining one sound with its **\"opposite\"** sound, you won't hear anything.\n\nIn noise-cancelling headphones, it has a microphone that listens for outside noises. Then, it produces the opposite sound to cancel it.",
"Sound is a compression wave. Basically something, like a speaker drum, pushes the air and the compression travels to the ear and we hear it. If you drive another speaker in the opposite direction you can cancel the wave and the air doesn’t move and you don’t hear anything. Noise cancelling systems have a microphone and speaker. The microphone records the sound and the speaker produces the opposite sound. Electronic circuits pass signals much faster then sound so if the speaker is closer to your ear than the microphone the timing works out.",
"Can this be done with other information carried on sine waves? Isn’t what we see similar insofar as it’s basically light? In other words, is sight cancelling something that we can do also?",
"If you have an iPhone, check this out. Good explanation of noise cancelling in augmented reality - [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) \n\n & #x200B;\n\nFull disclosure, I made this app. It's completely free and really fun, so hopefully you get something out of the little presentation on noise cancelling :)",
"Sound is vibrations. If two opposite vibrations hit each other, they can sort of cancel each other out. When I was a kid, I remember being at a friends house who owned a trampoline. To troll my friend, I would try to jump JUST at the right time to take the height out of his jump. This is exactly what happens with noise canceling headphones. Using mics they “listen” and play the exact opposite of that sound.",
"The keys player in the band I’m in always used to wear active noise cancelling headphones to reduce the impact of the volume of the drums. Would that actually protect his hearing or would he have been better off using passive ear plugs?",
"Sound is air being compressed in waves, much like throwing a stone in a pound generates waves. If you were in that pond and you could see a wave coming your way while in the water and you could produce with your arms a wave equally large traveling in the opposite direction, the result would be that you wouldn’t be hit by the first wave: the two waves, the one coming your way and the one you produced, would cancel each other out.\nNoise cancelling headphones are equipped with a microphone that listens the surrounding sounds, and “play” an equal and opposite wave in your headset to cancel the sound waves coming at you.",
"Keep in mind there are both active cancellation and passive noise isolation. The latter is often overlooked with people thinking a pair of simple earplugs can't possibly block more noise than a piece of well engineered electrical circuitry. However, the passive noise isolation actually blocks more noise than noise cancellation. The benefit of noise cancellation is if you only want to block out repeated droning noise but still want to hear other sounds like people talking. This is great on an airplane where you could still have a conversation. But if you're at the office and want to block out your coworkers chattering, noise isolation is more effective. Furthermore, noise cancellation degrades sound quality since it's playing sounds to interfere with the noise. It also requires batteries and tend to be bigger. \n\nFor most people, noise isolation is what they need."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://dt7v1i9vyp3mf.cloudfront.net/styles/news_large/s3/imagelibrary/s/synth.fig1-0500-i6kScY8bPcryDFHbnki587.7LsS5PV62.gif"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://link.jig.space/sD4xPt4OCW"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2xe4gp | difference between feudalism and serfdom. | Searched for the definitions and assumed the terms may be used interchangeably, but this seems incorrect. In my Russian history class, Ivan the Terrible was known to end the practice of feudalism forever in Russia whilst consolidating his power by marginalizing the Boyars; however, we later learned the Mikhail Romanov, the Tsar a few decades after, is known for instating serfdom by formalizing a legal code obligating peasants to serve land owners. Sounded like feudalism never really ended? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xe4gp/eli5_difference_between_feudalism_and_serfdom/ | {
"a_id": [
"cozaxpy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Serfdom is an economic system where peasants are bound to land that they have to work and in exchange they get protection from their lord and a little land of their own for subsistence farming. I don't know how similar or different the varying systems of serfdom where in medieval Europe.\n\nFeudalism is a loaded word with no real clear meaning. There's a pretty famous historical article on this by Elizabeth Brown from 1974 called [\"The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe.\"](_URL_0_) Most people think of feudalism as a system where there's a king, with nobles below him, and lords below the nobles where each person owes military service to the person above him. Such neat systems never really existed - there were entangled power relations and a lot more complexity. The political systems across medieval Europe were also pretty diverse, so it's hard to describe all of them with a single concept. Unless you're just trying to get across the basic idea of a system where fealty to a lord plays a role using feudalism as a concept doesn't really get you very far."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1350026.files/Brown-Tyranny-of-a-Construct.pdf"
]
] |
|
2fi15g | why is a fertility rate of 2.01 below the replacement rate for a nation? | If two people have, on average, 2.01 kids, doesn't that mean that there is technically a tiny bit of growth? (2.01 is the estimated fertility rate for USA in 2014.) I read on Wikipedia that this is because it takes female mortality before the end of childbearing years into account, but isn't that accounted for because the fertility rate is an average? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fi15g/eli5_why_is_a_fertility_rate_of_201_below_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ck9e291",
"ck9e8bl",
"ck9egii",
"ck9h2dv",
"ck9kmej"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"If a couple has two kids and one of those kids dies, they effectively only had one in terms of maintaining the population.",
"The fertility rates are an account of births, not pregnancies, and once you calculate in the infant death rates, and child death rates you no longer have enough people reaching adulthood to maintain population. \n\n",
"Because not all children and adults live to a full life expectancy :( ",
"Besides the other reasons, even if one has children, there is a chance that one or more children choose not to reproduce, or cannot do so due to medical/biological reasons.",
"Because not all births result in children that grow up and reproduce."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
302hid | the role of the president-elect | From what I've noticed, American presidential elections are in November but the winner doesn't actually take office till January.
My question here is, why? In the UK after a general election the loser is booted out of 10 Downing Street immediately whereas in the States it seems as if the loser gets another 2 months with full powers. Why is this and why does it still go on? And what are your opinions on this? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/302hid/eli5_the_role_of_the_presidentelect/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpohj3v",
"cpoi1k8"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Originally it was probably to allow time for the winner to ride his horse to DC... But nowadays the president elect uses the time to get together his staff and to coordinate the hand-off of power with the current president's staff. Which is probably a good idea, right?\n\nAnd it's not like the president loses two months off his term. He starts late and ends late.",
"It's rooted in history, partly. The UK parliament started out as discrete meetings, where the parliament was called together, and remained in place until they dissolved, at which point there was no government until the next parliament was convened. That still happens - about a month before the election, parliament dissolves, and all seats are technically vacant.\n\nThe US saw Congress and the presidency as a continuing presence, with no gaps between terms. For that to happen, you have to elect your representatives in advance of the changeover, to allow for election results to be tabulated, potentially challenged, and certified (and historically, for members to get their affairs together and make the trip to Washington). They have moved up inauguration day a couple months since the founding of the nation, when they realized such a long lame duck period wasn't a great idea."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2rzffg | how does mega 'download' your files on the webpage and then send them to your computer in seconds? | Mega has a built-in downloader that's really aesthetically pleasing. But I don't understand how all the downloads can take place on the page THEN get sent to your downloads folder. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rzffg/eli5_how_does_mega_download_your_files_on_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnkoxry"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's downloaded to your browser cache temporarily (this happens at your actual download speed) and then is moved to wherever you want to save it (this part happens very quickly)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
49qoph | if inflammation is a healing process, why are we always told to ice and elevate injuries? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49qoph/eli5_if_inflammation_is_a_healing_process_why_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0u0077",
"d0u0zkp",
"d0u12sw"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The body a lot of times over exaggerates causing more inflammation that it actually needs. Icing and elevating the injuries reduce pain.",
"My understanding is basically that the body simply reacts. It doesn't (and obviously can't) adjust it's reactions. So some swelling is good but it has no way to regulate and make sure that it is the right amount. So you ice it to minimize the swelling and elevate it to ease the bloodflow allowing it to heal faster.\n\nI could def be pretty far off. But that is my understanding in limited conversation with my Aunt who is a nurse over holidays and whatnot.",
"If the swelling is too extreme, it can cause subsequent damage to nerves as well as soft tissue, tendons etc. Controlling it helps the healing."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9otbag | why do people adore cute things in a violent manner? ex: oh it's so cute i want to squeeze it to death | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9otbag/eli5_why_do_people_adore_cute_things_in_a_violent/ | {
"a_id": [
"e7wk66o",
"e7wktce",
"e7wphq0",
"e7wwwtg",
"e7wyyil",
"e7x480n",
"e7xj0rn",
"e7xkibf",
"e7xl7mk"
],
"score": [
7,
83,
6,
3,
3,
22,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The cute thing is distracting you and lowering your guard, it needs to be eliminated so you can hunt and survive at peak performance.",
"It’s called cute aggression. Your brain becomes so overwhelmed by the cute that it intentionally balances you out with aggressive feelings. Makes me wonder if it’s possible to actually die from too much cute. Why else would such a response evolve?",
"I always figured it had more to do with freezing that moment. In \"killing\" it, your freezing its cuteness in time and thus it will never change. ",
"My best intuition here is this: a major component of WHY we think something is cute is that it's helpless. It's a natural human instinct to take care of babies for instance, for evolutionary reasons. The fact that the babies NEED us because of their helplessness is what makes them \"cute\". Humans also crave a sense of purpose, and that strange split second where you consider squeezing the puppy to death (hypothetically) is an outcropping of our unhealthy but natural deep instinct to be needed by something. Squeezing it to death proves that it needed you. And nothing brings peace to an anxious human mind like being needed by someone or something. It's the reason for a lot of heinous human behavior, actually. ",
"My experience with that is: It's so cute that I can't even control myself, I can't handle this overwhelming cuteness, the feeling is so intense that I can't explain it so the only comparable thing is killing, I guess lol",
"It had to have come from humans’ natural instincts to protect our (cute) babies. Humans instinctually care for and protect their offspring, which may include aggressive behavior. Given that in most situations, observing a baby is often not as dangerous as it was for our ancient ancestors, the aggression remains, ready to come into play at any moment something threatens our offspring. \n\nApplying this to cute things in general (since cuteness is a relative and general feeling, along with aggression) gives you a pretty solid answer.\n\nTL;DR Aggression from cute things probably came from our natural instinct to protect our cute babies.",
"I recently heard this explained as that it's just a way that your brain warns you of a potential danger. It's telling you \"don't squeeze that. You care for that and if you squeeze it it will die\". Just like \"call of the void\" telling you to jump off a ledge. It's not actually telling you to do it, it's warning you of the consequences.\n\nThis is in no way science though, I just thought it was a more interesting theory than anything else I've heard.",
"This has literally happened...\nMy sister, only about 7 loved her rabbit too much. Poor thing hugged to death.\n\nOh the ironic thing? It was named Twitchet. \n\n",
"The small portion of your brain that processes cute things is right next to the big portion of the brain that process aggression. So when you see something overwhelmingly cute, the cute portion becomes super stimulated and tickles the aggression portion and you go from “aww” to “I wanna strangle it”. Thing to note is that the aggression portion is larger and much more sensitive than the cute portion, which is also the reason why you don’t go “aww” when The Mountain hammer drops you. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
30wva6 | how do american colleges work in terms of what classes you can take? i.e. how many classes can you take that are unrelated to your degree subject? | I'm interested because in many movies/shows (not a good indication I know!) the students will take up bizarre classes completely unrelated to their degree, in order to make up credits. For example somebody doing a physics degree might take a class in Japanese film. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30wva6/eli5_how_do_american_colleges_work_in_terms_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpwj2t8",
"cpwjaq6"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Typically you are required to take between 30-40 classes to complete a bachelors (depending on the college). To complete a major you need to take between 10-14 classes (usually) in your subject. So you actually do have a lot of leeway in terms of other classes. There are also a lot of requirements about taking 1-2 English classes, 1-2 Math Classes, etc. regardless of your major.",
"They key word that you're looking for is \"elective\". \n\nAn elective is a course you take which is unrelated to your major. Like your physics major taking a Japanese film course. It doesn't have to be that much of a difference, but there's nothing saying that it can't be.\n\nThe rules depend on the university and the college and the major. I mean, that's your ultimate answer. If you go to some STEM-heavy college and major in electrical engineering or whatever then your course plan probably won't allow for many electives; if you go to a liberal arts college and major in Literature then you probably will get to take a bunch of electives.\n\nBoth extremes exist, but in the middle you'll usually find things like:\n\n* 6 hours Eng post 200\n* 9 hours Foreign Language\n* 3 hours Soc\n\nAnd so on. You'll have the \"holes to fill\" and you get to pick and choose which exact courses you want to take which will meet the requirements. \n\nYou can always look up specific schools. For example, I just googled Yale Biomedical Engineering. [Here](_URL_0_) is information on what's required for that degree. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://seas.yale.edu/departments/biomedical-engineering/undergraduate-study/undergraduate-curriculum-information"
]
] |
|
6qwshq | writing with the non dominant hand | when practicing daily will my non dominant hand be as smooth and as fluent as my dominant hand | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qwshq/eli5_writing_with_the_non_dominant_hand/ | {
"a_id": [
"dl0jx5i"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Eventually, but it will take years. I broke my arm as a kid and wrote with the other hand for 14 weeks. It went from \"OMG this kid has brain damage\" to \"where is the kindergartner who wrote this scribble\". Another couple of years of doing it off and on as a parlor trick, and both look like a human wrote them. In college I could write at the chalkboard with both hands, which was a semi-useful trick. There is still a clear superiority to the dominant hand script."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
eudnxi | why is saliva thicker than water? | I understand it can be thicker for someone who isn’t hydrated enough. This question strictly refers to a healthy well hydrated individual.
Bonus question- what governs saliva to sometimes have bubbles and sometimes don’t? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eudnxi/eli5_why_is_saliva_thicker_than_water/ | {
"a_id": [
"ffoqlu0",
"ffosg91"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it has stuff other than water in it. A whole bunch of electrolytes and importantly mucus, proteins and amino acids which have a variety of functions but also contribute to the viscosity significantly. \n\nRe: bubbles. Not sure what you mean but it’s not coming out of your glands all bubbly, that would be down to what you’re doing with your mouth and how viscous and able to hold bubbles it is.",
"Saliva is mostly water, but it also has other things like mucus mixed in with the salivary glands. That mixed-in mucus makes saliva thicker. When you're dehydrated, you have less water available to add to saliva, so it ends up as relatively more mucus, which makes it thicker.\n\nAs for bubbles - I'm not certain, but I think that's because there's air in your mouth. Even when your mouth is closed, the air that you're breathing through your nose goes down your throat, which connects with your mouth. If you focus as you take a deep breath through your nose, you can probably feel the air move along the top of your mouth.\n\nSince air and saliva are in your mouth, the two are mixing together as you move your tongue (like when you're swallowing). When air mixes with any liquid, it wants to rise out of the liquid because the air is less dense. However, the surface tension of the liquid (how much the surface of the liquid wants to stay smooth) determines whether the air can break the surface of the liquid. Water has high surface tension and wants to remain smooth, so the air will break the surface and not form a permanent bubble. Adding things to water (like soap) lowers the surface tension so that bubbles stay at the surface longer. I think the proteins in the mucus make saliva's surface tension low enough that small bubbles can exist long enough to be visible."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5u50bk | why do wider tires give cars more grip? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5u50bk/why_do_wider_tires_give_cars_more_grip/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddreq0z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In physics you assume that when an object slides the two surfaces are hard and durable and that the motion is between the two surfaces. You also learn that surfaces are nicely behaved which simplifies things.\n\nThe standard physics equation of Friction = (coefficient of friction) \\* (normal force) is a good approximation for a lot of materials, but it's imprecise at high pressures. What constitutes a high pressure varies from material to material. A graph of the coefficient of friction as a function of pressure may look something like [this](_URL_0_) (the horizontal axis may be replaced with pressure by dividing by the contact patch size). Pretending that the coefficient of friction is constant makes the math easier and it gives you a pretty good understanding of physics. \n\nThe bigger issue is looking at what happens when a tire fails to grip: the bit of rubber that's in contact with the road stays put and the rubber itself fails, shearing off a thin layer. This leaves a black streak on the road. This happens because the rubber is better at gripping the road than it is at holding itself together.\n\nThe equation for the shear force it takes to cause a material to fail is (material strength) \\* (cross sectional area). Note that the cross sectional area in this case is the size of the contact patch that the tire has on the road, since that whole contact patch has to be sheared off. Here we see that wider tires will clearly take more force before they fail and skid. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fPjgf-6ELgc/UIWW-rntd8I/AAAAAAAAARM/NEh4nbnXlCM/s1600/CoF+VS+Slip+Angle.jpg"
]
] |
||
9xnf5s | when you are cold, is that feeling you get pain? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9xnf5s/eli5_when_you_are_cold_is_that_feeling_you_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"e9tl1xl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That's somewhat subjective. Pain is an uncomfortable sensation usually associated with a negative stimulus. But there's not a hard line that says \"this is uncomfortable\" vs \"this is pain\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
4afad3 | why do some tv channels (like comedy central) run their programs 5 minutes off the hour or half hour sometimes? (1:05-1:35 and so on) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4afad3/eli5_why_do_some_tv_channels_like_comedy_central/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0zv66s",
"d0zvrh4",
"d0zvthq",
"d0zvzg0"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
6,
16
],
"text": [
"To prevent people from recording them. I used to have a PC that had cable input on it so I used a program to automatically record shows that I liked so I could watch them at my own pace. The price I paid for this is that TV shows sometimes cut off early or came in late. \n \n",
"A lot of people tune in right after something else ends. If the program actually started at 1:00 they would immediately get the program. If it starts at 1:05 they get a commercial which gets the network money.",
"They're adding more adverts than the show was intended to air with. Take a \"half hour\" show and add a few extra minutes of ads, and the schedule gets thrown off neat on-the-hour start times. Do that for several hours and they might show 11 \"half hour\" shows in 6 hours, rather than the 12 you'd expect.",
"They use the offset time as a \"lead in\". If you show ends at 1:05pm, your more likely to keep watching that network because other shows started 5 minutes ago, and you already missed the beginning. \n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1626/why-do-wtbs-shows-start-at-05-and"
]
] |
||
10sswc | how can/why do ford and mercury sell identical cars with different names? | For example:
The Ford Taurus and the Mercury Sable.
The Ford Crown Victoria and the Mercury Grand Marquis.
The Ford Explorer and the Mercury Mountaineer.
I know that Ford and Mercury belong to the same parent company, but I've never understood why it'd be beneficial to do things this way. Thanks! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10sswc/eli5_how_canwhy_do_ford_and_mercury_sell/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6gby6s",
"c6gc06o"
],
"score": [
3,
11
],
"text": [
"It saves quite a lot of money to share parts on cars. While the examples you listed are a bit of an extreme case, other car manufacturers share thing between different brands all the time.\n\nFor instance, a Scion xD is just a Toyota Yaris with a different body shell, or how the Acura ILX is based on the Honda Civic.",
"Post WWII, the US auto industry was exploding:Ford in the 40's was following General Motors business plan: a car for every taste. This meant entry level, midlevel and luxury. \n\nLincoln was Ford's luxury brand and plain Fords were obviously entry level. The idea was shoppers might want a Lincoln but couldn't afford it but wanted something better than a Ford. Hence they threw Lincolns in with Mercurys in the same showrooms. For a long time since then Mercurys were little more than dolled-up Fords with some bells and whistles that came stock that would otherwise cost extra on a Ford. This was a really effective way to make a \"new\" model, without actually designing one. This proved to be a good sales strategy for a few decades as buyers would \"look for a Lincoln, leave with a Mercury\". \n\nSome point after the oil crisis in the 70s, Mercury began losing it's identity. Trying to not be a Ford but still looking like one and attempting to share the penthouse with Lincoln started confusing customers. In the 90's Mercury was sagging in sales and Ford gave Mercury a minivan and an SUV which were again upscale Ford models. While this temporarily breathed life into Mercury, a rift was forming between Lincoln buyers and Mercury buyers. Lincoln buyers tended to be not only older, but *old* as in Great Depression age while Mercury buyers were in their 30s. \n\nThings came to a head a few years ago, and Mercury was no longer moving units and Ford closed them down. Similar fates fell upon Plymouth and Oldsmobile, Chrysler's and General Motors' mid-priced divisions, respectively. They lacked any identity and became known as selling clones of their parent company and these makes became liabilities and obsolete. \n\n**TL;DR** companies rebadge and gussy up their own makes because it was easy to do and allowed the same model to be sold in different showrooms and not limited to one dealer. More profits for little work and customers were agreeable to this for a while. This trend is ending for American carmakers because it led to loss of identity and ended up bewildering customers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
bg7m1f | i‘ve heard that in a small closed system entropy can decrease for a short period of time does that mean that time went backwards | If passing of time is defined as an increase of entropy does it mean that it can just as well go backwards like in the mentioned example(just in theory) | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bg7m1f/eli5ive_heard_that_in_a_small_closed_system/ | {
"a_id": [
"elixvnu",
"elj74qr",
"eljeqbp",
"elk49zh"
],
"score": [
4,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you define time that way, then yes, the reversal of entropy would mean going back in time. However, time is more accurately define as \"the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.\" So no, not really",
"Entropy is a statistical phenomenon (all thermodynamics is, really). It is statistically more likely that, as time progresses, entropy of a closed system increases. This is because there are generally many more ways to have a higher entropy system than a lower entropy one.\n\nAs such...\n\n > passing of time is defined as an increase of entropy\n\n...is not a reasonable definition of time. Increase in entropy is a property of the passage of time, especially enough time (in closed systems). So in answering your question: time does not have to have gone backwards.",
"If you're gonna define the direction of time in terms of entropy, you would use the entropy of the universe, not of some closed subsystem. The entropy of the universe always increases.",
"This is a logical fallacy, of \"A occurs and B is observed\",\"B\" happens therefore \"A\". (Correlation not causation).\n\nAs time increases, entropy increases. However, it does not constitute that because entropy decreased, time went backwards.\n\nTo you, it appears that time went backwards because you are looking conditionally at the changes in entropy. But entropy can change because of pure randomness, just that it exists as a statistical anomaly, and given a long enough sequence of time, entropy will always increase.\n\nSimilarly I can rephrase what you are asking as an analogy in the following...\"My room gets messier as time progresses. My room got more tidy, so therefore time must have went backwards?\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1dwxxd | is it true that aluminum products (like pop cans) in the us can only be 20 percent recycled? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dwxxd/eli5is_it_true_that_aluminum_products_like_pop/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9uoedx",
"c9uq2hj"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I always heard that aluminum was the easiest and most efficient recycling material by far. Plastic and glass are generally much less cost effective. \n\nSource - an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit",
"Drinks cans and the like are easy and economically viable recylcling \n\nPaper recycling is not economically viable and may harm the environment more that commercial plantation logging. The way the environment movement used to talk about paper recylcling you would think we made paper out of walnut and mahogany from the rainforests instead of new growth plantation pine and the like"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
33ym95 | if i hear things because the hammer in my inner ear hits the anvil, how do i hear things without gaps of silence? | Shouldn't there be little gaps where you hear nothing because the hammer has to swing back and forth before it can hit the anvil again? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33ym95/eli5_if_i_hear_things_because_the_hammer_in_my/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqpkun6",
"cqpkvvg"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The hammer doesn't swing back and forth as you think. The bones rest on each other so the vibration from the eardrum can travel through them.",
"They're actually attached to one another. It's just a joint like any other.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThere is in fact a slight delay - the time it takes sound to travel through the bone (3000+ m/s over a few centimeters), which is too fast to notice."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/images/glossary/ear_bones.jpg"
]
] |
|
12gg15 | what are the downsides to the uk's national health system? | I keep hearing wonderful things on Reddit about the NHS in the UK. Are there any downsides?
In the US, for example, I can schedule an appointment to see my doctor for the current day usually, and I only have to wait about 10-20 minutes to see him after I arrive. Also, an appointment to see a specialist (e.g. dermatologist, pediatrist) takes about a week or two, and sometimes less.
Also, if a doctor makes a huge mistake (e.g. paralyzes you during surgery) can you sue them for damages in the UK? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12gg15/eli5_what_are_the_downsides_to_the_uks_national/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6utzmq",
"c6uu1ox",
"c6uu75e",
"c6uudb1",
"c6uue6f",
"c6uv24a"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
15,
14,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The waiting times aren't great. You can be seen the same day if it's something urgent, but if it's something minor like an ear infection, you'll have to wait about a week. Some non-essential surgeries have waiting lists that are several months long. \n\nAlso, it sometimes won't cover certain treatments if they're very expensive and rarely needed. Usually these people will have to turn to charity appeals to pay for the treatment independently.",
"From personal experience:\n\nGenerally to see a GP can usually be done within a day or two, shorter if it is a serious matter. With only a 20 min wait on arrival.\n\nThe only real issue I have come across is waiting times relating to surgical operations. I waited 6 months for an ACL reconstruction but it and all the physiotherapy before and after was free.",
"More NHS questions. I've only got an essay to write and I fancy a bit of procrastination on a subject I like. \n\n**Can I see my doctor the same day?**\n\nIf you wish to just go and see a doctor you'll wait between a few hours and five or six days depending on their workload. Also local GP surgeries have surgery hours when you can just turn up and wait to see a nurse who will pass you to a doctor if required. You can usually book cancelations same day as well. \n\n**How long will I have to wait when I get there**\n\nLike any other country or service it varies. When I go to my university GP surgery I usually wait about 15 minutes but when I'm at home, as long as I'm on time I tend to wait about 10. It varies. Some times I've waltzed straight in and some times I've been kept waiting for half an hour or more. \n\n**How long will it take once I've been referred to a specialist**\n\nCompletely depends on what you're being referred for and to whom. A serious cancer referral would take a week or two maximum. Same goes for any sort of serious infection or something that's rapidly progressing. On the other hand, if you want a wart removed or your back hurts a bit, be prepared to wait a good long time. Three weeks or four to see a specialist and more for the procedure. \n\n**Can I sue for negligence?**\n\nYes. \n\n**Any other problems**\n\nWell, it cost us in taxes. I don't know where you're from but we pay 20% VAT (sales tax), any income you earn over £35,000 PA is taxed at 40%, you also pay national insurance of 12% on income between £7,000 and £42,000 PA, and 2% on earnings above £42K. Remember this doesn't all go on the NHS though, our undergraduates pay 9K a year maximum and most them pay 3K. Also our benefit (welfare) system is more comprehensive.\n\nYou don't get 'customer service' is you're into that. The nurse who gave me my (free) travel vaccinations gave me a dressing down for not going early enough so I couldn't have the full Hep A vaccination. If you're for an appointment you best not kick up a fuss because they're doing you a favour by fitting you in. This isn't to say that they don't want us to be happy, it's just that you don't get the 'tit's and teeth' service that you might in a top hotel. \n\nI'm not sure if this is a downside but if you're very rich you can't pay and get top class service on a serious operation. That isn't clear; let me try again. If you want your tonsils removed you can go private, same if you want some physiotherapy or something easy like that. But if you need a substantial operation or an MRI scan or a transplant that has to be on the NHS because they're the only ones with the capital to run the equipement. There simply aren't enough people (outside of London) who want these procedures and operations privately. ",
"According to studies, there are none. It is the highest rated by patients in the world. \n\nSo while outside observers may make comments like \"The wait time sucks\" - the reality is that the subjective analysis by its users ie people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about is that it is the best. People in the UK like it more than people in the US like the US's systems - and consider that this is working in contradiction to widely documented and understood psychological affects like buyer's confirmation bias (when someone pays more for something, they believe it is better regardless of whether or not it actually is - like with luxury cars; in the US we pay more for health care than anyone else in the world but we don't outrate the UK's completely free (at time of service) health care system)). \n\nEDIT: my reply didn't exactly answer your question, so I'll clarify a bit: from a broad perspective, there are none because users of the system rate it higher than any other in the world. That isn't to say that it can't be improved, and there are many examples where it can serve patients better than it does. \n\nOne thing I vehemently disagree with is the cost argument, as the NHS costs a tiny fraction of what, eg, the US health care system does on a per patient basis. The tax load may be higher than in America, but the total cost is much lower. ",
"I'm gonna assume you're American\n\nYes, there are, of course there are downsides - We have to make an appointment with a GP a few days in advance, and often they run behind schedule, so we might have to wait 20 minutes later than we had booked\nObviously, if there's an emergency, or we think its urgent, we can head on down to the local hospital or something, but the wait, particularly in A & E is really long, like 2 to 3 hours. We complain about this a lot (not to anyone that can do anything about it, of course).\n\nTaxes: Obviously, to pay for a \"free\" service, we get taxed more, and I'm sure plenty of people would call that a downside. \n\nI don't really know much about the quality of hospitals/care in America, but I assume everyone gets treated as profit monkeys. We do have those \"superbugs\" and you get the occasional horrible neglect/abuse story, but I assume it's the same with you guys.\n\nYes, technically, if a doctor was to make a mistake *that was avoidable,* you could sue them for damages, however we don't have so much of a \"OMG SUE EVERYTHING\" culture over here.\n\nI'm sure there's other stuff I've missed out on, but someone else will add to this.\n\n**TL;DR:** Not really, apart from the usual problems you hear across all hospitals. I think it's far, far better than having to privately pay for your own healthcare.",
"I don't know how true it is but one of the cited downsides is that it encourages complacency.\n\nThe idea sort of goes that a private company would be looking where to cut costs and do things more efficiently, while when publicly funded the same pressure isn't as often exerted on staff.\n\nMy uncle used to be responsible for the buying of drugs for hospitals in the south west of England and he told me that it was somewhat true for a lot of the spending done in hospitals. The example he gave me was about buying machines, say if multiple hospitals needed a certain machine instead buying them all together, which would have been cheaper, they'd buy them separately.\n\nThough this wasn't true for the buying of drugs as this was done regionally and was/is one of the few areas of spending in the NHS done particularly well.\n\n(I'm no expert in these matters so feel free to correct me on anything)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
62ccmh | why does testosterone have such a big effect on biological females when estrogen seems to do so little for biological males? | Mostly regarding HRT: FtM people put on testosterone have a wide range of pronounced physical changes, but MtF patients don't seem to have anywhere close to as radical a change. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62ccmh/eli5_why_does_testosterone_have_such_a_big_effect/ | {
"a_id": [
"dflis3g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because males already have estrogen. It is excreted by the pituitary gland to help in sperm production, however females have very low levels of testosterone mainly causing the growth of pubic hair and auxiliary hair in puberty. Testosterone contributed to the development of secondary sex characteristics such as the deepening of voice, increase in muscle, production of sperm, increase libido and many other effects seen being adolescent males."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
b0njv3 | why does cancer that originates in different parts of the body behave so differently and have drastically different outcomes/life expectancies? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b0njv3/eli5_why_does_cancer_that_originates_in_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"eifr3mv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's the stage that matters. Pancreatic cancer has no symptoms and no way to diagnose until after it spreads, whereas colon cancer will show symptoms early on and get treated before a spread. Stage 4 only means the cancer spread."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1ccle8 | sister cities | What is the point of so called Sister cities.. Really don't understand what the point of them are? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ccle8/eli5_sister_cities/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9f8fp4"
],
"score": [
29
],
"text": [
"Cultural exchange. \n\nMy city of Bristol UK was one of the first in the world to be twinned and now it has many twins. \n\nTake our oldest twinship with Bordeaux in France \n\nlast year 300 students visited Bordeaux as part of their French language and history studies and we welcome Bordeaux students here and teach them how to make a proper cup of tea \n\nBordeux also sends graduates to work as teaching assistants in Bristol schools, usually ones who want to train to be English teachers when they go back to France and so wish to improve their English \n\nOr take our twinning with Beira, Mozambique \n\nBristol university sends graduates there to do development work and in return they recently sent over a chef to cook a special meal for university staff, which was nice \n\nOr take our twinning with Tblisi, Georgia \n\nRecently an art gallery here showed an exhibition of Tblisi artists and Bristol choirs have performed on Georgian TV. \n\nThis cultural exchange can be really significant at times when Bristol was twinned with Hannover in 1967 it was symbolic of the peace and reconciliation between the U.K and Germany. \n\nHaving a twin relationship means that you build lasting relationships, rather than exchange students being sent to some unknown place you have students staying with families that their grandparents stayed with when they were at school. It's special. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1gzk71 | venture capital firm/hedge fund/mutual fund | What are the differences and is there any crossover in terms of who they do business with?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gzk71/eli5venture_capital_firmhedge_fundmutual_fund/ | {
"a_id": [
"capf71n",
"capjyk1"
],
"score": [
8,
17
],
"text": [
"These are three very, very different things. Without getting into too much of the technical side:\n\nVenture Capital (VC) Firm - This is a group of managers (often themselves investors) who field cash to fund startups by investing funds in the startups in exchange for large equity stakes (ownership interests) in the company. This is a risky bet that fails more often than not, but succeeds big when it comes off. But the risk of individual failures can be mitigated by pooling investors' assets. Furthermore, VC's often help manage their startups.\n\nHedge Fund - This is a firm that fields large sums of money from its investors, for the purpose of aggressively trading in securities. These are private investment companies that are largely unregulated by the government. So instead of buying a traditional investment product (like a CD or a mutual fund), the investor entrusts money directly to a hedge fund, which (hopefully) brings in the results. The risk in dealing with these can be substantial (see Bernie Madoff), but the returns are traditionally well above the market average. Also: The term itself came into being when investment professionals, often in the employ of a bank or stock brokerage, would start an investment fund on the side to \"hedge\" against the bets they were making in their day job.\n\nMutual Fund - A mutual fund is a pool of securities held by a brokerage (or the like), which investors can buy into. That investor then has a \"share\" of the overall fund. So if an investor makes a $1000 investment in a tech hardware fund, he has essentially spread his $1000 over Apple, Cisco, HP, and all the other companies (usually well into the dozens). This is a great way for someone to make a bet on a particular sector of the market without putting all their money on one horse. Of course, the returns aren't staggering.\n\nSo, these are very different types of investments for different types of investors. Mutual funds are a big market for individual, unsophisticated investors (i.e., consumers). Really anyone can throw money into a mutual fund.\n\nVC and Hedge Funds are quite different in this regard. They only deal in big-boy money, and often won't take investments under a certain amount. Usually, they only deal with (i) very wealthy people, or more commonly (ii) \"institutional investors,\" which are the people who manage very large sums of money held in trust for their beneficiaries (e.g., pension funds).",
"The other response is great, but not ELI5.\n\n**Venture Capital**: \"I want to start a lemonade stand.\" \"Ok, I'll give you $10 so you can buy supplies, but then you owe me 30% of your earnings.\" This is called an \"investment\".\n\n**Hedge Fund**: A group of people that are really good at figuring out the best lemonade stands to invest in, *with the goal of making a* **lot** *more money than the \"safe bet\" lemonade stands*. That group of people can only take money from their close friends, because they make very risky lemonade investments.\n\n**Mutual Fund**: A collection of lemonade stands that you can invest in all at once. But you only have to bother with giving money to *one* person, who manages splitting your money (and everyone else's money) up between all the lemonade stands. Usually, but not always, the collection of lemonade stands is picked to be a pretty safe bet.\n\n**Edit**: Noticed the second part of your question about crossover. Hedge funds and mutual funds *can* invest in the same lemonade stands, but usually don't because the mutual funds invest in the big, established stands but the hedge funds invest in younger, more aggressive lemonade stands. Venture capitalists are separate because they invest in private lemonade stands, and mutual/hedge funds invest in public ones. Being private means that not anyone can invest (you have to talk to the stand's owner first), being public means that anyone can invest without asking permission first."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
bg55s6 | being a marine animal, why haven’t dugongs developed the ability to breathe underwater? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bg55s6/eli5_being_a_marine_animal_why_havent_dugongs/ | {
"a_id": [
"elie9xm",
"eliea07",
"elief9y",
"eljlbp3"
],
"score": [
2,
18,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they have not undergone a serious of mutations granting them the ability to breath underwater, coupled with the associated selective pressure to result in overall evolution of the species.\n\nEvolution, real evolution, works as a trial-and-error, piecemeal process, rather than some [comic book superpower.](_URL_0_)",
"No marine mammals have the ability to breathe underwater. They lost the ability and never re-gained it. Evolution is not intelligent design, and it frequently results in suboptimal organisms.\n\n[Here's](_URL_0_) the history of ceteceans, the most common group of marine mammals.",
"Being able to breath underwater would require almost a complete \"redesign\" of the mammalian respiratory structure. And evolution doesn't seek to maximize theoretical fitness, it's just a tendency for populations to slowly drift towards higher fitness. Is it theoretically possible for marine mammals to develop the ability to breathe underwater over many millions of years? Yes. But right now, breathing air works well, even for completely aquatic species like whales, so it seems unlikely that it would change any time \"soon\"",
"Essentially, because they need more oxygen than water can provide. The amount of oxygen available in water is tiny compared to the oxygen available in air -- about 10 mg/L in water vs about 250 mg/L of air. Because dugongs are warm-blooded, they need much more oxygen than fish do to stay alive -- they have to keep their body warm even though there's cool water all around. The only realistic way to get enough oxygen is to breathe air."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(comics)"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2ph2b6 | why do hackers keep attacking playstation? | What did PS do to deserve the unholy wrath of the internet army? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ph2b6/eli5_why_do_hackers_keep_attacking_playstation/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmwkulx",
"cmwlhri",
"cmwmrhe",
"cmwr7lz"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Gaming attracts people with a 'need to get past this puzzle' mentality, as does hacking.\n\nSo it makes sense that a lot of hackers are gamers, and since they are already aware of Sony's/PlayStation's limits/barriers, they want to get past them, almost like a real-life game.",
"You don't mess with people who want to install Linux on their PlayStations.",
"Sony is not great at Information Security.\n\n[See here.](_URL_1_)\n\n[Also this](_URL_0_) - See the paragraph under \"Sony's History of Security Problems\" and \"A long time coming\" for more details.\n\nTo put it as simply as possible, Sony considered the lack of investment in Information Security an 'acceptable risk'. This, plus the high profile nature of the company across a number of different markets makes it an attractive target for anyone looking to send a message, like the recent bout of hacking.\n\nI haven't been following this particular incident, so I'm not sure of the hacker's actual motivations, but the core of the issue lies in Sony's decision to not invest in InfoSec or follow a number of basic security guidelines.\n\n\nSide Note - Sony isn't the only company guilty of this. You'll find most companies who don't focus specifically in the tech industry have subpar security practices, as its considered an investment in an area of the company that provides no profit. Its an unfortunate reflection of the general ignorance about what an increasingly digital world means. \n\nThe other comments make references to the infamous GeoHot incident, however, there isn't any confirmed connection (to the best of my knowledge) between the April 2011 attacks and the GeoHot incident. ",
"Big name target. Lax security structure. Bad mojo. That's what makes it top of the hit list"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.techrepublic.com/article/sony-pictures-hack-employee-information-and-unreleased-films-leaked/",
"http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240236006/Sony-hack-exposes-poor-security-practices"
],
[]
] |
|
1vrg1y | how anti-plagiarism programs work. | I just recently started college and this subject came up in all my classes. Now I'm worried that some sentence I randomly put together is going to be from some book or website and I'm going to get kicked out of school for it. How vague do the phrases have to be before it overlooks the match? Let's say I say something like "The amount of crime in *yadda yadda* has risen over the past few years." and some author somewhere just so happens to have written that somewhere does it register? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vrg1y/eli5_how_antiplagiarism_programs_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"cev2iyy",
"cev3347"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think it works as a percentage kinda thing, say you wrote 1000 words. They might have set the limit to like 15 percent. So once the program goes through your paper it calculates the percentage and it gets flagged. I think they can they manually review it ",
"For each paper in the database, numerous hashes are computed based on strings in the text. To analyze your paper, the program will create hashes from it and compare them to all similar sources (rather than every single book in the system). A significant amount of matches would warrant further inspection."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1qylp4 | what is the purpose of mustaches? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qylp4/eli5_what_is_the_purpose_of_mustaches/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdhvec9"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Ladies love mustache rides. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
jh90k | what is the difference between works cited, references and bibliography? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jh90k/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_works_cited/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2c3nv2",
"c2c3nv2"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"A bibliography is any work that you looked at pertaining to your topic that you withdrew from the library, internet, wherever that you thought you might use that would be pertinent. A works cited/reference page (the terms are interchangeable) are works that you cited in your academic work, such as a parenthetical citation.\n\nIn short, a bibliography is what you could have used, and a works cited is what you did use. Everything in the works cited is in the bibliography also.",
"A bibliography is any work that you looked at pertaining to your topic that you withdrew from the library, internet, wherever that you thought you might use that would be pertinent. A works cited/reference page (the terms are interchangeable) are works that you cited in your academic work, such as a parenthetical citation.\n\nIn short, a bibliography is what you could have used, and a works cited is what you did use. Everything in the works cited is in the bibliography also."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
217xy1 | why are the file names for torrents always so cryptic | For example if I download the latest episode of "Cosmos: A Space Odyssey" it has periods instead of spaces and things like "WS.PDV.XvI.D-RiVER.[VTV]" at the end. Why can't whoever uploads torrents just name it "Cosmos A Space Time Odyssey S01E03" etc? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/217xy1/eli5_why_are_the_file_names_for_torrents_always/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgags6a",
"cgaguuv",
"cgajkdh"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The letters at the end are tags about the torrent quality, source, and the group that released it. Not sure about the space though",
"It's just a standard on how to name torrents. Xvid is the codec for the video file, VTV was the release group, WS is probably widescreen.\n\nThe full stops are just how it's done, if I had a guess at why, it's a remnant from a time when spaces didn't interact well with file names. Here's a list of the naming standards from 2012: _URL_0_",
"I'll use Cosmos as an example, I found this torrent:\nCosmos.A.Space.Time.Odyssey.S01E03.720p.HDTV.X264-DIMENSION[rartv]\n\nFirst, the periods are from a time when systems couldn't handle spaces in filenames. Then you have the season and episode data, you have the quality (720p, \"HD\"), HDTV specifying that it's an HD rip from TV and not from a DVD.\n\nX264 is the name of the codec which are the details on how to actually open the file and the last bit is the signature or name of the group that released the file.\n\nTL;DR:\n\nIt's information for nerds.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://scenerules.irc.gs/n.html?id=2012_SDTVx264r.nfo"
],
[]
] |
|
1rflo5 | why does israel regard the nuclear weapons deal with iran as the "worst mistake in history"? | I get that there is an ongoing beef there, and this temporary deal does not equal a total cessation of nuclear progression on the part of Iran. Still, isn't this better than what it was before? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rflo5/eli5_why_does_israel_regard_the_nuclear_weapons/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdmqn4k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They think Iran will not hold up their end of the agreement."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
ou1pl | if the riaa, mpaa et al are responsible for paying lobbyists to push through horrible bills (sopa, pipa) why does the tech industry - who have more money not just buy their own lobbyists to pass "good" bills through? | ie- just outspend the other guy. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ou1pl/if_the_riaa_mpaa_et_al_are_responsible_for_paying/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3k19fc",
"c3k1xc6",
"c3k2xci",
"c3k3htt",
"c3k3roo",
"c3k3wl5",
"c3k426n",
"c3k4f1k",
"c3k4jwr",
"c3k5vg5",
"c3k744k"
],
"score": [
6,
7,
149,
15,
4,
22,
2,
4,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No money in it. The bad lobbyists make money by being bad. Good lobbyists don't make much money at all.\n\nThis is why we get more bills relating to budgets and money and corporations, than we do about human rights and welfare.\n\nIf I pay a politician five bucks, to give me a hundred bucks of taxpayer money, I can do that a lot more than the guy who is paying him five bucks to not spend taxpayer money on stupid stuff.",
"They possibly could, if they were as well organized in Washington as the MPAA and RIAA, among others. The tech industry hasn't been around as long, and their hands aren't nearly as deep in the hands of lobbyists as more established industries.\n\nBut anyhow, we're just picking the lesser of two evils in that scenario - the ideal scenario is political form whereby this corruption by any other name is not allowed in the American political system.",
"Because that's not how lobbying works. It's not just bribery. It's about creating relationships with and influencing political decision makers. The RIAA and MPAA are decades old, and have a readily working lobbying machine, they have the best lobbyists, they know the secret handshakes. They know what staffers and aides to call to influence who, who to donate to. They have lots of inside knowledge, they have extremely close relationships with key-players. \n\nSo it's not as simple as saying, we'll give you $50,000 to pass this bill. You need a massive network of political operatives who've been working in Washington for years. The Tech companies don't have that yet. ",
"The internet is kinda \"ok\" at this current stage and big companies like Google don't really like to interfere with something that's doing just fine, unless things like netneutrality and sopa stir up the dust. The RIAA and MPAA, on the other hand, can't get enough profits, don't care about PR and go batshitcrazy with bills like these... they want to turn the internet into their personal content distribution network.",
"Rule #1. Don't be evil.",
"A lobbyist is a person who has meetings with elected officials, and explains what his friends want. That is what a lobbyist is: they do not have a wad of cash that they tie a note saying 'vote yes!! < 3' around and throw it at the mayor. \n\nA good lobbyist may even be cheaper than a bad lobbyist. Let's pretend that my town has a sewage problem. You see, we built this new factory in town. It gave us a whole bunch of new jobs, but it also gave us a lot of dirty stuff that we need to get rid of! So, we shop around about what to do. Finally, we figure out that we can just dump it in the river nearby! Everything is going well, but then uh-oh! Mean ol' *Congress* says we can't dump it! So, the company hires a lobbyist to go down to the Capitol and talk to Congress about this problem. \n\nMr. Lobbyist spends the next 3-4 months doing nothing but taking Congressman out to lunch, or ice cream, or even to the park. He'll talk to them and explain why passing a new law about sewage dumping is a good thing. Sometimes, the Congressman disagree, sometimes they agree*. After all, Mr. Lobbyist represents the people of my town, just as the Congressman does, sort of.\n\nGoogle doesn't have a problem with the internet as it is. They get paid a lot of money right now and people like them. So why rock the boat? If they push through bad bills, people may not like them as much. To boot, they may not even get the law passed, and they will have wasted a lot of money.\n\n*After a few years of this, Mr. Lobbyist has built up a group of Congressman he knows he can sway. He doesn't have to waste our money on the mean ones anymore!",
"Because Apple and Microsoft are the two you would have to convince, not most of the Silicon Valley types. (it is about money after all) \n\nThose two don't have a vested interest in getting rid of SOPA, et al, and they do have working relationships with UMG, Sony, et al. (see Zune and iPod)\n\nWho do you propose has the money in the tech sector in the US to fight the RIAA daughter organizations?",
"I live in DC and know some of these lobbyists. Right now, the entire problem seems to be old vs. new. Basically, the MPAA and RIAA are more older, established groups with political experience. I'd say the average age of these people is around 50. Most are a network of self-perpetuating special interest groups that make it hard to \"break in\" because it's like trying to re-weave a carpet while people who like the old pattern are still standing on it. So, to make changes, one must become one of them to fit in and be effective, and most get lost and become the very thing they set out to change.\n\nIt doesn't help that the \"new money\" of the Internet generation has been more self-reflecting on their own navels than trying to make any sweeping political change. Not all of them are, but most that set out to change things are naive and easily distracted. \n\nThis will change.with time. The old people will die out, and the new people will slowly influence a new direction. But the time pace for the Internet is much, much faster than it is in legislature. Things on the Internet change in years, while law and lobbyist influence take decades. And the \"old money\" had an almost century head start. ",
"The recording industry is doing this because they are literally becoming obsolete , and these are their last grasps at staying relevant. Thirty year ago it was impossible for an emerging artist to get their music in front of potential customers around the world without the help of a distributer , producing physical media was expensive, and studio time was hard to come by in exchange for providing these services record companies have been keep most of the profits. None of these things are true any longer, and because of that record companies are scared .",
"Yes, let's have an industry of patent trolls try and get laws passed!",
"They do spend lots of money on lobbying. Google spent [$9.68 million](_URL_0_) last year on lobbying. However, they spend money taking care of themselves, not you.\n\nAlso, what is a \"good\" bill?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57364115/google-spending-freely-to-gain-d.c-clout/"
]
] |
|
6pq6cm | can somebody explain the concept of global consciousness? | So several observances from the global consciousness project indicate that consciousness might be an omnipresent phenomenon, occuring universally like gravitation, and not just in everybody's heads. But how in the world should this be possible? Please note that I know that this is just a hypothesis and that the obsercances made - while unlikely to be of accidental nature - are no definitive evidence for the validity of this hypothesis. Just hypothetically speaking, how would this be possible? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pq6cm/eli5_can_somebody_explain_the_concept_of_global/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkrjb25",
"dkrto4q"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"I studied brain science in university.\n\nThere is no known principle by which this would work. The evidence of its existence is so poor in quality that experts suspect it is experimental error, rather than a real thing.",
"In general the global consciousness people are insane and use shit logic. But there are many good theories that talk about the possibilities of larger consciousness emerging out of smaller consciousnesses. \n\nFor example, [If Materialism Is True, the United States Is Probably Conscious](_URL_0_). \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconscious-140721.pdf"
]
] |
|
3yea5r | how are movies filmed in multiple formats simultaneously (2d, 3d, imax, etc) while still being able to maintain their cinematic integrity? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yea5r/eli5_how_are_movies_filmed_in_multiple_formats/ | {
"a_id": [
"cycpgqs"
],
"score": [
77
],
"text": [
"You start with the best quality and prune out stuff to get to the lower ones. \n\n3d is captured by taking two 2d camera images and using polarized light or alternate frame rates or some other vehicle to make them 3d to the viewer. So when you film 3d you get 2d free by simply not combining the two camera outputs into one, and just going with one of the two camera outputs. \n\nIMAX is a high resolution, so you simply process it down into a lower resolution film by removing pixels."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
abi2cg | why do people with massive tumors wait so long to have them removed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/abi2cg/eli5_why_do_people_with_massive_tumors_wait_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"ed0eczy",
"ed0ee19"
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text": [
"Money and/or denial. Some people can't afford the surgery since unless it is an actual hazzard to the persons life insurance can be iffy. And some people just spend too long hoping/thinking \"Oh, it'll get better on its own\" (a lot of times because of the financial impact)",
"Do you have hundreds of thousands of dollars friend?\nAlot of people don't have an extra five hundred dollars let alone enough to cover a intense surgery and a week or more in the hospital. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1bxgry | what exactly am i smelling when i smell a dumpster? | Is it something specific and identifiable or is it just a hodge-podge of smells? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bxgry/eli5_what_exactly_am_i_smelling_when_i_smell_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9azwk5",
"c9b2uhs"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Bacteria waste, usually. All living things produce excrement, and it usually stinks.",
"It's a bunch of things, but the most foul smelling stuff tends to be rotting organic matter. Evolution has given our nose some relatively strong sensing equipment specifically to help us tell whether or not food is spoiled, because eating spoiled food can be very detrimental to one's survival. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1xfocr | why do airplanes always feel level even when at steep turn angles? | I travel a lot and it baffles me that I feel perfectly level even when the plane is at 45° angles during tge landing approach. I assume its centripetal force but I never feel like im being forced downward into my seat. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xfocr/why_do_airplanes_always_feel_level_even_when_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfb09fc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A commercial airliner in normal flight will never get anywhere close to 45 degrees in any attitude. The reason you feel level is that you very seldomly will experience much more than 1G in any maneuver. You probably feel pushed into your seat on takeoff, and when the plane begins to descend, you liftup for a moment. On turns you feel the airplane bank, but then as it turns you are driven into your seat, and so the whole maneuver feels normal. The aircraft keeps your equilibrium at its own reference point."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
76rgzr | theresa may, british parliament, the royal family and their relationship to each other/rolls in british government | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76rgzr/eli5_theresa_may_british_parliament_the_royal/ | {
"a_id": [
"dog4sgx"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The UK parliament is composed of two houses, a lower house called the House of Commons, and an upper house called the House of Lords.\n\nMembers of the upper house are appointed; the 650 members of the lower house (known as MPs) are voted for by the public.\n\nFollowing an election, whichever party has the most MPs gets invited to form the government. To form a stable government the party has to ensure it can get an absolute majority of votes (i.e. over 325) in the lower house. It can do this either by having over 325 MPs of its own get elected, or doing deals with other parties to ensure it gets the votes. The leader of that party, if successful in forming a government, becomes the Prime Minister.\n\nCurrently, the largest party is the Conservative Party; their leader is Theresa May. She doesn't quite have enough MPs to govern alone (she has 317) so she has done a deal with a small Northern Irish party called the DUP to ensure she can form a government. As she has successfully formed a government she is now the Prime Minister, as well as being leader of the Conservative Party.\n\nThe Royal Family have nothing to do with this, other than the fact that formally it is the Queen, as Head of State, who invites the largest party to form a government."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
330t2q | what would happen if china and the usa went to war and then china called for the usa to pay its debt? | How would that work legally? What effect would it have on the economy? And wood it change the war? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/330t2q/eli5_what_would_happen_if_china_and_the_usa_went/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqgfern",
"cqgffmm",
"cqgfg2n",
"cqgfkhr",
"cqgfy9b",
"cqgi2h1",
"cqgiuh4",
"cqgulbc"
],
"score": [
3,
50,
2,
7,
24,
5,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"War is diplomacy by other means. We will not go to war.\n\nOur debt is a promise to pay according to the terms of the bonds sold. No one can call for immediate payment of a bond. They can only expect the terms to be honored.",
"China, just like all other holders of US debt, can't just \"demand payment\" before the bond is due. I think you have a misunderstanding of how debt works. \n\nI believe you are thinking of it like when your friend borrows $20 at the bar. Yeah, he owes you the money. Though, if you were gonna collect, you wouldn't punch him in the face first. \n\nNo, it's more like your car loan. It has terms, a duration, and a fixed interest rate. If you are making all your payments on your car, the bank can't just show up one day and say \"we don't like you. Pay off your car note now.\" No, your response would be \"Fuck you. We signed a contract and you get your money when we agreed.\"",
"They don't *have* to do anything. Say you go to a bank, take out a loan. You get your monthly statement and how much you need to pay and so on. You don't *have* to pay that sum. I mean they'd fuck your life over. But they don't *have* to do anything. And it's easier when you're at war. Just go win the war and when you make peace wipe the debt off in the treaty. ",
"You fail to remember that China owes the U.S and U.K. nearly as much money as we owe them. The difference is there was a regime change in China, and the current Government of China refuses to honor the debts of the previous government...(Except with France, they repaid France for some reason) So they might call in the debt but we'd just do the same along with other countries whom China has shafted.\n_URL_0_",
"China holds US debt because China bought bonds issued by the US. A bond is an agreement that the *issuer* (the US in terms of your question) will repay the *holder* (China) an amount of money on a certain date. Part of the agreement states the issuer will also pay interest to the holder.\n\nChina can't demand the money back on an arbitrary date (...usually. It depends on the type of bond but lets not over-complicate this.); they have to wait for the bond to reach maturity.\n\nSo legally, China cannot demand the debt be repaid.\n\nThey can, however, sell the bonds. If China were to sell all their US bonds, the price of the bonds would decrease due to the increased supply. Cheap bonds would be more attractive to potential buyers because they come with a higher interest rate. \n\n\nCheap bonds with attractive interest rates might make it more difficult for the US to sell new bonds. And therefore more difficult for the US to raise money for the war. \n\nI suppose the US could announce it will no longer honor the old bonds. But that might affect their ability to sell new bonds- who's gonna trust the guy with a recent history of bad debt?\n\nSo yeah, it could affect the economy. I won't say how exactly, because I can't. This is a really complex scenario. \n\n[This](_URL_0_) is an easy to understand article about national debt.",
"If China and the US went to war what would happen is that all bonds held by the other would be declared void. China holding so much US debt is actually a big deterrent to war between the two.\n\nOther people have already explained why China can't just decide to demand immediate payment already. And besides Japan holds more US debt than China.",
"Same reason why your mortgage company can't just say \"we changed our mind about the payment plan thing, give us $100K or you lose your house.\"\n\nThe US debt is structured in a similar way. You buy a 10 year bond, the US doesn't have to pay you a cent until a decade has passed.\n\nWhat's more, when countries go to war, debts are typically suspended. If you are already shooting at one another, they isn't anything you can really to do force payment, and other lenders do not consider this kind of suspension to be a default. In fact, one of the common terms for peace is the winning country gets its debt cancelled.",
"The US debt is in the form of treasury bonds. When you purchase them they have a set duration until the mature. Often they are not even capable of being cashed out early and when you are able to do so you face penalty fees that can take up to half the value of the bond away. So China cannot just demand its payment. \n\nBut lets assume they did. They own 8% of our debt and with standard penalties would only be paid around half what they would get if they waited for them to mature normally. So they would only get paid 4% of our debt. \n\nThen we have the fact that you say they went to war prior to demanding payment. That would likely nullify all deals thus legally reducing what we owe them to 0. \n\nThe war would have an effect on our economy as it would be increasing war production and forcing industries that currently outsource to china to bring jobs home or transfer them elsewhere, but paying the debt off would have far less effect. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://chinadailymail.com/2012/05/29/china-could-owe-america-one-trillion-dollars/"
],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
52gxe7 | why do taiwan and the philippines get walloped by so many huge typhoons? | Typhoon Meranti is currently forecasted (as of 5:49 PM EST) to impact southern Taiwan as a category 4 typhoon with sustained winds around 145 mph. I remember hearing of many similar forecasts regarding "super typhoons" impacting both Taiwan and the Phillipines over the last 12 months....
Is there something about the Pacific in the ocean parts east of these island nations that makes them favorable for large storm formation (i.e. water temperature, wind shear patterns, etc.)? Or is there some larger-scale, medium-term climactic shift going on in these regions (think La Nina/El Nino, not global warming)? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52gxe7/eli5_why_do_taiwan_and_the_philippines_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7kipdi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Typhoon put simply are storms that grow over water and shrink over land. The Philippines and Taiwan just happen to the at the gate of the Pacific Ocean. \n\n\nClimate winds also tend to go towards these countries so its more of it so happens they are in front as opposed to some special situation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4u1yhr | what's going on physiologically when your "blood runs cold"? | I thought it was just a turn of phrase, but then it happened to me. I got some shocking news, and it was exactly like the blood in my veins turned cold. What's going on in the body when that happens? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4u1yhr/eli5_whats_going_on_physiologically_when_your/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5m54iw",
"d5mhrb4",
"d5miyx0",
"d5mt2nj"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"In times of stress, the body restricts blood flow to the extremities (your arms and legs) in order to keep the majority of the blood near your vital organs, which are more important to keep supplied with warm, nutrient-rich blood during a fight-or-flight response.\n\nThis restricted blood flow makes your limbs a little cooler since they would be heated less from warm blood flow, hence the cold feeling.",
"I believe the sensation you are getting is a shot of adrenaline entering your blood stream. When this happens to me I can feel it spread through my body very fast from my core to the tips of my fingers and toes. ",
"Not quite sure(started in biology but finished in geology) but it has something to do with your memory just being sold. ",
"It is a side effect of your body's fight or flight response. When the response is triggered, a whole lot of things happen to prepare your body for a survival situation. Your brain releases several hormones (epinephrine a.k.a. adrenaline, and cortisol) which initiate an array of effects. Your bronchial tubes (lung tubes) expand to get more oxygen, your heart beats faster, your stomach stops digesting, and your blood vessels contract to increase blood pressure. This last response is important, because the contraction of the blood vessels reduces the amount of blood flow directly below the surface of your skin. So, your outer skin becomes cooler very quickly which causes that uncomfortable sensation. You may also notice that you become more pale, because there's less oxygen rich blood reaching the skin surface. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1s0gwr | 24 hour stomach "flu/bug" | What is it?
What causes it?
Why does it exist?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s0gwr/eli524_hour_stomach_flubug/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdsp2j7",
"cdsp96q"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's not the flu, it's a mild food-borne illness.",
"The actual term is [gastroenteritis](_URL_0_). It is irritatingly often called a \"stomach flu\", which is bad because it makes the ignorant think it has *anything to do with flu*, which it does not. It is a condition in which the gastrointestinal tract (stomach and small intestine) becomes inflamed, and can cause diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and cramping. There are multiple causes, but the most common is a virus (norovirus in adults, rotavirus in children).\n\nIt CAN be lethal, but only* through dehydration. The key treatment for it is lots of fluids.\n\nIt can be fairly short-term (24ish hours for example) because the inflammation goes down, which doesn't necessarily mean the virus is completely gone.\n\n*Unless you have a compromised immune system."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastroenteritis"
]
] |
|
8nkftc | why doesn’t blood rush to our feet? | I’ve been really curious to the question on why our blood doesn’t rush to our feet. Like everyone’s been told before, don’t hang upside down too long or the blood goes to your head. So why isn’t that the same for our feet when standing upright? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8nkftc/eli5_why_doesnt_blood_rush_to_our_feet/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzw4hhf",
"dzw4krc"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you evolved to stand upright. Your body has one way valves in the legs, and utilizes the muscular activity of your legs, to push blood back upwards and prevent it from flowing against the normal direction. We didn't evolve standing on our heads, so there's no need for a corresponding upside down system, as we're rarely oriented that way for long.",
"Your body has a series of one-way valves in the legs and preferentially pumps blood upwards.\n\nSince you spend most of your time roughly upright, this counteracts the force of gravity trying to pool blood in the legs."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
56h4y5 | why are some plugs ungrounded? | I know that grounding a circuit is a way to ensure that people won't electrocute themselves every time they plug or unplug a wire from the wall. However, some plugs in my house are ungrounded, such as my toaster wire or laptop charger. Why is this allowed? Isn't an ungrounded plug dangerous? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56h4y5/eli5_why_are_some_plugs_ungrounded/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8j7sx4",
"d8jwuie"
],
"score": [
44,
2
],
"text": [
"The ground exists to prevent a short circuit in a device from electrifying the case, which would shock you if you just touched the device. Basically, the ground is attached to the case in such a way that it if the case somehow becomes electrified, the ground is the shortest path for electricity to travel to your house's ground (as opposed to that being your body). Because of that, electricity should *never* be flowing through the ground - its a last ditch measure to keep a seriously damaged device from killing you. \n\nIf a device doesn't have any metal parts that you can touch then it doesn't need a ground because there is no way for the case to be electrified.\n\nThe ground has nothing to do with unplugging or plugging in a device. Plugs are made out of plastic or rubber so they can't be electrified. ",
"A ground wire is not necessary when there's no realistic risk of electrical shock.\n\nThe purpose of an earth ground is to provide a very low impedence pathway for current to follow in the event that an electrical fault occurs. The biggest risks are devices that have metal frames. If the frame comes into contact with the supply, the frame will become electrified. Were someone to touch the frame while it is electrified, they may be shocked; due to the impedence of the human body, the shock is unlikely to be enough to trip any circuit protection. If the frame is grounded, any electrical fault will result in the current being drawn to ground via the low impedence path rather than to ground via the higher impedence human body. Ideally, the current should be high enough to trip overcurrent protection. However, if the ground fault occurs due to water or another conductive medium, the current may not be high enough to trip the overcurrent protection; in these cases, ground-fault-circuit-interruptors (GFCIs) can be used to interrupt power whenever any current is travelling to ground regardless of whether or not it exceeds the circuit's current limit.\n\nDevices that do not pose a risk of a ground fault do not need to be grounded, although many are. Your laptop charger for example has complete galvanic isolation between the primary and secondary sides of the supply. The power supply is external and isolated from the laptop; as long as it does not have a metal frame it does not pose a risk of electrical shock. Desktop computers on the other hand use internal power supplies that have metal frames. The entire frame of the computer is in contact with the PSU frame, which is grounded, thereby grounding the computer's frame. Were a wire to come loose in the laptop charger, there's no realistic way for anything to become electrified; this is not the case for the desktop computer, hence why it needs to be grounded. Toasters that have metal frames need to be grounded if they are not fully isolated from the heating elements."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6j7owp | why are you slightly taller in the morning after you wake up? can you also get slightly taller from a short nap? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6j7owp/eli5why_are_you_slightly_taller_in_the_morning/ | {
"a_id": [
"djc5wq1"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"All the time you stand up gravity compresses your spinal column, so you slowly shrink during the day, when you lie down the compression is eased and you become taller again."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
89qbow | why have illnesses adapted to be harmful ? | How would natural selection cause bacteria/viruses to harm us if those would be cured faster or kill their hosts ? Wouldn't passive and fast spreading be more likely to survive ? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/89qbow/eli5_why_have_illnesses_adapted_to_be_harmful/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwt1837",
"dwt21gd"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"They haven't. They're just trying to be fruitful and multiply. Any illness brought to man or beast is simply happenstance, an unintended consequence of infection and proliferation. Besides that, most bacteria are generally harmless unless they grow out of control. Take *Escherichia coli*, for example (“E. coli” for short). It lives in the human intestine, and it's only a problem when other bacteria (“gut flora” is a technical term) aren't around to keep it in check. \n\nOther bacteria are downright helpful, such as *Staphylococcus epidermidis*. You might recognize its cousin *S. aureus* as the cause of “staph infections,” but *S. epidermidis* is harmless and can even help protect against skin cancer.",
"Most of the really harmful diseases, like ebola, have only recently jumped species to us from some other animal host and have not yet had time to adapt to us."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1q5d9p | why does oil make such "great" fuel? | How did humans discover it? When did we start using it? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q5d9p/why_does_oil_make_such_great_fuel/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd9cfxs"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It makes a great fuel because it's easily portable and has a very high [energy density](_URL_0_) - you can get more energy out of a kilogram/liter of gasoline than you can almost any other fuel in the world (other than uranium). The lower the energy density of a fuel, the more of it you have to carry around. \n\nWe've known about oil for years - in some places it's right on the surface (think of the LaBrea tar pits in Los Angeles). We started using it for fuel in the mid-1800s when the price of whale oil (used for lanterns) got to very expensive because we were killing all the whales. A Canadian named Abraham Gesner discovered you could make kerosene from crude oil and burn it instead of whale oil, and the petroleum industry was born. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density"
]
] |
|
e73d48 | how does a configurable nuclear weapon work? | I've read that e.g. the B61-12 can be configured to have a blast of between 1/3rd kT and 150kT - how does this work? do they open the bomb and change the interior? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e73d48/eli5_how_does_a_configurable_nuclear_weapon_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9v42so",
"f9v7389",
"f9v7ohp"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
5
],
"text": [
"Nuclear bombs don't like going off, and require precise timings and such. These timings can be shifted slightly to waste more fuel. Fusion bombs also use a gas as a booster for the explosion, which can be easily moved around to vary the yield.",
"The bomb isn't in a constant state\n\nSeconds before detonation the deuterium and/or tritium gas is released which will serve as the fuel for the fusion stage.\n\nIf you release all the gas you can get the 340 kT max yield.\n\nIf you release no gas and muck with the timing then the fission stage fizzles and you get the 0.3 kT.\n\nIf you release a bit of gas and let the fission stage go off normally get a midsized boom and you can adjust your final yield by adjusting how much gas will be released into the fusion section.\n\nIt's set by a switch on the bomb before it's dropped and when it gets close to detonation it releases the desired amount of gas",
"They do so by changing the timing of events in the implosion. A lot of effort goes into maximizing the efficiency of the fission event, throwing that off reduces the yield, hence, you can use that to your advantage and dial-a-yield appropriate for your application.\n\nFissile material, typically uranium-235 or plutonium-239, is shaped into a \"pit\" - ostensibly it's a hollow sphere, but that's only a simple model, in reality it's almost always some sort of hollow ovoid shape. Conventional explosives surround the pit and are used to compress it, driving the implosion that allows the exponential chain reaction.\n\nThis gets tricky, the thickness of the explosive has to match the shape of the pit, and ultimately has to crush it down to a uniform sphere. Furthermore, the explosive is covered in detonators, all of which have to be perfectly coordinated for a uniform implosion, BUT, what you get are a number of shock waves emanating from each detonator. When two shock waves collide, the pressure is higher at that point, creating jets of higher pressure. So the conventional explosive is actually a complex geometric shape of slow burning explosives, to compensate. Once this layer of the explosive combusts to the point of a uniform shock wave, there's a second layer of fast burning explosive to provide the real kick.\n\nWith all that going on, you can selectively delay the ignition of the detonators to reduce the efficiency, and lower the yield.\n\nThere is a device called a tamper. This is simply a metal plate that acts as a buffer between the explosive shock wave and the pit itself. Earlier weapons held this in place with Styrofoam, others would suspend the pit with wires and there will be an air gap between the tamper and the pit. The point is to average out the pressure from the shock wave onto the tamper, which will accelerate across the air gap, and hit core with more, and more uniform force, than the shock wave itself. The choice of tamper can change the yield. The device can be built without one, or often the tamper is made of lead. The Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated at an estimated 50 MT, was actually designed to be tested at 100 MT, but the choice of tamper was changed at the last minute, principally to assure a successful test. The original tamper was going to be made out of uranium.\n\nThen you have deuterium and tritium. These are isotopes of hydrogen that provide 2 and 3 additional neutrons, respectively. Nuclear weapons rely on neutrons to cause the nucleus of the fissile material to split. The naturally occurring decay of the fissile material is enough to detonate such a weapon, such is the nature of the significance of the implosion; you collapse the pit to such an extremely dense core that exponential growth of decay is unavoidable, in a fraction of a second.\n\nAdding hydrogen \"boosts\" this process, increasing the efficiency. It doesn't take much, literally hundreds of atoms are enough to get a significant yield. There is a hydrogen generator that is a little device which will produce hydrogen through electrical or chemical reactions, and inject it into the pit through a tiny port hole in the side, moments before detonation. You can adjust or omit the timing of this to change how much boost the pit gets.\n\nThen finally, we know the weapon designers try to inject, capture, and reflect as much energy into the core as possible. Energetic nucleus are more likely to split than those at a lower energy level, so the outside of the core is surrounded by Styrofoam filled with beryllium, which reflects neutrons. There are also other x-ray and gamma ray reflectors, and it's also believed that radiation pressure is a significant factor in causing compression.\n\nTo add to all this, there are small particle accelerators, called flash tubes, that blast the core with x-rays during detonation. You can omit or delay the timing of this to reduce the yield.\n\nAll these design decisions and variables effect atomic bombs. You then have thermonuclear bombs - fusion weapons. These weapons also rely on compression. That compression comes from an atomic bomb. So atom bombs are the first stage of a thermonuclear bomb. The second stage is roughly the shape of a paint can, if you believe the diagrams. The can is made out of u-238, which isn't fissile, but it doesn't have to be - this stage of the weapon doesn't rely on chain reactions. The can is filled with lithium-6 and -7, which are neutron heavy isotopes. When they fuse, under the compression of the atomic bomb and it's massive amounts of x-rays and gamma rays, all of which the compression generates fantastic amounts of heat, the excess neutrons are cast off. The energy level of these neutrons is where the \"thermo\" part of the weapon's name comes into play. Thermal neutrons are so energetic, they're moving at 17% the speed of light. They blast right through the uranium housing like it's not even there. Right through the nucleus of those atoms. Such energetic neutrons are what's required to get uranium-238 to split, releasing tremendous amounts of energy.\n\nThe housing from the second stage is where most of the radiation comes from in the fallout from these weapons. But as for varying the yield of a second stage, I don't know enough about them to say. Obviously, varying the yield of the first stage is going to have an effect on the second, but I don't know more than that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ry5ls | "rights" | It seems to me that "rights" language is used so frequently today, particularly in the U.S., that it has lost all meaning. Spend enough time on Reddit, and someone will posit that owning a cell phone is a basic human "right."
It seems to me that "rights" are just communally decided upon goods that we're going to enforce (generally through government). Thus, a woman only has a "right to choose" and a baby only has a "right to life" if we decided that they do. If that is not the case, where do basic rights come from?
ELI5 what basic human rights are, what "natural rights" would be (if they're distinct from "basic human rights"), and where the government comes in. Also address religion, moral and ethical theory, etc. as you see fit. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ry5ls/eli5_rights/ | {
"a_id": [
"c49kvyl",
"c49lo8f"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There isn't really a singular answer. Different people have different views on the issue. \n\n\nMore conservative or religious people would argue that rights come from god. \n\nThe US was founded largely on the beliefs of social contract theorists, such as John Locke. They would argue more that our rights are simply those that are agreed upon by the people. \n\nOthers might argue that certain rights, like the right to live, are intrinsic, but not endowed by a deity. ",
"Although you're asking about rights, this is really a question about the source of morality in general. There are a few different viewpoints on this.\n\nOne (called *moral realism*) is that morals are simply objective facts, just like facts in physics or something. So when you say \"I have a right to life\", you mean \"We can conclude just by thinking about it that other people should not be allowed to kill me.\" This is the most popular view; most philosophers lean towards accepting it, and a large majority of the populace as a whole just couldn't imagine it being false.\n\nAnother is known as *ethical subjectivism*. In this view, statements about morality are statements about how people want things to be. So when you say \"I have a right to life\", you really mean \"[The people of this country/people in general/any hypothetical sentient being] think I should have a right to life\".\n\nA third is known as *error theory*. This view doesn't concern itself with the backing of moral statements, because it holds that any moral statement is false. So when you say \"I have a right to life\", you're wrong regardless of what you mean.\n\nThe last is known as *non-cognitivism*. This claims that moral statements aren't even statements at all. When you say \"I have a right to life\", you either mean \"yay life!\" (under *emotivism*) or \"don't kill me\" (under *expressivism*).\n\n\nDo keep in mind that in practice, people mix and match a lot of these senses. Like I said, almost all non-philosophers are moral realists, but there are things we call \"rights\" that are clearly not inherent features of the universe. When someone claims that owning a cell phone is a basic right, they don't mean that \"people should own cell phones\" is an objective fact; they mean that, the way society is currently structured, owning a cell phone is a virtual necessity. If this was how they viewed all rights, they would be an ethical subjectivist.\n\n\nAnyway, to answer the last part. Government comes in because nearly everyone agrees that the government can and should protect people's moral rights. (As a somewhat relevant side note, this means the people who say we shouldn't legislate morality are being dishonest. \"Gay people have the same rights as we do\" is just as much a moral proposition as \"Gay people should not be permitted to get married\"; what they really mean is something along the lines of \"It is immoral to use the force of government to prevent an activity you dislike, unless that activity actually harms you in some way.\")"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7h2yry | why over the counter pain medication helps with minor pain but not major pain | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7h2yry/eli5_why_over_the_counter_pain_medication_helps/ | {
"a_id": [
"dqnohzg",
"dqnukx0",
"dqomunl"
],
"score": [
21,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Over the counter pain medication works by raising the threshold for a stimulus to be felt as pain. Stimuli that are more intense can surpass this higher threshold, being felt as pain anyway. These kinds of medication also have a ceiling effect, meaning higher doses will not yield stronger effects after a certain point. Opioids, on the other hand, work by directly triggering receptors in the patients brain that diminish the sensation of pain, and do not present said ceiling effect, meaning one can always use a higher dosage to get stronger effects (until you OD and die, that is) ",
"It does help with major pain. Tylenol is extremely effective in managing post-operative pain. The fact that it's OTC gives people the perception that it is not very effective. It's not going to knock your ass down like dilaudid, but it still works very well.",
"It depends on which country you are in. In Argentina you can get Ketorolac (a powerful painkiller) without a prescription, but not morphine or greater."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3sz1jn | what is holding back the 2 million syrian refugees in turkey from crossing the border into europe? | I often read about the bad conditions in Turkish refugee camps and about the overcrowding taking place. What is holding these people back from crossing the border and go into Europe? Surely not every mile of the Turkish border is guarded? What are the sort of legal limitations at play here? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sz1jn/eli5_what_is_holding_back_the_2_million_syrian/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx1nd7a",
"cx1ohgc"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Almost all of the refugees are in Anatolia, the larger part of Turkey that is in Asia. To get to Greece, refugees have to cross the Bosporus, which while relatively narrow is still an obstacle. It takes time to find a trafficker willing to take you, and often you have to pay them lots of money.",
"Have you ever moved? It probably wasn't easy or fun. \n\nNow imagine that only, think of how it would be if you had no idea to where you are moving to. \n\nNow, picture if you were doing that with little to no money. \n\nNow, imagine if where you (and quite possibly your wife and/or children) are moving to you don't speak the language at all.\n\nIt's like that only much much worse."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3o2hjc | what's the difference between a night vision camera detecting ir light and an ir camera like flir? | I understand that a camera in NV mode is recording images reflecting IR Light, but I've always wondered how an IR camera works and looks so much different. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o2hjc/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_night_vision/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvtpp9u",
"cvtw1lb"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"IR cameras are detecting light that human eyes can't see (or can just barely see) \n\nSometime when you go into a store, look at the security camera you may see a dull red glow… That is infrared light that your eyes can just barely see. To the camera it's like a flashlight but your eyes you can only see the slightest hint of red light. \n\nOther types of cameras use infrared light that is outside the range of human vision so you will not see any glow at all in the camera. These types of LEDs are the same that are used in the infrared remote control for your television. Try pointing your camera phone (usually the user facing camera) at a remote control and turning it on, if your camera does not have an infrared filter on it you should see a glowing flickering light. \n\nFLIR thermal cameras on the other hand are registering heat, not what most people would consider or think of as \"light\". These cameras are not capable of seeing through glass or other transparent objects because the heat is blocked. \n\nSo it is picking up the heat being generated by a person or machine. They are incredibly sensitive. \n\nThis makes them much more effective for locating humans behind trees or from remote distances because they are creating the thermal energy the camera is receiving, rather than looking for the reflections of infrared the light emitted by the camera. ",
"You essentially have 3 forms of night vision systems. Image enhancement, which is simply amplifying existing light. Cameras and goggles using enhancement also pick up some near infrared light (that light just beyond red, which we can't see), to help gather as much light as possible. (Note: All digital cameras are capable of picking up near IR, but they usually have an IR filter, so they only capture visible light.)\n\nThe other common system is active illumination. This is used quite a bit for security cameras, but was developed as far back as WWII for night sights. This system uses a spotlight or searchlight that is filtered so only near IR can pass through (or one designed to emit only in the near IR). This works just like a regular spotlight, but because humans can't see near IR, you don't see it. The camera then is designed to mostly pick up near IR.\n\nThe final system is thermal. Things at near room temperature emit infrared in the Long-wavelength Infrared, which is quite a bit away from near IR in the spectrum. These systems have to be pretty sensitive, because they differentiate between wavelengths, rather than the other two which just display intensity. Many thermal systems are cooled, to prevent the heat of the system itself from interfering with detection (which is why they look much different)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
pkg2h | plato's perfect government | As stated in Plato's Republic, but really like I'm five. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/pkg2h/eli5_platos_perfect_government/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3q3f51",
"c3q3pb2"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I might have a poor understanding of it, but until someone else has a better explanation, I'll leave mine (otherwise, Google is your friend):\n\nPlato seemed to support the idea of raising children specifically to rule in government. In the society he suggested, children would all be raised together, and they would try to avoid even telling them who their parents were. As they went to school, some high achievers might be brought into a separate school and taught more about political science, philosophy, and other topics to make them good leaders. They would also be taught be moral people. As people we are pretty malleable so although it's hard, it's not unreasonable to try to build up someone's environment so that they form certain opinions (this sentence is more me talking than what's in Republic). At the end you would end up with a leader (or leaders) who both very educated and informed, as well as who have a strong care for people and will to rule society.",
"Plato had this idea that everything we perceive are imperfect copies of things called \"forms.\" Forms are what Plato considered to be perfect, but unfortunately they exist only in our minds. For example, he would argue that we have never seen the perfect triangle before but that we know what a perfect triangle looks like in our minds. This is just one example though. Keep in mind there is a form for EVERYTHING. Also, the more forms you know, the more rational you are.\n\nPlato argued that all other forms of government sucked (including democracies, which he felt gave societies a bad excuse to lack collective goals and direction). Plato's Republic consisted of three classes of people: a Philosopher King (leader of the republic), the guardians (warriors), and the craftsman (everyone else).\n\nIt was essential that only the Philosopher King led. He's the only one with full understanding of the forms and thus the only one with perfect rational thinking. He is important because he is responsible for organizing everyone into their rightful positions in society and deciding what is the \"just\" amount of reward and punishment (all of his decisions are assumed to be *perfect*).\n\nThe guardians and craftsman were organized into their classes based on their SKILLS. Therefore, they have been placed in a position where they will be the most efficient and productive. For clarity, the craftsman can range from a farmer, to a baker, or to a blacksmith.\n\nEveryone in society also get what they DESERVE. Everyone gains things based on how much they have done for society. They also get punished for bad deeds in the same way. And for some reason Plato argues that the guardians deserve more than the craftsman do, but I don't remember his reasoning why...\n\nAnyways, since everyone in the republic is:\n\na) In their optimal position\n\nb) Getting exactly what they deserve\n\nThe republic can be considered \"efficient\" and \"just\". In Plato's mind, these two things are all a society needs to be.\n\nPlato also argues that every society needs an army and I can tell you his reasoning if you want, but this post is already lengthy."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6oncyk | why do most boxes have incisions in the flaps that make it so hard to open? | Lots of boxes have incisions on the side of tabs, which cause them to get caught and ripped often when I try to open them.
Rarely, there are glorious boxes that don't have the flaps, and it is so much easier to open the box without removing it. Why do the incisions exist, and why is it an industry standard? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6oncyk/eli5_why_do_most_boxes_have_incisions_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dkin6ig"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It is to make it harder for the box to open during shipping. It also acts as an indication for if the packet have been attempted opened. The reason they have them is because taping the packet at the scale they are producing them is more resource intensive. And if you did not have the incisions then the packet might get opened in transit. Some packets that is intended for stores does not have the incisions as the packets are usually sent through an importer who will take more care of the packets and not though a shipper. It also helps a store a lot if they can take the product out of the packet without damaging the packaging as they can then use it as a display model or just to show the customer the product on request."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3sdo9d | 7 or 14 day weather predictions | How do they predict the weather so far in advance? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sdo9d/eli5_7_or_14_day_weather_predictions/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwwalfh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Short answer: badly\n\nSlightly longer answer: the look at what the weather is doing right now, and put that into a computer model. The computer has been programmed to know how the various geographical features in that area affect the weather, so it can (attempt to) predict where the weather will move in the next 7-14 days, and how it will change as it moves. Then they can find out which of the existing weather systems (that's probably many hundreds of miles away right now) will be with you in 7-14 days.\n\nTo come back to my short answer: I've never seen a weather forecast for more than 3 days that's consistently accurate.\n\nThe reason is because a slight error in the way a weather system moves tomorrow can have an effect of making your 7-14 day prediction of where that system will be, be wrong by a few hundred miles. For example, I've frequently seen weather forecast for London tell me about strong winds and heavy rain coming next week.... then the weather system that's bringing these things ends up over northern Scotland, five or six hundred miles to the north - and often a day or two later than they predicted, too."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3eup5g | why do these kinds of pens look like they "leak" ink? | Why do these pens look like they leak ink on the inside along the ridges? What is the purpose of this?
_URL_0_
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eup5g/eli5_why_do_these_kinds_of_pens_look_like_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"ctilk2a"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"Capillary action. The feed is drawing ink from the cartridge, convertor, or tank and... well... feeding it to the tip or nib. It keeps saturated because that's what it the do with liquids, and some spills out along the walls."
]
} | [] | [
"https://imgur.com/QA8JQFm"
] | [
[]
] |
|
fndnyt | why does some detergent say it works for cold water and some doesn't? does the cold water kind not work with hot or warm water and vice versa? what is the difference in chemistry/ingredients? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fndnyt/eli5_why_does_some_detergent_say_it_works_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"fl920p3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Enzymes are proteins which digest stuff. They are very effective at removing stains from oils and other proteins. Many detergents include enzymes for this purpose.\n\nAs a protein, enzymes will denature (change shape) when the temperature is too high. They cannot be used with hot water, unless specially engineered."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
9hn0j8 | why can cars get towed so easily? don't parking brakes and steering wheel locks stop that kind of thing? | I always see video of cars just getting towed away, but doesn't that cause some sort of damage to the car? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9hn0j8/eli5_why_can_cars_get_towed_so_easily_dont/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6d7y20",
"e6d8bx9",
"e6d8j8d",
"e6dcy7y"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"When towing, they either lift the car, which will, ofr course, negate any parking brake, or they unlock it and disengage the parking brake.",
"For the last half, there’s ways around things like that. Did a tow-away of an abandoned car.. front wheel drive but parking brake was on and didn’t have the keys. So I got into the car using my regular lockout tools, alarm went off but simply popped the hood and disconnected the battery then took the brake off and away I went. But mainly tow truck operators can lift the drive wheels off the ground with our wheel underlifts as usual and go. That’s with either the method I above, getting lucky and the brake already off, or we’re picking up a rear wheel drive car from the rear. \n\nIf the steering is locked up sideways for example, and this also applies to 4x4/awd vehicles, either end can be picked up, then the remaining end put on dollies(those twin sets of 2 wheels you generally see on either side of a tow truck). \n\n\nTL;DR If time is a factor, either end of the vehicle can be picked up with the wheel underlift, and the opposite end put on dollies if that’s the case. \n\n\n\nThat said, in some cases I would imagine the hardcore repo folk or those working in a rough neighbourhood for example.. the aim of the game is to just get the car away from its location safely and with minimal(if any) confrontation with the vehicle owner. Minor damage getting it from where it’s parked, to some side street out of sight in order to do the ideas listed above for example.. may be irrelevant but of course that’s circumstantial and/or at the discretion of the truck driver. \n",
"Generally tow truck drivers know if a car is front or rear wheel drive, and will try and pick it up accordingly. Obviously there are some drivers who don't care and will pick up from whatever direction is easiest. \n\nIn a front wheel drive car, when the car is in park, a little arm in the transmission stops the gears and therefore the front wheels from spinning. Opposite for rear wheel drive. So drivers will pick up whichever is the drive wheel. I think hand brake is generally on the rear wheels. \n\n\nIn theory, a driver is supposed to use [go-jacks](_URL_0_) to pull a car out of a parking spot and into the lane to get more room to put the [dollies](_URL_1_) if necessary, or to hook up the correct side. \n\nTow truck drivers for impound yards often don't care, and will do whatever is easiest for them.\n\n\n\n",
"The main way you can really damage a car is by towing a 4x4 incorrectly - the transfer gearboxes really don't like it and will turn into scrap very very quickly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Go-Jak-SuperSlick-Vehicles-500lbs-Individually/dp/B00P00YLUA",
"https://www.truckntow.com/original-in-the-ditch-self-loading-speed-dollies-with-steel-wheels-1.html?prod_id=7631&utm_source=google_shopping&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=7631&gclid=Cj0KCQjwrZLdBRCmARIsAFBZllEWGU-ynPAqtkn4UOu7iNBWExBlGXOWP-4SrcGZy1b_jWtrUOa1BhwaAiNnEALw_wcB"
],
[]
] |
|
2teu96 | i can buy egg whites in a milk carton, but where do the yolks go? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2teu96/eli5_i_can_buy_egg_whites_in_a_milk_carton_but/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnyen6d",
"cnyffjw",
"cnymek9",
"cnyoh2u"
],
"score": [
15,
9,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Generally to companies that need egg yolks - makers of custard, for example.\n\nthe same way that when you buy chicken wings, they don't bin the rest of the chicken.",
"Egg yolk is also a terrific help in keeping things that don't like each other from separating (it's an emulsifying agent). For example it's needed in making mayonnaise because oil and vinegar don't like each other. ",
"In the other carton. If you hunt around you can find boxes of yolks for sale. Also bakeries frequently buy both in large amounts if they want to avoid the labor of separating gallons of yolks.",
"You can buy those too. I was working in a kitchen a week ago and we had like 3 jugs of that shit. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3c8fqb | why does our brain think some optical illusion patterns are moving when they are not? | Example _URL_0_
How does it work? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c8fqb/eli5_why_does_our_brain_think_some_optical/ | {
"a_id": [
"cstb8sv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"ELI5: There's no solid explanation on what's called illusory movement, but researchers suspect it is simply a misunderstanding between our eyes and our brain, Due to the confusing combination of colors, brightness and pattern.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nELI18: there's a nice [paper](_URL_0_) written on it, that points out the illusions rely on transient properties of the neural responses that the retina generate. Also to some, steady fixation ceases the illusion suggesting micro-saccades could play a crucial part in the allusion. Unfortunately most of these studies have a limited number of participants."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/BxU1eQz.png"
] | [
[
"http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbpmor/docs/case_study3_mor_web.pdf"
]
] |
|
6aw5bi | why do so many basketball games seemingly come down to the final seconds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6aw5bi/eli5_why_do_so_many_basketball_games_seemingly/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhhwwq3",
"dhhx5ou"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"When you're playing at a professional level, literally recruiting the best players from around the world, your teams will naturally tend to be fairly close. Even with that, there's *plenty* of games that aren't at all close - just yesterday there was a 114-75 in the playoffs (end of season tournament - this was at the level where the best 8 teams were playing).\n\nThat said, last-second shots to tie the game or squeak ahead for a win are exciting & tend to make highlight reels frequently.",
"The first thing to realize is that there are 30 NBA teams who play 82 games each in a season, not including the playoffs. This means that there are (30*82)/2 = 1,230 total games played in the season. \n\nThe average margin of victory in an NBA game is something like 11 points and maybe 10-15% of games are decided by 3 points or less.\n\nIt's mostly that seeing a player sink a basket at the last second to make their team lose by 6 points instead of 8 isn't really that exciting so clips of those games don't really make it to reddit."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
48dbbl | why cats do not fight each other for food like dogs? | Dogs get mad when someone took his food but cats they dont give a shit if other cat is eating his food, reasons?
Edit: Thanks for the comments guys! that was fast lol | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48dbbl/eli5_why_cats_do_not_fight_each_other_for_food/ | {
"a_id": [
"d0ipcwb",
"d0iqlop"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Dogs are social animals. Their instinct is to fight for their meal and be the alpha of the pack that gets to eat first.\n\nCats are solitary animals. Their instinct is to catch a meal and hide while they eat it. There is no pressure for them to lash out at someone taking their food.",
"My opinion is wholly different than some of the other here...\n\nThe domestic cat is _highly_ social if it has been raised in a cat community. {Cat's raised with no other cats can be problematically unsocial if one or more cats are added to its life.} So cats that have been raised with other cats can group feed, but those raised alone can raise a terrific hissy fit -- pun intended -- about sharing a food dish.\n\nSo in the case where other cats are an acceptable assumption... Food has almost no role in dominance, while dominance has a lot to do with food.\n\nWUT?\n\nWell, I have a Queen that rules the house, but when the food comes out the Tom will always butt in and eat first if he's around. Even if it's just a bite or two.\n\nThe question of _primacy_ is well established long before food hits the floor. Who is dominant where and when is not up for discussion over the kill.\n\nSo with dogs food control is part of _establishing_ dominance.\n\nWith cats, dominance is part of establishing food control.\n\nThe core problem with mixing dogs and cats is that they each speak an exact opposite dialect of the same language. What does a wagging tail mean. What is settled over dinner. What does peaked ears mean. What does set-back ears mean. The whole shebang.\n\nSo one of the strangest parts of cat behavior is that dominance is highly circumstantial. Time of day and physical location are all factors.\n\nSo with cats the males (even the fixed ones) have the right to bump almost any female from food in most circumstances, and so on.\n\nIf you watch a given community of cats you will see the patterns. And if you change the number of bowls or the time of day for feedings (if it's not ad libre feeding) you will see the patterns change.\n\nAdd a new cat and you'll see the tension until everybody settles the issues.\n\nA pride of cats is very like a pride of savanna lions, except that multiple males are allowed. \n\nTL;DR :: The cats already know the precedence come dinner time, as agreed and settled during other interactions. Dogs jockey for position over the meal as stealing a tidbit is a way to steal standing. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
25rqtk | how to use urinal properly? | It's like I go in the bathroom, and the damn thing half the time doesn't seem to have enough privacy for me to just "do mah thing"
Like do you just pull all ur junk out or what... Maybe ill never understand | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25rqtk/eli5how_to_use_urinal_properly/ | {
"a_id": [
"chk3mtk",
"chk3pck",
"chk469e",
"chk55v9",
"chk6iz3",
"chk7tio",
"chkay2s",
"chkcxol",
"chkewyi"
],
"score": [
3,
21,
14,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. Do you not have a penis?",
"First you have to unbutton and unzip your pants. Next, get a firm grip on your pants and underwear and slowly move them to your feet. Next you lift your shirt above your nipples (1-3 inches above is fine). That's it. Now you're ready to use a urinal!",
"1. Unzip\n\n2. Whip-It-Out^^\\(tm\\)\n\n3. Spray\n\n4. Put it away\n\n5. Zip up\n\nNobody looks, nobody cares about your nasty-ass junk, Do Not reverse 4 and 5.",
"If you're a shy guy, do it all in the stall.",
"You don't need to pull ALL your junk out. Just enough to aim at the urinal. It's pretty awkward being around other people in the bathroom (especially since people will take offence if you catch a glance at what they're sporting) but basically you just have to aim your donger, look straight ahead (NOT to the sides) and look like you're pretty much depressed until you're done. Remember to zip back up.",
"I'm a very tall man. Don't do what I do and accidentally pee all over the top of the urinal when drunk.",
"Urinal etiquette is super important. I'm gay and tons of people assume that I'm trying to check out their junk. Truth is, I don't want to see that shit, especially from guys that seem to think god dipped their dick in gold (hint: He didn't). The ones who say \"I don't want nasty fags lookin' at mah huge cock!\" are always unattractive, and never well-endowed. Confident guys don't give a shit who sees it. \n\nMy rules: 1. Never take the urinal right beside someone. 2. Look at the wall, or your own junk. 3. Smalltalk is rude. Mostly because you don't know if it's gonna make your pee-neighbour uncomfortable.\n\nTL;DR just stand there and piss, everyone keeps their eyes on their own testing material. ",
"Lean in as far as you can so you spray yourself with piss. The positive to that is no one will notice because you're so close to the urinal\n",
"1. Piss pants\n2. Remove pants and place in urinal \n3. Flush urinal\n4. Dry pants with pants dryer \n5. Replace pants\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1uhhuq | why do architects still not design apartment buildings to be soundproof? | Is this some impossible task? Do architects just not think about that problem? If not, why not? Are they not aware that listening to people screw, argue, have inane phone conversations, watch TV shows with deafening laugh tracks, play video games with exploding noises at all hours, play the same song a million times on some crap musical instrument is ruining the productivity and will continue to ruin the health of the people around them and make the world a terrible and angry place? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uhhuq/eli5_why_do_architects_still_not_design_apartment/ | {
"a_id": [
"cei4dno",
"cei4fvn",
"cei57wr",
"cei5eke",
"cei6spz",
"ceickw2",
"ceico4d",
"ceide6s",
"ceignw5",
"ceiom72"
],
"score": [
12,
49,
12,
3,
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It would to expensive. \n\nWould you like a house to your self with plenty of space or an apartment much smaller and cost the same pretty much.",
"Because it's expensive and most people would rather have more or nicer space than soundproof space.",
"There are \"soundproof\" apartments but they aren't as common. And the soundproofing doesn't usually come from a design choice directly for that, but it's more a extra feature of apartments that are built to be fireproof (if a fire starts in one unit, it won't spread to another). It's usually accomplished by concrete and masonry in the walls between units, rather than the more common plain drywall.\n\nI used to live [here](_URL_0_), and in the second paragraph it describes it briefly. We never heard anything from the apartments around us, and the people below us were a bunch of college kids having parties all the time. The worst we ever had was we could occasionally hear the kids from the family across the hall practicing piano.\n\nWith this in mind, it's more a wonder that more apartment complex architects don't consider the safety aspects of this type of construction more than the comfort. If one person leaves a burner on and starts a fire, it's not just one unit you've lost but potentially the whole building. Then they're out how many hundreds or thousands of dollars to replace it all and possibly paying insurance fees to tenants. That would be the larger concern for me if I was a complex owner. But you usually have to look for upper-scale places or condos to get that sort of care. Most med-low end apartment owners just worry about base cost of getting the place built and filled.",
"(ditto) architects think about this problem everytime a new project comes around - currently the most economical construction method - light framing - makes controlling sound transmission devilishly difficult, the only thing that actually stops sound transmission is inflexible mass (concrete or masonry) and disconnected surfaces/materials\n\"Sound insulation\" (in walls or ceilings) can be of some minor help for air-borne sound, but impacts/footfalls are quite tough to deal with because the entire structure of light framing will resonate like a drum - the average wavelength of the human voice is something just shy of a yard long, so even 12 inches of \"sound insulation\" will be mostly transparent to that noise.\nIronically, better sound isolation in a building usually means much poorer thermal protection - since many people can/will check heating & cooling bills for a given building, that has become much more of an emphasis.\nOlder buildings often appear to perform better in relation to sound isolation, although that can be misleading - they were not designed to perform that function (except in very specific cases) they simply perform that way due to construction method - the building I live in was built at a time when labor was roughly 10% of the total cost, today labor and materials are generally equal cost components of a building, since there have been few/no price-emphasis placed on sound isolating building techniques, the fastest methods also end up being the most cost effective.",
"It'd be far too expensive and often unnecessary to soundproof entire buildings..people can easily soundproof areas around them but most people don't see a need for it as external sounds can be easily blocked through wearing earplugs during sleep. ",
"architects would be happy to design apartment buildings that are soundproof. we've lived in apartments. we've overheard- nay, been forced to listen to obnoxious sex at 3 in the morning. the person who told us to design it said make it cheap. like maybe just sheets between units.\n\nsource: architect, apartment dweller.",
"Because it is expensive. I used to build out recording studios, and to keep those sound proof, the cost was roughly 4x that of a standard residential space. You also lose a lot of livable space since walls need to be thicker.",
"So if I don't live in a sound proof home, does anyone know of ways to help deaden sound? ",
"By architects, you mean owners, making sound proof walls just requires sound insulation. It costs money. A nice highend apartment may have sound proofing. Expensive houses will sometimes sound proof bathrooms in public areas. It had nothing to do with architects and 100% to do with owners not wanting to pay for it. ",
"_URL_0_\n\n\nYou would go insane at 100%"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.gebhartproperties.com/Residential/Briarcliff_East/Overview.php"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5UoestpNw"
]
] |
|
38mfs1 | why does my dog still need me to take him for a walk? | We've walked the same lap around my yard hundreds of times, so he knows it. Yet when my dog wants exercise, I have to physically go with him or else he will just stand around outside.
Why can't I just let my dog outside and have him walk until he is content? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38mfs1/eli5_why_does_my_dog_still_need_me_to_take_him/ | {
"a_id": [
"crw608g"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"How would you feel if all people disappeared, but everything else in life stayed the same (e.g. the grocery store was still always stocked, there are other cars driving on the roads without people, you still have to pay bills, etc)? You've developed knowledge of how to survive in the world with all these things, but we have social needs as well. Your dog sees it as a social routine with you."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4bulvq | the utility of grammatical gender | Some languages have gendered nouns. For example, in Russian дом (house) is masculine while a вода (water) is feminine. What does this concept add to the language? Naively, it seems that the only thing grammatical gender adds to a language is a lot of grammatical complexity in the way that verbs are constructed and so on, without actually adding anything useful.
| explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bulvq/eli5_the_utility_of_grammatical_gender/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1ckkp7",
"d1cm606",
"d1cmeqj",
"d1cmun6",
"d1cuvwz",
"d1es1bz"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
2,
56,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Hmm. Speaking as a someone who's been equally bilingual in English (nongendered) and Spanish (gendered), I've found thinking and speaking in Spanish to be more... beautiful and animated. Things have more \"personality\" to me when speaking in Spanish, because those things have a gender and that adds expresiveness to speaking about them. Whereas the equivalent English strikes me as more dry and technical.\n\nHere is a Wikipedia section on this topic of utility, which should be of interest: _URL_0_",
"Not for 5 year olds section: _URL_0_ \n\nFor 5 year olds: house and water sound kind of alike and you might miss the end of вода and think the person is talking about a house, but if there's a word that goes with it with the right gender you'll know which one was said.\n\nEDIT: the link I gave doesnt make the exact same argument but 5 year olds dont understand conditional probability. :crossesarms:\n",
"I actually think there is no way to actually explain this simply, grammatical gender exists in 1/4 of the worlds languages and as to why certain words have it and some don't varies not just based on language but by word. \n\nThis quoted phrase in Wikipedia is basically taken directly out of this book:\n\nJuha Janhunen: Grammatical gender from east to west. In: Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 124: Gender in Grammar and Cognition, Barbara Unterbeck & Matti Rissanen (eds.), Mouton de Gruyter, 1999, p. 689\n\n*In some languages, the gender assignment of nouns is solely determined by their meaning or attributes, like biological sex, humanness, animacy. However, in most languages, this semantic division is only partially valid, and many nouns may belong to a gender category that contrasts with their meaning (e.g. the word for \"manliness\" could be of feminine gender etc)*",
"--saying this as a french speaking guy\n\nit is not useful. if you're looking for useful in a language go for 'newspeak' from the novel 1984 from george orwell. as in, why do you need the word 'bad' when the word 'ungood' means the same thing.\n\nbut that's not what a language is. it is all about nuances, about concepts, about how sounds appeal to the ear, about ideas behind simple words. it is both poetic, and adds depth to a communication system. After all, it's just a mix of sounds, but it's a mix of sounds that has an immense underlying aspect that conveys cultural meaning. As french king Charles the fifth, (Charles quint) said:\n\n I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse.\n\n\nTL;DR: it makes understanding better.\n",
"Gender has also been useful for vocabulary creation. E.g French 'le port' (masculine) meaning \"port, harbour\" vs 'la porte' (feminine) meaning \"door\". Both derive from the latin word 'porta' (feminine) meaning \"door, gate\". But you can see how the idea of being a place of entry remains. So, it's like hey if we make this feminine word masculine we can get a new word that's useful without having to make a new word up. \nThen through the magic of language change, in English the newert masculine version is the one that remains in the language. Go figure.\n\nEdit: forgot a word",
"One theory is that, at one point, the concept of gender was not determining male or female classification, it was actually determining whether somthing was \"passive\" or \"active\" \n\nDuring those times, males were considered \"active\" or dominant and females were \"passive\" or submissive. I'm not saying it's accurate or politically correct, that's just how it was thought of in that time.\n\nSo men had the \"male\" gender applied to them, and females the \"female\" gender, the same as any other object would have been identified as either gender.\n\nEnglish in its current state has almost no gender, with the exception of male and female being either he or she. The only other gendered words I can think of are ships and landmassses being referred to as \"she\" in traditional language. \n\nI'm not sure how accurate it is, but it's the most plausible explanation I've heard up to this point. All things in language exist for a reason, they are not arbitrary, but you have to understand that languages aren't set in stone. They reflect the culture they exist in.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender#Useful_roles_of_grammatical_gender"
],
[
"http://web.mit.edu/futrell/www/posters/genderPoster.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
29wrf1 | how did the term "chinese fire drill" come to mean getting out of your car, running around it, then getting back in? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29wrf1/eli5_how_did_the_term_chinese_fire_drill_come_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cip8h5o",
"cip9j6n"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"I bet it is racism",
"It took you longer to make this post than it would have to just google it.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_fire_drill"
]
] |
||
81vpym | why are some organisms able to produce essential amino acids while others cannot? | Hello,
I'm curious about how essential amino acids are formed within a cell. Are specialized systems required to produce the amino acids, or are they just not coded for in the DNA? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/81vpym/eli5_why_are_some_organisms_able_to_produce/ | {
"a_id": [
"dv5kg69"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"By definition, the \"essential\" amino acids are the ones the organism can't synthesize itself and has to obtain through its diet. Which are essential differs by organism. The reason an organism may not be able to synthesize it depends on the amino acid in question and also differs by species.\n\nFor example, arginine is not essential in healthy human adults because we have a urea cycle that breaks down ammonia into arginine. But birds don't have this same urea cycle and so arginine is essential to them. This is a big biochemical difference. What prevents them from synthesizing arginine, though, is a lack of citrulline, a different amino acid--you can cure arginine deficiency in birds by giving them enough citrulline. So some parts of the system are present, but not all of them. Cats can actually synthesize arginine but not enough of it for their daily needs, which is why it's essential to them.\n\nThere are also amino acids that are essential simply because there is no gene to code for them; you see this in some human disorders, where an amino acid is essential for them even though it can be produced by healthy humans."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1c8r51 | eili5: what is an api? | Ie: the tumblr API or windows API, what is it? i have a basic knowledge of C# and C++ *how does it integrate with those or Java programs?* | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c8r51/eili5_what_is_an_api/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9e4qwh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"An API, or Application Programming Interface, allows you to write a program that can interact with somebody else's service.\n\nIn the case of Tumblr or Reddit (which has its own API at _URL_0_) or a bunch of other popular websites, this means you can write a program that can login, read posts, write new posts, etc. without having to actually be sitting in front of Tumblr or Reddit. This is how bot accounts (like the account that posts the text of tweets, or the ones that automatically assign you flair) work."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"www.reddit.com/api"
]
] |
|
j46pn | [li5] can someone explain software patents (and the controversy surrounding them) please? | Inspired by [this](_URL_0_).
I'm specifically looking for information about why they are so controversial, and what they mean for software developers looking to market their own prouduct (e.g. if someone makes a spreadsheet application can Microsoft sue them for copying Excel)?
**Edit:** Thanks all. Great explanations. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j46pn/li5_can_someone_explain_software_patents_and_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c28zps0",
"c28zrt2",
"c28zs1w",
"c28zt12",
"c2904dv",
"c291137",
"c291ni0"
],
"score": [
15,
17,
12,
4,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Software patents try to patent \"ways of doing things\". Imagine someone patenting the way you tie your shoelaces or button your shirt. This would mean that every time you tied your shoelaces or buttoned your shirt, you'd have to pay for it. That is the controversial part.\n\nHell, imagine some big corporation patenting the process of binding Oxygen to a Hemoglobin molecule. That would mean every time you take a breath, you'd have to pay them royalties.\n\nHmm, come to think of it, maybe I'll give it a try. I'm too clevar for my britches, that's what I am.",
"Patents primarily help inventors get an advantage over others who only copy things. This way, if companies want to use an invention from other companies, they have to pay money to the inventor otherwise the inventor can file a court case against the company that copies. Companies that copy are allowed to legally copy the invention only after a number of years have passed since the invention was first 'patented'. \n\nWith software patents, there are two issues - First is the speed with which inventions/updates happen. Unlike other areas where patents make sense, software require lesser time to develop. As a result, the rate at which new updates happen is very very fast. Just because Microsoft built a way for users to manage spreadsheets on a computer, it does not mean other competitors should stay away for 10 years or so before they can launch a similar service. 10-15 years is a very long time in technology. Even a year is. \n\nSecond and the more important one is the number of useless patents that companies file as a way to harass competitors. An example is the patent that Apple filed to prevent competitors from using the 'swipe to unlock' feature on the iPhone. Quite clearly, this is just a creative way to unlock phone and there is nothing technologically brilliant about it that it needs a patent. Still, companies do such silly things and that is causing the controversy. ",
"I'm afraid that I don't have any references offhand, but I am a software developer, and I am personally involved in the kinds of stuff that software patents infringe on. So, bear with me.\n\nWhen you invent something, either a physical thing, or a process (this is the important part), you can apply for a patent. This is, in effect, the government saying \"noideawhattodoargh, you invented thing X. If anyone tries to copy you, you can sue them and we got your back\". This was originally done to encourage people to invent new stuff. If you spend 5 years of your time and money inventing something, only to turn around and see someone else steal your hard work, you probably won't want to spend 5 more years inventing something else. If, on the other hand, you know you'll be protected, then you don't worry about these things.\n\nThis worked fine 50, 100 years ago, when technology was large, slow and expensive. Successfully developing, say, a new railroad technology was expensive and time consuming. **It is not like that now**. In the world of software, things move so fast that it doesn't make sense to grant a patent for 20 years. For example, Macintosh OS 1 was released in 1984. We're now on OS 10. Under regular patent law, the patent on OS1 expired in 2004 (Its about 20 years, it might be 15, can't remember). You couldn't even buy OS1 anymore in 2004. But, say hypothetically someone wanted to develop a new technology using OS1 in some way. They couldn't, without getting sued by Apple, because Apple's patent was still valid. Apple is not, CANNOT make any more money off of OS1, but due to patent law, the other guy still can't innovate. (NOTE: Operating Systems would be covered under Copyright, not patent law. But it's similar, and serves as a convenient example). \n\nOn its own, this could sort of be seen as ok. I mean, Apple dumped a LOT of time and money into developing OS1, and for someone even now to come along and benefit, for free, from that work, could be seen as unfair. But this is where the other part of the problem comes in. Earlier I said that you can patent a *process*. This is a really really really big problem in software because pretty much anything is a process, any series of computer instructions, and patent offices do not understand software enough to recognize when stupid things are being patented. For example, [_URL_0_ holds a patent on \"one-click shopping\"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_URL_0__controversies#One-click_Patent). For a while, if you wanted to run an online store, you were legally required to force the user to click at least two buttons to buy a thing. THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT. But it happens all the time. \n\nBecause of the vagueries of patents, and computers, all the time software patents are filed that are as ridiculous as saying \"I'm patenting addition. If you want to do math now, either you can only use multiplication, or you gotta pay me a royalty\". And the worst part is, this works. This is such a viable business strategy that there are companies known as \"patent trolls\" whose core business model is to do this. They leaf through lists of patented things. Come up with random shit that isn't yet patented. Patent it even though it is not at all related to their field of expertise. Sit on it for 5-10 years until someone actually develops a business with that tech. Then, when said business is successful, they sue them for millions, and usually win. \n\nPatents in and of themselves are still a good idea, in my opinion. However, patent law is woefully out of date and hopelessly irrelevant to software development. It ends up rewarding assholes, and slowing down innovation, the exact opposite of its intended purpose ",
"The controversy is over many things. For instance how you can patent anything no matter how obvious it is. Let say you want to swing on a swing in your backyard. You have a wooden plank, chains and a sturdy tree branch to hang it from. Well, turns out you can't do that because [someone patented swinging on a swing](_URL_0_). An Australian guy even patented the wheel (he called it \"Circular transportation device\". You can even patent things that are very vague and that you don't even manufacture. Research in Motion (the manufacturer of the Blackberry) was sued by someone who owns a patent on \"sending messages through the airs\".\n\nPatents are very, very deadly when used in court because if you have any product at all, you are always guilty because you infringe tons of them without even noticing. The only way to protect yourself against, you have to own a large \"war chest\" of patent yourself so you can sue back anyone that sues you. Patents you use to sue back people are dubbed \"defensive patents\" but of course, nothing prevents you from using them offensively if you wish.\n\nThe biggest losers in this are small inventors and innovators because they can't afford war chests.",
"I have legally gotten copyrights on my code -- this ensures that no one can copy the code verbatim. But someone can write code another way that does the same thing. To me, this is fair. Patents and copyrights should protect a very specific \"how\" not a generic \"what\".\n\nEDIT: I also own a US patent on a customer service solution. Again it is a specific how that involves 30+ steps. If anyone copied them exactly, I could sue. But they could achieve customer service in any number of ways suing the same components without violating my patent as long as it wasn't the same order. However, when they try to patent the new system, they have to refer to mine as prior art.",
"1. A patent doesn't give you the right to make/use your invention. It's gives you the right to *prevent others* from making/using/selling/distributing **your invention**. \n\n2. I bolded \"your invention\" above because that's of critical importance. In dealing with the patent office **you** define what your patent covers. This is done through what are called [claims](_URL_0_). The claims define what your invention covers and if approved by the patent office gives you the right to prevent others from making/using/etc. what the claim says. \n\n3. Suppose I invent a light bulb that uses almost no energy and is as bright as the sun. I file a patent application with a claim that reads \"a method comprising lighting a room with a light source.\" Obviously my insight was not so great as that claim states. The examiner rejects my claim by showing me that cavemen used torches as light sources to light rooms way before I filed my patent. So I amend my claim \"a method comprising lighting a room with miracle light bulb XYZ\" which the examiner approves. \n\n4. The above is close to how the patent process is supposed to work. One issue is that patents related to software are granted that shouldn't be granted. The examiner might not be able to find evidence proving that applicant's invention is unworthy of a patent (i.e. cavemen lightning a room). Someone out there then gets the software equivalent of a patent on lighting the room and is then able to sue people. \n\n4. I actually work at the patent office. I'm not in an area that would fall under the software patents that people complain about, although I do see some software claims. My opinion on why there are bad software patents is that software is highly abstract and therefore harder to search for the examiner. Also there is more limited prior art available to search from (lots of stuff in software arts is not documented/indexed for the examiner to find). If an examiner can't clearly put into words what the applicant has invented then they can't search very well for applicant's invention. If they can't find proof that applicant shouldn't get a patent, then applicant gets a patent. ",
"You know how your mom and I are always telling you to share your things?\n\nSome grown-ups are big babies, and they don't like to share. Some people don't want to share their nice cars, or their Playstations. Some people get so greedy that they don't even want to share their ideas. So they argued a little bit, and they got something called a \"Patent\" for their ideas. A Patent lets you tell people, \"No, you can't do that, that was my idea!\"\n\nSometimes, like, with cars, that's not sooo bad. It kind of just says, \"Okay, we guys made a cool car. See? It's got this, and this, and this inside. We did this--wasn't that a cool idea? You can make a slightly different car, and it's still cool. Just don't copy us.\" But with different ideas, like programs, it says, \"Hey. You're not allowed to do that. You're not allowed to make a program that's too much like mine. And you're not allowed to take a look and see how I made my program, and learn. And you're not allowed to take a copy of my program, even if you want to change it to be your own. Even though it doesn't cost me anything for you to make a copy, I want to lock it down as much as I can.\"\n\nOf course, it's tricky. The person who made the program had an idea, and he deserves some credit for it. But he should share it. He shouldn't be able to do whatever he wants with his idea, just because it's his idea.\n\nSharing is better. Remember that."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/j44gp/software_patents_in_the_real_world/"
] | [
[],
[],
[
"Amazon.com",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies#One-click_Patent"
],
[
"http://www.google.com/patents?id=T2QKAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_(patent)"
],
[]
] |
|
6dy9fj | why were citizens arrests usedfor/ created for in the first place? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dy9fj/eli5_why_were_citizens_arrests_usedfor_created/ | {
"a_id": [
"di6acl4",
"di6anjb",
"di6gyfv"
],
"score": [
7,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Citizen arrest was the default way of dealing with wrongdoing before formal laws, law enforcement, and courts were established. When someone did something wrong you grabbed them, told everyone else in the village, and came up with a punishment. Even with the introduction of a formal process and dedicated enforcement personnel the basic concept of apprehending those who do wrong never left.",
"Professional police forces are a recent development, and it's especially recent that they would exist outside of cities. In the early history of the United States, and in the colonies as well as the United Kingdom before that, there were courts along with sheriffs, marshals and bailiffs to carry out the court's orders (such as to serve arrest warrants). However, these would only be a few people in a city or county of many thousands--most of the \"leg work\" of law enforcement relied on people apprehending a criminal caught in the act and bringing him to the authorities. You can imagine that few crimes were \"solved\" if someone was not caught red-handed.\n\nIt remains the case in most states that anyone can arrest a felon with probable cause, or upon witnessing a misdemeanor. However, because extensive police forces are so common nowadays, many people have to come to rely on them and are not willing to put themselves at risk to stop a crime. One exception is the use of security guards by stores and other commercial establishments--the guards rarely have any special authority to arrest criminals, they're just more willing to do so than the average person.",
"You can imagine that in history, when village saw a thief, nearby villagers caught him and brought him before the law.\n\n\nNow imagine modern laws coming up and this right looking at reform. \n\n\nAnd someone going \"Nearest police department is 50 miles from my farm, are you seriously saying I can't catch the guy trying to steal my cattle? No vote for you, Mister governor!\" etc.\n\nGovernor (or whoever) clearly likes the votes, doesn't want to upset people for trying to defend themselves AND this makes life easier for law enforcement. So why go on an unpopular crusade against Citizen Arrest? Especially if there's laws to control what citizen can do to arrestee anyway?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
45gc34 | why are synthetic diamonds considered less valuable, are they molecularly different then real diamonds? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45gc34/eli5_why_are_synthetic_diamonds_considered_less/ | {
"a_id": [
"czxn3ug",
"czxn47t",
"czxn48i",
"czxn56v",
"czxncne",
"czxnjh3",
"czxornd",
"czxq9x5"
],
"score": [
5,
15,
3,
42,
21,
7,
13,
4
],
"text": [
"They are indeed exactly the same, molecules and all. \n\nHowever, a non synthetic diamond is considered \"genuine\" whereas a synthetic is not. And that's the primary difference between the two. ",
"It is because they are synthetic. People find more inherent value in naturally formed diamonds as they are inherently more rare, thus more valuable.\n\nBeyond that the diamond market is so massively regulated and controlled to the point of monopoly.",
"Synthetic diamonds are made of carbon atoms compressed at extremely high temperature and pressure, just like natural diamonds. The price drop occurs because the synthetic diamonds are too perfect. The inclusions in wild diamonds make each diamond unique and the diamond dealers capitalize on these random inclusions that took millions of years to form.",
"No, in fact lab diamonds are more pure than natural diamonds. However, one of the reasons that diamonds are valuable is because people believe that they are rare and hard to find. \n\nBecause lab diamonds don't fit this mold, demand for them is lower, dropping the price.",
"Because the only reason diamonds are valuable in the first place is a that a successful marketing campaign has convinced people that a man doesn't truly love a woman unless he drops several months salary on a diamond ring for her, and the same marketing campaign convinced people that only *real* diamonds count for this. \n\nThere isn't any difference chemically between them, although it's easier to make a flawless synthetic diamond than it is to find a large flawless natural one.",
"The basic reason is marketing. The only physical difference is that \"natural\" diamonds will have some impurities (that don't add value). ",
"Because when synthetic diamonds started to become commercially viable, de Beers launched a big smear campaign to convince people that synthetic diamonds were somehow inferior.\n\nAnd of course, de Beers is no stranger to this type of campaign. It was them who conned the public into thinking diamonds were rare and valuable to begin with.\n",
"With the exception of certain colors that don't occur naturally, synthetic diamonds are cheaper to synthesize than real diamonds are to mine. The price of something is the marginal cost of producing it. *So long as anyone mines and sells real diamonds at all*, they will be more expensive than synthetics, because they are more costly to produce.\n\nThe question, then, is not \"why are synthetic diamonds so cheap\" but \"how can anyone find a buyer for mined diamonds at all?\" The first part of the answer is that yes, they *are* molecularly different; indeed, you don't even need to inspect them on a molecular level. I believe trained gem-specialists can tell synthetic from natural with a loupe and a laser. Nature is dirty, and natural diamonds have all sorts of tiny things that aren't diamond inside them, whereas synthetics don't. \n\nBut can you tell the difference without a microscope? I don't think so. Why do people still by natural diamonds? It's an equilibrium that is self-sustaining. For a long time now, people weren't buying diamonds because they thought they were *prettier* than other, less expensive gemstones. Buying large, expensive diamonds is valuable in its own right as a sign of devotion and commitment. (And also as a polite financial transfer.) Diamond rings, bracelets, and necklaces are symbols of status and wealth. There is no such thing as getting a bargain price on a status symbol!\n\nSo there is a sort of Wile E. Coyote moment where the prices of natural diamonds are hovering out on thin air. People who could never tell diamonds from cubic zirconia, anyway, probably don't fully understand that \"synthetic diamond\" is now chemically identical to diamond. People who want the value of their jewelry to stay high over time \"know\" that they have to buy natural diamonds, because jewelers can detect the cheaper synthetic diamonds. People making decadently expensive jewelry probably can't appeal to the super-rich by offering cheap-o diamonds. Jewelers continue to put a high value on the natural diamonds so long as they can keep selling them at the old prices. Consumers who know better feel like there must be *some* difference, or else all these people wouldn't be buying and selling expensive natural diamonds.\n\nYou should expect it all to come crashing down rather abruptly."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2itoo8 | why swearing under oath would make you tell the truth.. | I understand telling the truth is important, but why do you hear in crime shows lawyers saying "need I remind you, you're under oath", and the defendant's like "oh shit, they got me!". What's involved in swearing an oath that would make you tell the truth? Is it swearing on a bible? So is it just Christains then? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2itoo8/eli5_why_swearing_under_oath_would_make_you_tell/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl5dx69",
"cl5e46l"
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text": [
"It doesn't make you tell the truth. However, the act of being sworn in is a formal acknowledgement by you that you are now under legal obligation to tell the truth. That is, if you are caught lying, you can be legally punished for it.",
"Two things:\n\n* if the defendant is on the stand, he can refuse to answer under the fifth amendment, which says that someone cannot be forced to give testimony which will be used to convict him.\n\n* if a witness has some reason to lie during a trial, being under oath makes it a crime to do so, so they are obviously still able to lie, but if they are caught they face fines/jail/etc.\n\nAs for swearing on the Bible, that's purely symbolic (Christian here, full disclosure). Some people prefer to just swear. Some religious sects believe that making any kind of oath is a sin, so will not swear but will still be considered legally under oath.\n\nObviously, the crime shows like to dramatize things. Actual legal proceedings are (usually) much less exciting."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
354zw7 | what causes the whole "check the fridge, find nothing, check it again" experience? | I tend to do this with my phone, especially with Reddit only to find that I've look at everything on the front page.
*Edit: I get that boredom could be an easy answer, but I'm more interested in the psychology of it. What makes us think something is going to magically appear there 5 seconds later? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/354zw7/eli5_what_causes_the_whole_check_the_fridge_find/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr12m8d"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Like any behavior, there are many possible explanations, some of which may be right or wrong at different times for different people. But here's the one that I think is closest for what you are talking about. I think it's ELI5, but it's a bit long, so forgive me for that. \n\nSo, one of the ways that your brain works is that it creates little \"stimulus-reward\" cycles. Think about it like typing on a keyboard. Your brain learns that if your fingers hit the keys, and the letters you wanted appear, you will be pleased. This releases hormones that make the brain feel good. \n\nYour brain, in a sense, gets \"addicted\" to this, which is why it (relatively) quickly gets good at typing on unfamiliar keyboards. It is also why, if the key board is broken (now hitting the right key DOESN'T bring up the right letter, meaning no reward), the brain gets desperate for that hit of good hormones. And so you will smash the keys a bunch of times. \n\nThis behavior is called an \"[extinction burst](_URL_0_).\" Where the brain keeps to get that reward by doing whatever thing it thought would give it the reward Harder. It's part of why toddlers have fits, and why dieting is so hard. (because right before the body gives up on the old eating habit, it will try desperately to get that of food that makes it feel good, and that often overcomes the will.)\n\nAnd, a similar thing is involved with checking the fridge/front page. Your brain---especially when it's bored---is trying to figure out things that will give it that fix of hormones. As such, it starts reviewing those stimulus-reward circuits, including getting food from the fridge, or seeing something new. The longer you go without some source of new reward, the more your brain craves it, and the more motivated you are to keep checking. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_%28psychology%29"
]
] |
|
2uad97 | what's the obsession with americans suing whenever the opportunity arises? or is it all a myth? | Edit: For example my sister went to the US and on her way into a restaurant she slipped on a sheet of ice. All the staff took really good care of her so she wouldn't sue | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uad97/eli5_whats_the_obsession_with_americans_suing/ | {
"a_id": [
"co6m5vu",
"co6maxh",
"co6p0pb",
"co6p5sy",
"co6tudm"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
4,
21,
5
],
"text": [
"It's Tort reform propaganda pushed by corporations. One prominent example that always come up was the McDonalds lawsuit for the spilled coffee. People ridiculed the lady then, and now commonly bring it up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit (when it wasn't). What you have to understand about the US is that it is a very business oriented culture and generally pro-corporate.",
"In America, you can sue anyone and everyone for any reason. Whether or not you win, that's another story. In America, courts generally dismiss frivolous lawsuits, however, the deterrent for bringing up such a lawsuit is usually paying the other sides legal fees (which isn't as enforced as it should be).",
"The US, unlike most other western countries, does not have a loser pays system. If you can find a lawyer willing to take your case on contingency, there's no downside to suing. If you win, you get some money. If you lose, you're out a little bit of time.\n\nIn other countries, if you lose you'd be responsible for the legal fees the other party spent to defend themselves. That sort of forces someone to have a high degree of confidence they'll prevail before bringing suit.",
"It's a god damn myth buddy, and if you keep slandering America I'll see your ass in court.",
"It is blown out of proportion by the media. There are some ridiculous lawsuits out there, and it sucks to get caught by one, but in reality most people make it through life in America without suing anyone or being sued."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.